LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8585, 5 June 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Criminal Sittinos. •• Thursday. ■ [Before H(s Honor Mr. Justice Conoliy.] The Conspiracy Case.—The hearing of the charge of conspiracy againsb Aporo Apiata and Taupe te Iwitere, aboriginal natives of Rotorua, was resumed this morning. The case for the Crown had closed on the previous day, and Mr. Theo. Cooper, counsel for the prisoners, now proceeded to open the case for the defence. He said he did nob propose to call witnesses, but he proposed to raise a question of law, on which he would ask Hie Honor to direct the jury that the evidence did not support the indictment for conspiracy. It alleged that the two prisoners conspired falsely to accuse one Scobb and his wife of a certain offence. He contended that the evidence of conspiracy did nob prove a conspiracy between those two; bub the evidence, if it established conspiracy at all, proved a conspiracy which was not between • those two, bub between those two and others. In fact, the Crown alleged a combination between those two, and proved a combination between those two and two other natives. He quoted Chitty's Criminal Law on the general requisites of an indictment, and he also quoted from Archbold to show that all the facts and circumstances must be set out when they were necessary ingredients of the offence, and he contended thab the combination on which the Crown relied waa a combination nob bebween those two bub between those two and others nob included in the indictment. He quoted the cases of the Queen v. O'Connell and Dulfy, in which the words, "and divers others," were used in the indictment. The same occurred in the Queen v. Aspinall, and the Queen v. Thompson, and he contended thab these words were inserted for some-purpose. His Honor said that very often words were used in indictments which were tobally unnecessary, a.nd in the absence of any authoriby he should over-rule the objection, and should not reserve the point, as he was perfectly satisfied that the indictment was a good one. Mr. Cooper said he did not attack the indictment, bub the evidenec given in supporb of ib. Mr. Williamson then summed up the case for the Crown, pointing out the evidences Of malignity exhibited by the accused towards Scotb and his wife, and the facts ho contended, were distinctly proved. Mr. Cooper then addressed the jury, pointing out thab the prisoners were nob charged with perjury, bub with conspiracy, and the evidence which would support a charge of perjury would not necessarily support a charge of conspiracy, and he contended that there was an absence of proof of combination in this case, and also that there was no evidence of malice or ill-feeling On the part of the accused against Scott and his wife. He alleged that the whole charge arose out of a mistake on the part of the natives as to the date, and that they alleged the Bth of December, from seeing ScotD and his wife pass on that'day—they jumped to the conclusion that ib was they who caused the further injury to the buggy, which had no doubt been injured originally on the 26th of November. His Honor summed up the evidence to the jury, commencing at live minutes to eleven o'clock. He said that it was nob usual to bring such a case in this form before a jury. The usual course would have been to charge each of the prisoners separately, and, as had been rightly stated by prisoners' counsel, the' evidence which would support a charge of perjury would nob necessarily support a charge of conspiracy. It was not denied that the charge laid against Scotb and his wife was false, and this, counsel for the defence attempted to get over that it arose out of a mistake on the part of Aporo. His Honor proceeded to comment on the evidence, and summed up generally against the- prisoners, winding up by stating that, there was evidence on which the jury may, if they believed it. con*'ict bobli, but they could not convict one arid acquit the other; The jury retired at twenty-live minutes to.'twelve o'clock to consider their verdict. .At one o'clock the jury returned a verdict of "Guilty," with a recommendation to mercy. His Honor said that had ib nob been for the recommendation of the jury he would inflict a long sentence, but, giving effect tp that recom-1 meudation, he would sentence the prisoners to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. • .

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. ' [Before Br. Gile3, R.M.] Undefended Cases. —J udgment was given for-the plaintiffs in each of the undermentioned c'ases:—-Warnock Bros. v. Peter Kay, claim £4 6s Bd, costs 17s Cd; Mucky, .Logan, Sfceen and Co.. y. J. S. Annancl, claim £57 Us, costs £5 4s-; City Council v. Geo. Evill (Gisborne), claim £8 3s 4d, costs 26s ; Hancock and. Co. v. C. A. Martin, claim ' £42 2s, costs- £1 17s ; J. Mumford v. P. Mclntyre, claim £13, costs £1 Is ; City Council v. Mary J. White, claim £3 17s 7d, coats 16s 6d; Wingate, Burns, aud Co. v. F.. W. Rolfe, claim £90 13s 3d, costs £5 8s; Warnock Bros. v. J.- Carroll, claim £5 14s .4d, costs' £1 ps; Warnock Bros. v. Henry Robinson, claim £3 7s 2d, costs 17e 6d; Sophia Ann Waddel v. Ephriam Alitls, claim £9 10s lid, costs £1 Gs; Hugh Gilmore v. T. W. Discombe, claim £1 7s ldj costs 10s; Moss Davis v. William Hunt, claim £26 ISs, costs £1 11?; John Leydon v. Watkins, claim £10, costs 10s ; Northern Roller Milling Co, v. H. Baskerville, claim £16 18a 2d, costs £2 4s. •

Dkvosi-oet Borougu Council, y. Isabella Brassky.—This was an action for rates which had been partly heard at a previous sitting. Mr. Devore appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Burton for the defendant. Mr. Burton said ho did noc intend to put ! in any evidence, but what he would contend was that the action should have been against Mrs. Brassey's separate estate, and nob against her in person. •■ It was not, however, within the jurisdiction of the Court to allow the necessary alteration. Tho Court had power to deliver judgment for payment of a personal debt, but could not give judgment against the property of a married woman. Tho Court could give judgment in inrem, but not in personam. The question was whether the Court, having power of giving judgment against a person, could Ln lieu thereof give judgment against the separate estate. Mr. Ucvore said ho had no intention of asking for any amendment in tho plaint note. It hud been proved that Mrs. Brassey had a separate estate. If the Act moaiit anything, it meant that she could sue and be sued, and also that if she had not sufficient property to satisfy the claim, she could be brought before fche Court, to show reason why she should not pay out of her earnings. The claim being put in jis a debt, and tbe amount beins le.<s than £100, the Court certainly had jurisdiction. Dr. Giles stated that with" regard to the question of amendment he certainly thought that it should have been set out that the defenda-nt had separate property, but considering the late stage at which the objection was raised, ho would allow the amendment to be made. The other point was one of considerable importance. Of course it would not be right to dismiss it lightly, when the standard text writers show thab tho doubt has been raised. However, he did not think the authority of any text writer would cause him to refuse judgment in such cases until the poinb had been decisively settled one way or another. Tho proper way would bo to raise the question of prohibition. If the Courts', were exceeding their jurisdiction it was quite time a decision of the Supremo Court was taken with reference to this matter. He would postpone entering up; judgment", until ho had carefully examined tho references produced by Air. Burton, but unless theso were very clear bo would not bo propurod to depart from bhe usual practice. Wμ. Baknsdale v. Cyprian Nicholas. —Tljia was a churn 'for £5, being balance due for a 'gas-engino purchased by defendant from plaintiff for £20. Mr. Mahony appeared for th? nlaintiff. Tho defendant admitted his liability to the amount of £4, but. contended that the other £1 had been hold back for payment of deficiencies in parts of the engine. Judgment was given for tho plaintiff for the amount claimed, los* 5«, with costs.

John Ryan v. Frank MoKenna. —Tins was a claim for £2 Bft, lf>s botng tor material left , with defendant to bo made up, and 30s paid for the making up. Plaintiff deposed that about the 14thof March li\ob ho left with the defendant a piece o£ serge to bo made up as a suit, of clothes, tho pricu fixed being 355. He called several timea for the suit, bub the clothing was nob ready. After considerable delay the suit was ready, but tho coat would nob fit. Ho, however, took tho suib homo to try it on, and paid defendant 30a. The trousers did nob fit him, being too

large, and the coat was too email. In addition to this, the suifc was made up of two different materials. Defendant admitted having made a mistake, and offered to make a new suit. When he called for this suib on Saturday last, part of it was ready, but defendant threw it aside, and said he weald not complete it, and thab plaintiff eouild do what he liked. He had since obtained neither the material nor the suit. Daniel Foley also gave evidence. Defendant deposed that the suit fitted the plaintiff. It was now at his shop ready for him. If the Court liked, he would send the suit up to be tried on by the plaintiff, eo that the Court could see whether it was a good fit. John Kitchin deposed that all he j knew of the matter was that he was aware that defendant had made a new saib for the plaintiff. Dr. Giles said the case must be nonsuited, inasmuch as it appeared that the suit was made and ready to bo taken away. If, however, the clothes do not fib, the plaintiff still has an action against the defendant.

POLICE COURT.-Thursday. [Before Messrs. S. Y. Collins and H. M. Jervis, J.P.'a) Dbunkenness.—Two women, who had v& other convictions recorded against them for the last six months, were each fined ss, with the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. Kate Hinch was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour for being an habitual drunkard. Henry Williams and Joseph Prescot were each fined 103, with the usual alternative, for having been drunk.

Obscene Language.—Myra Grant, after being fined 5s for drunkenness, was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, with hard labour, for having used obscene language in Queen-street.