LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7693, 19 July 1886, Page 11

LAW.

The criminal sessions for the quarter were opened on the sth inst., before Mr Justice Gillies. There were in all 20 cases, against 28 persons. The main feature of the session was the fact that there were three prosecutions on charges of arson. In one instance a gumdigger, who had been ejected from an accommodation house, was charged with setting fire to a stable. He was acquitted. An old couple, whose respective agos were between 70 and 80 years, were charged with setting fire to their dwellinghouse in Tanranga, but the jury considered the evidence insufficient, and the accused were acquitted. George and Ann McCaslin were arraigned on a charge of setting fire to their house in Randolph-street, Auckland. The evidence was very conclusive. By direction of the learned Judge the female prisoner was acquitted, as the law held that if a woman committed a crime in th*3 presence of her husband he was responsible. A verdict of " Guilty" was, however, returned against the male prisoner, and he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. With one exception the remaining cases were of the ordinary character. One very gross case of breaking and entering, and stealing a safe with its contents, was heard, and one of the principals in the crime was admitted as approver. The other two prisoners were

sentenced to seven years' and five years' penal servitude respectively. The case in which the greatest amount of public interest was felt was the prosecution of Robert Fitzroy Bolton, who was charged with fraudulently inducing Hudson Williamson (a solicitor who was acting for him), to endorse a promissory note. The evidence of fraud was strongly commented on by the learned Judge ; but, as it was not shown that the fraudulent representations were actually made at the time of signing the note, and that it was the moving cause which induced the prosecutor to sign it, His Honor directed the jury to bring in a verdict of "Notguilty." The positions of the parties —the prosecutor being Crown Solicitor, and the accused a commission agent in the city —gave additional interest to this case. The criminal sessions closed on the 12th instant, and the civil sittings commenced on the 14th instant, and are now in progress. The principal case which was heard before a jury was a claim for £1250 damages. The case was that of Foley v. Ching. The defendant erected a house alongside the Shakespeare Hotel, of which the plaintiff is the owner, and it was alleged that in excavating the foundations for the new building those of the hotel were so materially damaged that the stability of the building was endangered. The case occupied the Court for nearly three days, and finally, a verdict for the defendant was returned by three-fourths of the jury.