PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15170, 9 December 1912, Page 5

PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE.

ACCUSED PERSONS' SILENCE.

ALLEGED UNFAIR COMMENT.

A POINT FOR THE COURT OF

APPEAL.

T&BtR prisoners "car"' o lip - for 'sentence at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Edwards on Saturday. ' i , When Charles. Barker, and t Edward Bailey wore Brought forward to be sentenced fttr httvihg robbed, with violence, Alexander Eastgato 0f.£17 10s, on, Labour Day, Miv Hackett, >who appeared for Bailey, . raided tlie question whether the Grown Prosecutor had commented on, the fact that 110 eyidenco.had .been given .by the accusod persons. He. pointed out ..that the law provided that should an accused person elect hot to give evidence oh hJA own behalf the fact would not be the JjH jetfc of comment. In his was an arguable . case as-. to Crown Prosecutor in stance. t'ommehteti oh the fact accused pfifscmS had hot given, evidence. He rilked His Honor to reserve the point. The Crown Prosecutor (Hon. ,J., A. Tole, K.C.) said all ho ha/l said was to the, effect that the evidence for the Crown had hot been contradicted. He quoted authorities in rtegard to 1 What constituted comment. . His Honor remarked ihat(.Uejc«riside):ed there was a case to, state. He .added;that Be Ead cbnsiiltca will! Mr. Justice Cooper, who had agreed .with Aim oruthe pointy , Mr. J. L Rccd,. K.Q., .who, appealed for Barker, elected to have sentence passed mi Ills client, who was accordingly sentenced .to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. , Bailbv was remanded till next session, bail being allowed .in one surety of £100.

JURY'S DECISION QUERIED.

Was it a vemJict of «■ guilty?" Edward Bonrko was .Brought up for senWiiceviH cohhectoW-witli cattle-stealing' at MatahnrU.' , Dr." Barof ord, who represented tli'o accused, pointed butthat the exact text of IhtS jura's verdict was as- follows :— . " \yo i fipd vtlle prisoner guilty of.- being ; in possession of stolen property and being a party to tile sale of it; but we respectfully ijrge, leniency,,, therejs .nqt sufficient evidence to show that he actually stole th cattle." . ■ • . Dr. Bamford asked that .His Honor might etate a case for ..Court of Appeal for the purpose of deciding whether the finding amounted. to •.a verdict of guilty. In his own opinion; the, finding, constituted a special verdict and wis not a general verdict of guilty,L, Ho contended.further* that the , jury had,. not, indicated that, .the accused knew that the cattle we're stolen. His Honor said' ho interpreted the finding of thei .jury,, as one of. guilty* » • .. Tho Crown Prosecutor (Hon. J,,A. Tole, JE.C.) contended the verdict was not a special, one. , ,Thtsre, were three, counts, in the.indictment-n-two of catUe,-atealing ; and oho of receiving; cattle knowing them to have been stolen. ;< .iury.,plainly meant that Bourke was guilty on the,last count. Hils Honor said he would take 'time' to consider the question,, .and in meantime would remand 'the accused until Thursday morning at 10.30 o'clock.