The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 387, 12 July 1879, Page 9

The Courts.

LAND TAX APPEAL COURT. Wednesday, July 9. (Before T. Mansford, Esq., KM.)

Mr. Mansford held his first sitting to-day at the Resident Magistrate's Court-house to hear objections against the assessments under the Land Tax Act, 1878. The Court opened at 11 a.m., when there was a very large attendance of persons appealing, and a majority of the solicitors practicing in Wellington. There was some preliminary discussion between Mr. Mansford and several of the lawyers engaged as to the course of procedure to be adopted in hearing the cases, and as to the settlement of technical points, &c. Mr. Mansford stated that there were 2205 cases on the list, so that it was apparent they would have to lay down a rule, to be followed as closely as possible, that nothing but strictly relevant matters should be dealt with, if they hoped to dispose of the list in anything like a reasonable time. Any question of law he should leave to be dealt with by higher authorities, and would endeavor himself to be guided by the Act in the decisions come to. Mr. Martin Chapman appeared on behalf of the Land Tax Department. The DeputyCommissioner for the district (Mr. Crombie) was also present.

Mr. Izard suggested to his Worship that all the cases in which counsel were to appear for the objectors should be taken last. Nearly the whole of the members of the profession were then in Court, and it would be most inconvenient that they should be kept waiting, not knowing when their casss would be called on.

Mr. Mansford said the Act prescribed that the objections were to be taken as they came on the list. He would, however, agree to any arrangement objectors' counsel might make with Mr. Chapman, as counsel for the Department.

Mr. Chapman said he had no objection to any arrangement to suit the convenience of all parties. It was decided that the cases in which counsel were engaged should be taken on Friday morning, and the appoals were then proceeded with.

Charles August Knigge appealed against an assessment of £720 on some land held by him. Property adjoining his, of exactly the same description and area as his own, was allowed to escape taxation as being under the exemption of £soo.—Mr. Wallace and Mr. Ames gave evidence as to the value, and the assessment was reduced to £6OO.

W. H. Quick appealed against a net value of £1228 on two pieces'of land held by him in Bolton-street. He considered the valuers had assessed most unfairly, and were not fit for their work. — Messrs. Ames aud O'Neill deposed as to value, and the assessment was reduced by £3OO. W. C. Gamble, on appeal, bad a reduction of £9B allowed on some laud owned by him in Ghuznee and Garrard streets.

Mr. Smith, acting by power of attorney from Sir John Ogilvie, objected to a valuation of £2091 on some Willis-street laud.—After evidence as to value had been taken, the assessment was reduced by £SOO. Mr. 11. P. Collins objected to the value of £7O per foot being ascribed to his land in Willis - street. — Messrs. Taylor, Ames, and O'Neill considered the property had been rather undervalued, and the objection was disallowed.

John Collins objected to the valuation put upon some leasehold property held by him—part of a native reserve. He also objected on the ground that lie did not now hold the whole of the land ascribed to him by the valuer.

There being some intricate questions of title and other matters in dispute, Mr. Chapman said they would allow that case to lapse altogether.—Mr. Collins also objected to the amount of £660 as the value of some land in Wordsworth-street ; but Messrs. Ames and Wallace having deposed to the correctness of the value, the objection was disallowed. Joseph Hammond objected to his property in Cuba-street being assessed at £9so.—Mr. Ames deposed that the valuation was a very fair one. —Objection disallowed. William Whittem objected to the assessment of £lO a foot on his land in Tory-street, aud to £IOOO on some property in Boulcott-street. —Messrs. Ames and Taylor deposed to the values, and both objections were disallowed. Charles Cornish objected to the value of £IO2B on some land on the Terrace.—Valuation sustained.

Mrs. Mary Collins objected to a value of £7 per foot being placed on her land in Ingestre and Watson streets. —Mr. Ames having given evidence, the amount was reduced to £6 per foot.

R. Hickson claimed disallowance, he being taxed for more land than belonged to him in Willis-street. —"Value reduced to £7lO, by consent of the Department. Robert Archibald appealed against the value placed on his land in Courtenay-place.—Mr. Ames considered land in that thoroughfare well worth £ls per foot. —Claim disallowed. During the day the following names were called, but the persons affected either did not appear, their objections consequently being disallowed, or they had accepted the reductions offered by the Land Tax Department : —John Fairchild, Edwin Kirk, Thomas Kebble, James Barlow. Hugh Curry, J. R. George, Henry Elliott, Jonas Woodward, C. T. Richardson, W. H. Brown, J. A. Allen, Ben. Reeves, E. W. Petherick, W. Boyd, Augusta Martin, Francis Yardin, John Richards, C. B. Knobb, C. J.Toxward, Sam. Waters, Thomas Nicholas, William Dawson, W. H. Jones, George Leslie, B. Colson, F. K. Kreeft, Edward Dixon, William Murray, Frederick Overend, W. B. Robinson, W. H. Back, C. D. Barraud, Wm. Tustin, W. G Tustin, Mark Bird, W. Waring Taylor, W. Hutchison, A. P. Mason, Edward Thirkell, Kirkcaldie and Stains, Robert Lee, G. W. Schwartz, W. Scott, C. J. Johnston, John Callnan, Joseph Joseph, D. T. Stewart, Thos. Chegwin, Alex. Wilson, Robert Craig, Mary Andrews, George Baker, James Hayes, Henry Mace, John Plimmer, Dr. Johnston, John Duthie, William Common, William Dawson, James Mitchell, Thomas Knibb, F. J. Litchfield, C. M. Luke, Sam. Luke, J. H. Cook, G. H. Bayliss, George Allen, Christopher j3ommerville, James Wilson, Edward Whitehead, W. M. Hales, H. W. Diver, C. Dimond, W. Woods, J. T. Senior, J. Wingate, and W. Gibson.

The Court adjourned at 3.30 p.m. till 10 a.m. on Friday.

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 7. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) GKAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as grand jurymen:—Messrs. L. Levy (foreman), Percival Johnstone, Walter Woods Johnston, Walter Knowles, Thomas James Ladd, Arthur Baker, Henry Brittain, D. T. Stewart, N. Marchant, Wm. Johnstone, Charles Johnstone, ■•unior, John Kirkcaldie, Thomas Scouler, A. Schwabe, James Barber, Edgar Jones, F. A. Krull, Wm. James, James Lockie, J. M. Richardson, H. F. Logan. THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, said that there were fourteen cases on the calender, but there were only two or three upon which he would offer any observations. Pefore, however, doing so, he thought it right to make some remarks in regard to what was going on in the north-western portion of this judicial district. A number of persons of the Maori race had been entering on lands in the occupation of others, and doing acfs apparently with the object of asserting their right to the possession of these lands. His Honor said that the New Zealand Settlement Act, passed in 1863, was in force in the district referred to. This Act had been passed for the purpose of enabling the Government to take under the Act all the laud in a proclaimed district, and deal with it under the Act. The object of the Act was twofold. It firstly enabled settlement, and secondly it took from Maori persons causing disturbances their lands, as a puuishment for their disaffection. There seemed to be reason with some to suppose that this action might be questioned in a Court of law, but he was of opinion that there could be no question raised as to the competency of the Legislature to pass such an Act, and if the Executive Government had carried it out then the land proclaimed under the Act became legally vested in the Crown, subject to be dealt with under the Act. The Act enabled compensation to be given in land or money to people owning land in the district prior to it being proclaimed ; and Courts of inquiry were also provided. He made these observations in order that they might see that what the Executive had done could not be questioned in a Court of law. Assuming that the Act in question was within the powers of Parliament to pass, and that the Executive Government had acted in accordance with the Act, then no person had a right to interfere with those in possession of the laud. One could easily suppose that claims would arise, in the settlement of which the claimants would not be altogether satisfied ; but this was no reason for people asserting possession, founded upon any claims they might have had prior to the Act coming into force. It was no question for a Court of law whether the Act was politically right or expedient. If the Maoris had gone on to the land for the purpose of raising the question of right of occupation, it was very evident that such a question could not be considered in a Court of law, and they must have been very ill-advised upon the subject. His Honor was not aware

that there were any cases of this description pending. There were only fourteen cases on the calendar, and none of these were of the nature inferred to. It was the duty of the gaolor, under certain penalties, to furnish a list of all persons for felony in his custody. He was not aware whether there were any more cases yet for trial, but if there were it might be necessary for the Grand Jury to return to the Court again in a few days' time. He had spoken upon the subject because some of the jurymen might be interested in the disturbed district. It seemed desirable to him to make these observations because it was desirable that useless and costly litigation might be avoided, and that the Maoris might see that the advice given by him in a case at Wanganui was the only advice that could be given in such circumstances. In this case a Maori had been charged with trespassing upon land, the prisoner being under the belief that he had a right to do so. Upon the advice of his counsel, Dr. Buller, he pleaded guilty. His Honor had told him that if he had any real or supposed grievance, his proper course was an appeal to the Legislature. It was unquestionable that if the present trespasses had been committed by the Maoris under the idea of a wrong done by the Executive Government, then their only remedy was an appeal to the Legislature that had passed the Act objected to, this remedy being the best one, and a perfectly adequate, although perhaps slow one. It would be useless embarking in litigation if the action of the Maoris was to be defended on the grounds named. His Honor then referred to the Act passed last session amending the jury list, this Act being to his mind an improvement upon its predecessor. In England it had been laid down that all were bound to serve on the jury list, and that the special or grand jurymen performed an extra duty. The New Zealand Legislature had decided that all jurymen should be on the one list for the petty jury, and that grand jurymen should be chosen from this. Some of the grand jurymen might not like to have to sit upon petty juries, but if they reflected they would see that it was necessary to have men of intelligence on the common jury. It was very necessary that the jury list should be formed of people of all classes of society; one reason for which was that people from all classes of society were liable to be charged before them. He thought it was matter for congratulation that the change had been made. Another improvement was that the limit in number of special jurymen was four instead of twelve, which materially lessened the hardship of serving upon it. Referring to the calendar, he said that two of the charges were for breaches of the Arms Act at Poverty Bay. The provisions of this Act were that arms should not be bought or sold without a license, and he read the clauses bearing upon the subject. In the cases under notice a Maori wanted to buy a gun, and he was told that he would have to get a license. The Maori then went to Cooper, who sent Brodie for a license. Brodie took out the license in his own name, and gave it to Cooper, who gave it to the Maori, who then purchased the gun. The person who sold the gun no doubt did so unjustifiably, for he should have looked to see that the name of the purchaser was on the license. The juiy would have to consider whether Cooper induced Brodie to get the license for the purpose of enabling the Maori to buy the gun, and if they thought so it was their duty to return a bill against each of the prisoners. There was a case of arson in the calendar, the evidence being of a peculiar nature. The prisoner wa» a married womam, and it appeared that the house had been on fire twice previously. Ordinarily it was not competent to accept evidence of prior acts, but this evidence was of a special nature. At one of these previous fires the prisoner told some one that she supposed the fire had been caused by rats, as she had missed a box of matches, which she suspected had been carried off by rats. It was not the duty of the Grand Jury to try the cases, but to see if there was such evidence as would warrant them sending the cases for trial In conclusion, his Honor said he thought some application might be made to them to return upon a future date to consider the Maori trespassing cases. This case was unusual, but the circumstances were exceptional. The Grand Jury then retired, and after a short deliberation found true bills against Oswald Worsdell upon charge of larceny ; John Wilson, larceny ; and William Thomas Martin, alias Moore, embezzlement. . Mr. Bell, who appeared on behalf of the Crown, asked that the Grand Jury might be requested to return on Monday next, as a number of New Plymouth natives had been committed for trial, but the depositions had not yetjbeen received. He would also take advantage of this to send up other bills lor consideration. With reference to the case of Henry Anderson, charged with wounding, he said it was not his intention to refer a bill on the part of the Crown to the Grand Jury, and he had given Mr. Easby notice of this. He believed Mr. Easby would not prefer any indictment, but if he had it would be a private one. THE BREACH OP ARMS ACT CASE. Mr. Buckley drew attention to the fact that the prisoners in the above case (Robert Cooper and John Brodie) had been called upon to take their trial at Gisborne, but when they appeared there they had been bound over to take their trial here. He objected to men being committed for trial at one place, and bound over to appear at another. His clients had been put to great expense in consequence of this. His Honor said if the offence was committed in this district, or if the prisoners had been committed for trial in the district, they could be tried here. It was quite competent for the case to go to the Grand Jury here. After some further discussion the matter dropped. LARCENY. In the case of Thomas Williams, on remand, from the previous sitting of the Court for larceny, and for judgment, Mr. Bell said he would enter a nolle prosequi on the charge. The prisoner was then placed at the bar, and

ill reply to his Honor, said he was aware that the Court of Appeal had decided adversely to him upon.a point which had been reserved, and that judgment was to be delivered at the present sitting. In reply to the visual question, prisoner said he had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him. p 3 [is Honor then sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard labor, at the same time informing him that the other charge had been withdrawn by the Grown. EMBEZZLEMENT. William Thomas Martin, alias Moore, was then charged with embezzling .£25, the property of Horace Monk. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. Travers, who appeared for the prisoner, said his client pleaded guilty to having stolen all but £lO of the money found in his possession. He had been employed as a barman. He expressed his great contrition for his conduct. Mr. Travers said the young man had been placed in a business where he was subjected to great temptations. He had already been in gaol for' some time. Prisoner was remanded for sentence. ANOTHER LARCENY CASE. Oswald Worsdell pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing money and goods, the property of John England, of the Hutt. Prisoner was remanded for sentence. Mr. Bell stated there was another indictment against prisoner, upon which a bill had not yet been found. TRUE P.TLLS.

True bills were returned against Francis Kenny, larceny ; and William Henderson, larceny. At subsequent periods during the day true bills were found in the cases of Joseph Jameson Barclay add William Creighton, larceny from a dwelling-house; George England, injury to property ; Sarah Phillips, arson ; Alphonsus Rush, perjury ; and Oswald Worsdell, larceny (second charge). In the stabbing cases Regina v. Perotti and Bitossi, and Regina v. Fernandez, the Grand Jury could not arrive at their decision in consequence of the absence.of the witnesses, who, it appears, were in gaol. They were directed to return to the Court next morning, when the necessary witnesses would be in attendance. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON - . Francis Kenny, charged with stealing £7, the property of John Carroll, pleaded not guilty. The jury having been empannelled, Mr. Bell opened the case, detailing the circumstances of the robbery. It appeared that Carroll, while drunk at Featherston, had laid down in a stable to sleep, and while asleep prisoner took the money out of his pocket, ostensibly for the purpose of taking care of it for him. He, however, did not return it, and when subsequently arrested for the theft part of the stolen money was found concealed upon his person. The prosocuting witness, apprehending constable, and another witness gave evidence in support of the above. The prisoner, in his defence, referred to his previous good character, and stated that he had cashed a cheque, which accounted for the money being in his possession. His Honor having summed up, the jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was then remanded for sentence. STEALING FROM A DWELLING-HOUSE. Joseph Jameson Barclay and Wm, Creighton were charged with having on May 9, 1879, stolen from the dwelling-house of George Pugsby a quantity of clothing and jewellery. A second count charged the prisoners with feloniously receiving the goods. The prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr. Bell stated that the case for the Crown was that the prisoners had conjointly committed the offence. It appeared that during Pugsby's absence as a coach driver, Pugsby's wife, who unfortunately was not of a very sober character, took the men to her house, where they remained all night. The goods were afterwards missed, and were found in the possession of the prisoners. The goods were undoubtedly the property of Pugsby, but it was contended that the goods had been given by Mrs. Pugsby to them. Mr. Bell, however, pointed out that the wife had no authority to give away her husband's property, and being drunk she was not competent to do so. He read over the statement of the men made at the Police Court, which he proposed to put in as evidence against them. Some discussion took place between his Honor and Mr. Bell as to whether the taking of the goods with the privity of the wife constituted a larceny. Mr. Bell quoted authorities, and it was ultimately decided to let the case go to the jury. George Pugsley gave evidence to the effect that the goods produced were his propeity, and he also deposed to their values. Mrs. Pugsby was also examined at some length, and gave a denial to the statement made by one of the prisoners that she had given the goods to them. She had never had any improper intercourse with either of the prisoners. This witness was closely crossexamined by the prisoners. Several other witnesses were examined, amongst them being Detective Warren, who deposed to the apprehension of the prisoners, and Sergeant Anderson, who was present when the prisoners were searched at the station. George Pugsby was also re-called, and gave evidence as to having witnessed the finding of ,some of the goods. This closed the case for the Crown, and the depositions were then put in and read. Both prisoners then addressed the jury at considerable length, detailing how they got into the company of Mrs. Pugsby, and how she had given them a bundle of the things they were charged with stealing. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at six p.m., returning into Court after an absence of half an hour with a verdict of guilty. , The prisoners were remanded for sentence, and the Court then adjourned till next day.

Tuesday, July S. SENTENCES. Wm. Thomas Martin, who had pleaded guilty to embezzlement, had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him. He was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labor for fifteen calendar months. John Wilson, who had pleaded guilty to larceny, had nothing to say, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor. Francis Kenny, convicted of larceny, said he was a stranger in the place, and had always worked hard for a living. His Honor said the offence was not so serious as if it had been committed by prisoner while in a position of trust. There was nothing previously against his character, and his Honor would treat the case as being his firstoffence, and sentence him to six months' imprisonment. Joseph Jameson Barclay and William Creighton, who had been found guilty of larceny from a dwelling house, stated that they had only been a short time in the colony. Barclay had not taken the goods with any wrong intention, but had been led into it, and Creighton said he was not guilty of the charge. They both asked for leniency. His Honor sentenced them each to six months' imprisonment with hard labor. STEALING MONEY. Oswald Worsdel, who had pleaded guilty on the previous day to a charge of stealing money from Thomas Mason, his employer, was then arraigned on a second charge of a similar nature, to which he also pleaded guilty. In reply to the usual question, prisoner expressed his sorrow for the offences, which he excused on the ground that he had a great deal to do in the situation, and, his brain being bad from previous illness, he was hardly cognisant of his acts. He was still troubled with irritation of the brain. The offences were not premeditated by him, and he hoped his Honor would be lenient. His Honor said he had no reason to suppose that prisoner's mind was so affected that he did not know what he was doing at the time, but on the whole he thought the ends of justice would be met by a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor for each offence, the sentences to be concurrent with each other. THE MAORI PRISONERS. Mr. Bell stated that he would be able to supply a list of the names of the Maori prisoners to the Court on that or the next day. The Maoris had been committed to take their trials at this sitting .of the Court, but he was not prepared to go on with the cases ; neither was his friend Dr. Buller, who represented the prisoners. He would therefore make an ajjplication for postponement of the time of sending the bills to the Grand Jury, so that the cases could be dealt with next sitting. It was possible that the next sitting would not be the next circuit sitting. Dr. Buller said he was in favor of the postponement. His Honor granted the application, the cases being adjourned to the next ordinary or a special sitting of the Court. LARCENY. William Henderson, who had pleaded not guilty on the previous day to a charge of stealing the sum of £2O on May 19, the property of Archibald Bell, was then placed upon his trial. Mr. Bell stated the circumstances of the case, which were to the effect that Bell and the prisoner had been drinking together at the Prince of Wales Hotel. Bell had three £2O notes in his hand, which prisoner snatched from him, but those in the hotel insisted on his returning it. He rolled the money up, and professed to return it ; but the case for the Crown was that he only returned two of them. Prisoner went to another hotel, the Melbourne, where he displayed a £2O note ; but it happened that a man was there who had been present at the other house when the notes were snatched from Bell. He at once accused prisoner of taking this note from Bell. Prisoner denied it, but a constable was sent for, and prisoner was given in charge. Bell had missed £2O when counting his money after the notes had been snatched from him. These facts were deposed to by Thos. Lowes, Sarah Fisher, landlady of the Prince of Wales Hotel, William Hepburn, John Stewart, and Constable Lyon. Archibald Bell was called -as the first witness, but his evidence was not very important. He remembered little or nothing of the affair, as he was intoxicated at the time.

For the defence prisoner called a witness named Bird, who did not appear. James Taylor was also called, but did not answer.

Prisoner contended that the note had been given by Bell to change, and at his request Bell was re-called and questioned upon this point. The witness, however, did not remember having done so. Prisoner then made a long statement, the gist of it being that the note had been given him by Bell to get changed, and that he had no intention whatever of stealing it. Thos. Hammond was called, and deposed that he had known prisoner to have a sum of money about him some days before the date of the offence, and he was spending it foolishly. In answer to Mr. Bell he stated that he had known prisoner 14 years ago in Dunediu under the name of Alonzo Grennan. He had always known prisoner to bear a good character. The foreman of the jury (Mr. Hutchison) enquired how it was prisoner had an alias. Prisoner explained that the alias was not in consequence of any crimes, but it was through family troubles of a private nature. In fact he had a "skeleton in his family." Councillor Young here stepped forward, and voluntarily deposed that he had known the prisoner sixteen years ago in Dunediu, where he had always borne a good character as an expressman. Witness left Dunediu ten years ago and came to Wellington, and a few months ago he met prisoner and gave him £5 to start him. In reply to prisoner witness said he would just as readily have trusted him with

£SO. Ho had known him in Dunediu ttndei the name of Gronnan.

His Hon»r having summed up at somilength, the jury without retiring return-vl a verdict of guilty, stating however tlia" they thought there were extenuating circum t.ino'es in the case, as the parties had been drinking together. The prisoner had nothing to say in reply to the usual question, and his Honor sentenced him to four months' imprisonment, with hard labor, TRUE P.TLLS. The Grand Jury returned true bills in the cases of Robert Cooper and John Brodie, breach of Arms Act ; Cesari Pirotti and Antonio Bitossi, cutting and wounding ; and Nicholas Fernandez, attempting to wound. His Honor informed the foreman that it was at first thought possible that he would have to ask the Grand Jury to attend again oh Monday, but a different arrangement had since; been made, and he would now discharge the Grand Jury, and thank thorn in the name of the country for their attendance. The Court then adjourned for three-quarters of an hour, his Honor remarking that there were some cases of importance, and that therefore jurors must be punctual in coming back as there ought to be a full panel to draw from. On the Court re-assembling there was.some trouble as to which case should be called first, that of perjury or that of arson. Both are likely to be long cases, and eventually it was resolved by his Honor to adjourn the Court, and commence the next day Avith the perjury case at 10 o'clock.

Wednesday, July 9. malicious injury to property. George England was charged with having on March IS maliciously damaged private property of the real and personal estate of Charles England, of the Hutt, and pleaded not guilty. Mr. Gordon Allan and Dr. Buller appeared for the defence. Mr. Bell, in opening the case, said it was a very painful one. The facts were to the effect that Charles England had for years been gradually losing his reason, but he was well looked after by his wife and two younger sons, who took care of his property. Defendant was the eldest son of the old man, and years ago upon his marriage he left his father's house. Upon the death of his mother defendant appeared to think that the property should be made over to him, and he brought his wife and six children to reside at the house, the other brothers left, or, as they said, were turned out. This happened two or three weeks after the death of defendant's mother. The result of this was that proceedings were taken by the second son to have the old man declared a lunatic, the effect of which would be that the property could be vested in trustees for the benefit of the lunatic during his lifetime, and that after death the property would be divided between the children. These proceedings were opposed by defendant, and on February 25fch the old man, the defendant, and the two younger sons appeared before Mr. Justice Richmond in Chambers, the result being that a commission de lunatico inquirendo was ordered to issue. The order was made on March 4, and during the time which elapsed before the investigation began, defendant appeared to have made up his mind that his father would be declared a lunatic. On March 18th defendant went into the house with an axe and smashed up crockery, chairs, tables, &c, in fact almost everything in the house. Mr. Bell did net think the jury would have any difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that this damage was malicious. It would probably be set up for the defence that the goods were the property of the defendant, but it was absurd to suppose that, if so, defendant would destroy his own property in this manner. John England deposed to being a son of Charles England, and brother of defendant. His mother died on January 3, and on January 23 defendant, with his wife and family, came to the house, and continued to reside there until after the commission was held. He left on March 18, the day that the property was smashed. Witness and his brother Walter and sister Alice left the place a few days after the defendant went to live there, and left their father and younger brothers in the house. On March IS, in consequence of what he heard, witness weut to his father's house and saw the furniture broken. He made a list of the articles broken, from which he read to the Court. He thought it would take £l2 or £l4 to replace what was damaged. The broken pieces of glass and crockery weighed 1401bs. By Mr. Allan : Witness's father told him that he did not want defendant to take charge of the property. Witness had an ill-feeling against his brother for coming in, and determined to try and get him out. He had never thought of getting his father declared a lunatic before. Witness and his brother Henry had instituted this prosecution. He was prosecuting because his father was not able to take proceeding. He wanted to get his brother punished. His brother brought his goods and chattels to the house when he went to reside there. He could not swear whether some of the goods destroyed were Ids brother's or not. He was not aware whether the. stove which was broken was defendant's property, but it was not in the house when defendant went to live there. Witness had heard his brother complain of his sisters going into the house and taking money out of the cash box. William Lewis, solicitor, deposed he was solicitor for the defendant in the recent lunacy proceedings. The commission was ordered to issue on March 4. The commission first sat on March 27.

By Mi-. Allan : Witness was not present at the inquiry. Mr. Justice Richmond did not consider the man insane from what he saw, but ho issued a commission.

By Mr. Bell : Witness remembered Mr. Justice Richmond saying that the old man was clearly quite incapable of managing his own affairs.

Herbert England, a young brother of the previous witness, aged 12, deposed that he saw

; .i brother (the defendant) in the house on M .v. oh 18. Witness was outside, but he looked through the kitchen window, and saw defendant smashing the things with an axe. !'.y Mr. Allan : Witness was living with defendant at the time, and was being educated and kindly treated by him. It was about half-past four in the afternoon when witness saw this. He could not say why he was not at school that afternoon. He saw his brother break the window with stones. His brother threatened to kill him. Witness was now staying with his brother John. He had only had conversation with that brother once about what he had seen defendant do. He told John then that defendant had threatened to kill him. He had talked with his little brother about it.

Matilda Meech deposed that she was an old friend of the Englands. George England had married in 1868, and had not lived with his father since until recently. She knew the house occupied by the Englands, and also the goods, having seen them repeatedly. She saw the fragments of crockery and glassware after the damage had been done. There wers two sacks full. She thought it would take £l4 or £ls to replace these things. The stove cost Mrs. England £6. It was completely destroyed. She valued a plated teapot which had been destroyed at £3 or £4. By Mr. Allan : Witness had promised Mrs. England she would take a motherly interest in the family. She did not take 'a motherly interest in George. She took the part of the family against George. She had no particular regard for George, and would not do him a kindness. She had come voluntarily to give evidence. It was in the beginning of April when she saw the injury which had been done. She did not see the things on the floor. She had not seen them until after the case was heard at the Magistrate's Court. She wag determined to appear agaiust defendant, and she would not do him any good if she could help it. She told Mr. Bell last Friday that she would give evidence. She had not been before the Grand Jury. Joseph Hall, valuator for the New Zealand Insurance Company, had gone to the house of England in February to value the property for an insurance on the furniture On March 19 he went again, and found the place in a wreck. He thought the damage done to the furniture was £5.

Mr. Allan cross-examined the witness at some length. Constable Stewart deposed to going to the house of England at the Hutt early on the morning of March 19. He saw everything in the kitchen smashed up, and he would not give £5 for what was left. This was the case for the Crown.

Mr. Allan submitted that the evidence did not support the indictment. There was no evidence to show that the damage done exceeded £5.

His Honor said that would be sufficient to go the jury. Mr. Allan stated that deeds had been executed by Charles England, making over all his goods and chattels to his son George, the defendant. He proposed to call Mr. Buller. Mr. Bell said if this were gone into he should have to call rebutting evidence.

His Honor thereupon released the waiting jurors until next morning, as there would be no time to take another case that day. Mr. Allan proceeded to read from a document, showing what property had been made over to defendant by his father. In consequence of this defendant went to live with his father, and contended that the property was vested in him. The younger brothers not liking the arrangement that had been made took the proceedings in lunacy. He would, in addition to Dr. Buller, call the wife of defendant, who would be able to tell the jury that—

Mr. Bell objected to his friend telling the jury what evidence the wife was to give, for he did not know whether her evidence was admissable or not.

Mr. Allan thought if her evidence was not objected to it could be received. His Honor ruled that it was not competent for the wife to give evidence for or against her husband. The oath would not be binding upon her. Mr. Allan was under the impression that such evidence was admissable unless objected to. Mr. Allen then continued his address to the jury, and stated that as he could not call this witness, he would rely upon the evidence of Dr. Buller with reference to the deeds. Mr. Bell said his evidence in rebuttal would go into the question of the lunacy of Charles England. Mr. Allan thought it a pity that the case could not be decided without all this. It reminded him of a phrase now somewhat hackneyed, namely, that these people were " washing their dirty linen " in Court.

After some further discussion took place, Dr. Buller was put in the box, arad deposed that in January the accused and his father, with a man named Brown, came to his office and said that the father, having lost his wife and being in feeble health, he desired to have some arrangement made as to his property. Witness suggested that that the property should be conveyed to the son, res'irvin"- to himself a life interest. The old man wa3 somewhat stupid, but seemed to understand what was being done, and said so long as he was provided for in his lifetime it did not matter. Witness had several interviews with England upon the subject, and ultimately the deeds were executed on January 21, Charles England signing by his mark. A discussion here ensued as to whether it was contended that England was sane at the fame. Mr. Allan did not wish to show that, but to show that this conveyance was made before the question as to lunacy was raised, and that therefore the conveyance was good. There was no necessity to go into the question of lunacy, and. if they did the case might last several days.

Mr. Allan then addressed the jury for the defence at some length, contending that the case was merely a family quarrel, and one that should uoti have corae into Court at all. The

proceedings had simply been instituted by .Tohn. England to punish his brother because he thought that brother had been " doing him." The wife of defendant, whom he would have liked to call, could cot be called, this being the lav/ of England. He was at a loss to know how it was that in this new country the law had not been altered in this respect, for he could never understand why a wife could not give evidence. Mr.. Allan referred to the value of the goods, and thought that the evidence upon this point was of the vaguest character.

Mr. Bell having replied, his Honor carefully summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict at 3.45 p.m., returning into Court at 4.25 with a verdict of guilty, but with a recommendation to mercy, on the ground that they believed defendant was in such a conditio:', at the time as not to know what he was doing.

Mr. Bell said lie heartily concurred in the re ci immeud ation.

Dr. Buller had an application to make which ho did not think the Crown Prosecutor would offer any objection to. It was that defendant might bo called upon to find recognisances for his appearance at the next sitfciug of the Court for sentence if called upon, on condition that in the meantime he repair all the damage done. He made this application as much in the interests of defendant's family as his own. His Honor said defendant was liable to a civil action for the damage. Mr. Allan : And if such an action had been taken the wife could have given evidence. Mr. Bell thought if defendant expressed contrition foi what he had done lie could be bound over in Iris own recognisance without any condition whatever.

Dr. Buller, on behalf of defendant, expressed sorrow for what had been done, coupled with the assurance that ho would make all the reparation in his power, whether that were made a condition or not.

His Honor thought, on the whole, he should not sentance defendant, but would order him to enter into his own recognisance of .£SO to appear for judgment if called upon. Defendant then entered into the required recognisance, and was released from custody. The Court adjourned till 10 o'clock next day. Thursday, July 10. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING-. Antonio Bittosi and Cesari Birotti, Italians, were charged with having, in May last, assaulted and wounded Nicholas Fernandez. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Izard) conducted the prosecution ; Messi-s. Gordon Allan and Lewis defended the accused. Mr. E. interpreted. It was agreed, after some discussion between counsel and his Honor the Chief Justice, that the prisoners should be tried separately, Bittosi being placed first in the box. Pirotti was removed from the Court while the first charge was proceeding.

The details of this case have been before the public on so many occasions that it is unnecessary to report the evidence given yesterday, which was almost a repetition of that adduced before the R.M. Court prior to the committal of the prisoners. Fernandez swore that on the day of the alleged assault he had been with the prisoners drinking at the New Zealander Hotel, where a dispute had arisen, and that he had subsequently met Bittosi and Pirotti on the Cricket Ground, when the former had stabbed him in the stomach with either a knife or razor, while Pirotti had struck him on the back of the head with stones. His injuries were so serious that lie was compelled to go- to the Hospital immediately, and had remained there nearly a month. In crossexamination by Mr. Allan, [Fernandez asserted he had at no time threatened to kill either of the prisoners, nor had he at the time of the assault any weapon in bis possession. Drs. Tripe and Gillon gave medical evidence.

The case for the defence occupied a considerable time, the principal contention by the prisoners being that Fernandez had begun the altercation, which had resulted in his being wounded. His Honor summed up the case at some length, and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners. Sentence was deferred till next day, and the Court adjourned.