THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 919, 11 October 1889, Page 22

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COUKT.

«t CIVIL SITTINGS. IN BANCO. Thursday, October 3. REGINA (on THE PROSECUTION' OF ANNIE CHEiMIS) V. LIONEL BENJAMIN. A charge of perjury against Detective Benjamin, on the information of Mrs Chemis, having been dismissed by the Resident Magistrate at Wellington, Mrs Chemis applied under the Vexatious Indictments Act, 1870, to be bound over, and was bound over by the magistrate, to prosecute the charge at the next criminal sittings to be held in Wellington, and her recognisance and the information and depositions were accordingly transmitted to the Supreme Court at Wellington. Subsequently application was made on her behalf for a rule nisi calling on the accused and on the Solicitor-GeneiM to show cause why the indictment mentioned in the recognisance should not be presented to the grand jury in some judicial district other than the Wellington judicial district, and why if an indictment should be preferred and found a true bill it should not be tried in such other judicial district, on the ground that a fair and impartial trial of the indictment could not be had by a erand and petty jury of the jury district of Wellington ; and in the alternative to show cause why the presentment of the indictment should not be postponed till, the sittings in Wellington in January, 1890, on the ground that a fair and impartial trial of the indictment could not be had before the grand jury empanelled forthe then next sittings. An affidavit by Mrs Chemis and Mr Jellicoe, her solicitoi’, was filed in support of the application, which stated that a very great and general prejudice as to the matter in question existed throughout the Wellington jury district and amongst those likely to serve as grand jurors ; that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had stated, on the hearing of an interlocutory application in a libel action Bell v. Jellicoe, arising out of facts connected with those out of which the charge against Dotective Benjamin arose, that in his opinion a strong feeling existed in Wellington upon which he would certainly grant a change of venue in . that action if it were applied for ; that Henry Blundell, Louis Blundell, and John Chantrey Harris, three of those drawn to sit on the grand jury before which Mrs Chemis was bound over to present the indictment, were proprietors of newspapers which had published articles approving the action cf the Resident Magistrate in dismissing the case before him, and expressing an opinion that the prosecution had shown a very weak case ; that Percy Brown, another of the grand jury drawn, was a son-in-law of the magistrate who dismissed the case ; and that Charles Alexander Baker, another of the grand jury was a son of the Sheriff, and the Sheriff had expressed ' an opinion that the grand jury would ignore the indictment. A rule nisi having been obtained, cause was now shown. Mr Chapman, for the Solicitor-General, opposed the rule being made absolute. Mr Gully and Mr Skerrett, for Detective Benjamin, followed on the same side. Mr Jellicoe in support of the rule. Mr Justice Richmond delivered judgment, as follows : In dealing with this matter it is first necessary to consider whether there is any actual proceeding in this Court in the nature of a prosecution of Lionel Benjamin for perjury. The state of the case is this, that after the dismissal of the charge against him by the Resident Magistrate, Mrs Chemis took advantage of the provisions of the Vexatious Indictments Act, under which she called on Mr Graham to biud her over to renew the charge before the grand jury in this judicial district. Having so bound herself she took herself out of the provisions of the Vexatious Indictments Act, which otherwise wculd have prevented her from presenting an

indictment against this constable. But the proceeding was purely voluntary on her part. She is now bound over in some small sum—Lso, or some other sum—to prefer a bill of indictment to the grand jury at the next sessions. But if she does not choose to do so no one can compel her, and she will only incur the risk of being called on to pay the penalty, and of having to pay it if she can pay it. Under the same Act the information, depositions, and recognisances have all been sent up to this Court. But as yet there is no prosecution. The prosecution before the Resident Magistrate on the information was, on the dismissal of the charge, at an enb Whether any further prosecution will be undertaken depends entirely on Mrs Chemis. She now asks this Court whether, if she chooses to prosecute, she may be at liberty to prosecute somewhere else than in this judicial district; whereas, as she is now bound, she must prosecute, if at all, in this judicial district. Now, I am of opinion that I have no power to grant her this liberty. I have no power to alter the recognisance into which she had entered, to alter the Court in which she is bound to prefer the indictment. The recognisance has been entered into under a particular statute, and I am clear I have no jurisdiction to interfere with it. That, therefore, disposes of the principal part of the rule which asks me to allow Mrs Chemis to lay her case before a grand jury somewhere else. Apart from this J may say that I am .perfectly convinced that sufficient ground has not been laid for a change of venue, even if I had the jurisdiction to order it. I shall say very little upon this part of the case.; but I am perfectly satisfied that no reasonable ground has been shown for supposing that the grand jury of the Wellington district will not do justice in any matter which Mrs Chemis may choose to bring before it. With regard to the next part of the rule, to remove from the Wellington common jury any indictment which may be found, it is admittedly of the provisions of the Indictable Offences Trials Act, 1866, and it is obviously premature to ask for the removal of an indictment which may never be found or even presented. The power to remove the indictment can only he exercised after it has been found. If it is found, then will he the proper time to raise any objections to the petty jury panel. It is impossible for me to deal with the matter in the hypothetical way in which I am asked to deal with it. Lastly, there is the application to enlarge the time within which Mrs Chemis is bound to go before the grand jury. As to that I am not prepared to say that I have no jurisdiction tc enlarge. But the application, like the first one, stands upon the suggestion that the grand jury panel for this district is not unprejudiced, or rather I should say upon the suggestion that the grand jury actually drawn on the present occasion is not an unprejudiced body, and that principally on the ground that one or two of the gentlemen upon it are editors or proprietors of papers which have expressed opinions upon the case. That in my opinion is an objection of. a frivolous character. These gentlemen were within the limits of their rights in expressing their opinions on the closed proceedings before the Resident Magistrate. I have yet to learn that an opinion may not be publicly expressed on a proceeding which is closed merely because a party has intimated his determination to go on in another Court. The purpose of a private individual cannot be put on the same level as the actual proceedings of a Court of justice. Even if they had gone further, and had expressed opinions on the propriety of what Mrs Chemis purposed, it would have been merely to express an opinion on the private intentions of Mrs Chemis, which are open to public comment. Of course after indictment found it is different. The Court is then tiuly seized of a matter before it, and further comment would be improper. J have no hesitation in saying that this is a proceeding which is entirely groundless, and entirely without precedent. Rule discharged with costs, L 5 ss, for each counsel engaged. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, October 7. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) The October sessions of the Supreme Court began at 10 a. m. • GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn as a grand jury ;—Messrs Edward Pearce (foreman), IT. Gaby, W. D. Butler, D. ,T. Bremuer, W. J. Gandy, D. Sladden, H. Typy.-H. F. Blundell, W. G. Tustiu, Louis Blundell, J. Jack, N. Reid, Percy Brown, A. Veiich, W. Lambert, G. H, Hare roe. A. Campbell, E. J. Fulton, W. Evans, E. J. Riddiford, W. R. Perston, and P. G. How'den. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. In charging, the Grand Jury his Honor explained that it would bo necessary for them to assemble again on Monday, the 28th inst.,. in order that they might consider the bills in three cases from Napier, one of murder and two of forcible entry. It had been considered ..expedient that these cases should be tried in a district other than that in which the offences were alleged to have been committed ; and inasmuch as there were a large number of cases to be tried during the present session it had been decided, in order to save expense and inconvenience, that'the bills should be pre-

senied to the grand jury on a special cay appointed, and that the trial should pro coed immediately afterward. With regard to the bills that were to be presented now, some of them were of an unusual and peculiar character. There was a charge of an offence against the Bank ruptcy Act made against a person named Bc-ckman, who was alleged to have attempted to leave New Zealand, taking away with him some properly which ought to have been divided among his creditors. This charge was made under the lG4th sectum of the Act, which made attempting or preparing to leave the Colony under such circumstances a felony unless the jury were satisfied that there was no intention to defraud. This money that the accused person was supposed to bo making off with was part of the proceeds of the Rale of a pubiichouse, of which the license was in the name of his wife. Something would be made of that no doubt, but he apprehended that the mere fact of the license being in the name of the accused’s wife would not present much difficulty to the grand jury. It was, unfortunately, a feature very frequently found cropping up in this Court, of persons who, "being in difficulties, seem to be so anxious to provide for their families. His Honor next referred briefly to the charges of malicious injury to property against George Harris and Wiremu kfntaua, of malicious injury to property', in the shape of trees, at Featherslon, remarking that apparently the accused persons sought to prove some sort of right ; also to a similar charge, and one of assault, against Robert Bullen, and to the charges against W. E. Bannister of offences under the Postoffice Act. There were also two charges of altering cheques. With respect to the charges against Detective Benjamin, his Honor said these were charges arising out of the recent prosecution of a man named Chemis for murder. It appears that on the trial of that person, Benjamin, giving evidence as a detective, stated that ho found in a particular drawer in the bedroom of the prisoner’s house some pieces of paper, and rhat he took them out and gave them to another officer, Campbell. It was said that this was a false, sratement, and that Benjamin, in making it, was guilty of perjury. No doubt the fact that the paper was found tin re was most material—in fact, it was the only link that connected the prisoner Chemis with the charge, so that there could bo no doubt ph to the indie men t and as to the formalities, such as Benjamin having given evidence, and so on. The question was whether satisfactory evidence, within what was conceived by the grand jury to be its functions, was brought to show that an indictment should be found against Benjamin for so swearing ou that occasion. Now it appeared—for they could not shut their eyes to what had appeared in the newspapers, and what took place in the public tribunals—that after the trial in the Magistrate’s Court, after depositions had been taken at great length, the magistrate thought there was no case to send to trial, and therefore did not commit the accused. Under the Vexatious Indictments Act, however, a prosecutor or prosecutrix could be bound over to prosecute, and such had been dona in this case, the prosecutrix, Mrs Chemi3, wife of the convict, having been bound over to prosecute before the grand jury, and, if necessary, before the petty jury. The prosecution was not instituted by any authority. Although Chemis had been convicted of the highest and most serious crime known except treason —though really at the present day we did not think of treason, and murder might be looked upon as the most serious charge—it had not been considered that any recognised authority should take up the prosecution of Benjamin for this alleged perjury, and it was left to Mrs Chemis to prosecute these charges (for there were two) against him for having made the alleged false statements. Benjamin said ho found the pieces of paper in the drawer. Very well. Now who was to prove the falsity of this statement ? Was the convict, who now' stood not sentenced to death, certainly, for his sentence hod been commuted ? It had been held by the Lord Chief Justice Lush, a very eminent Judge in England, that a person sentenced to death was not a competent, witness. Whether that was so or not need not trouble them, for Chemis was now under sentence of imprisonment for life. Certainiy a person under sentence to imprisonment for life could not give testimony under any fear of temporal punishment. The only other direct evidence was that of the convict’s wife. “With regard to her I need say nothing.” His Honor went on to point out that though it was no part of the duty of the grand jury to try a case, and no pare of the function of the grand jury to hear evidence for the defence, its function was to ascertain whether there was evidence which appeared to be credible, sufficient to justify them in saying that the perron charged should take hia trial before the petty jury He was not prepared to say that in a case of this kind it would inot be competent for the grand jury, if they thought fit, and it was shown that Benjamin really gave this evidence—namely, that he found this pa for in Campbell’s presence, and forthwith took it cut to the Inspector—to say that they would not proceed with the case without hearing the evidence of Detective Campbell. It world be perfectly competent for the grand jury after hearing such evidence as was brought before tflem to say We

cannot deal satisfactorily with this case without hearing the evidence of those persons who may have been present, namely Detective Campbell, Inspector Thomson, and Chemis and his wife.” The same observations applied to the other indictment, which was that Benjamin did not find in this drawer certain articles which he said were there. The grand jury then retired. Later in the day his Honor informed the grand jury he had been requested by counsel for the prosecution in Beniamin’s case to direct the loreman that, inasmuch as Chemis might not know the nature of the charge ou which he was being examined, he should be informed before giving evidence. His Honor said that as lie saw no reason to refuse this request be would direct the foreman to make that explanation to Chemis. With further reference to the examination of Campbell, his Honor said that if the grand jury were not satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution they would be entitled to ask the Court to allow others who were there at the time to be examined. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Edward Mclntosh, a young man, pleaded not guilt3' to a charge of having, on the 13th of September, robbed Patrick White, with violence, of L2 2s in money, a silver watch, and chain, etc. Mr Bell, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoner was undefended. Evidence similar to that given in the lower Court having been taken, the jury retired, and after an absence of five minutes found the prisoner guilty. The prisoner was remanded till next day for sentence. David Callum Monteitli, charged with stealing a horse, saddle and bridle, the property of William Neill, of Masterton, pleaded not guilty. Mr Bell prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended.

The evidence for the prosecution went to prove that on the 30th of December last the prisoner hired a horse, saddle, and bridle from Mr W. N- ill, livery stable keeper, at Masterton, to go to B'airlogie (some 24 miles out of Masterton), stating that he had to get some money there. Instead of g"ing to Blairlogic ('which is ou the road to the East Coast) ho went through to Woodville and sold the horse to Mr Gilbert, ho'elkeeper, of Woodville. for L 4 ICG, stating that he bought it for L 9. The prisoner denied these statements, and denied also that he had written a receipt which was produced as given by him to Mr Gilbert. He briefly addressed the jury, stating that he had been 32 years in the Colony, and “had never had a blemish on his character,” and that Gilbert had told a malicious falsehood.

The jury, after a retirement of a few minutes, found the prisoner guilty. In answer to his Honor, the prisoner admitted that on the 18th of January last he was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment at Gisborne on three charges of false pretences in January last. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. ALTERING AND UTTERING. John Southee, alias Street, pleaded not guilty to a charge of altering an order for L2 to LB, and with uttering the same. Mr Bell prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The evidence for the prosecution went to show that on the 17th of Tune last the prisoner, being employed by his brother, a bush contractor named Robert Southee, at Palmerston, received from him an order on Captain Hewitt for L2. When the order was presented to Mr Kendall. Captain Hewi't.’s manager at Fitzherbert, it was for LB. Mr Kendall, being in doubt as to what the figure was, asked the prisoner, who said it was LB. Mr Kendall then gave him a cheque for that amoun\ The prisoner’s statement was that his brother blurred the figure 2 in drying the ink on the order, and that the prisoner did not notice till ho got away from the house that it resembled an 8. The jury, after being out for about half an hour, returned, and the foreman (Mr C. W. Brodie) asked whether a verdict of eleven could be taken, one of the jury being influenced by the fact that this was “ a family affair.” His Honor pointed out that that made no difference. He decline,d to take a verdict of eleven-twelfths. The jury again retired, and upon their return the foreman said they found him guilty of uttering the altered order, but not of smudging the figure, and recommended him to mercy ou account of his youth. His Honor said in that case the jury must acquit the prisoner altogether. The foreman said they had decided that the prisoner did not alter the figuring in the order. His Honor said that was an acquittal of tho charge of forgerju He directed the jury to retire again and consider whether the prisoner made use of the order knowing it had been altered by some person who had no right to do it. Tho jury, having further considered their verdict for half an hour, acquitted the prisoner. The Court adjourned at 6.55 till next morning. Tuesday, October 8. (Before his Honor the Chief Jus'ice.) SENTENCE. Edward Mclntosh, who was convicted on the previous day of robbery with violence from Patrick White, on the reclaimed land, was presented for sentence.

He asked the Court to deal leniently with him, this being his first offence. Detective Kirby stated, in answer to his Honor, that the man whom tho prisoner alleged to have been with Mm on the occasion of the robbery had gone to Dunedin, and had there been committed for trial for housebreaking.’ ' - r His Honor, in passing sentence, remarked upon the seriousness of the offence, and said it was only the prisoner’s youth, and the fact that the police did not know of any previnu* conviction against him that justified the Court iu abstaining from inflicting penal servitude. That. even a man who was not sober should be taken into a secluded place and robbed in a town like this was intolerable. The sentence of the Court would b- that the prisoner be kept to hard labour iu ilia Terrace Gaol for two years. DEFRAUDING CREDITORS. Charles Edward Beckman, formerly a publican at. Eketalinna, pleaded not guilty io a charge of haying attempted to quit the Colony after being adjudged a bank-, rupt, with intent to defraud his creditors by taking with him L2OO which ought to have been divided among them. Mr Bell conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Bell. The evidence of a largo number of witnesses whoNvere called for the prosectionwent to show that the prisoner formerly kept the Universal Hotel at Kketahuna, and was adjudicated a bankrupt on. the l3t of August, on the petition of Messrs Castendyk and Fucke, to whom he owed L 77 19s 9d. On the 23rd of July the hotel was sold for L6OO, the furniture for L2OO, and somes shares for L4O, to Mr Toohill, of Masterton. On the 24’H of July Beckman paid into the Bank of New South Wales at Masterton Mr C. A. Pownall’s cheque for L 522 19s fid, which was given on account of this purchase ; and he immediately drew out L5lB, a cheque for L 4 being presented some days later. The land and hotel, when sold to Mr Toohill,were iu Mrs Beckman’s name, having been transferred to her by her husband some months before. After drawing this L5lB from the bank, Beckman started by train from Kuripuni for Wellington, having as fellow passengers several of his creditors, who were in pursuit ot him with tho obj-ct of collecting tlieir accounts. On the way down Frederick Bright, sawmiller, took L 7 from Beckman on account of a debt of LlB, and R. Price, traveller for To Aro House, took LlO for a debt of Ll 4. At Kaiwhara Beckman got off the train, unobserved by all his creditors but one. They did not see him again until he had been arrested by Dotective Chrystal at Auckland on the 12ih of August. The detective deposed that when arrested at the Governor Browne Hotel the prisoner had only L 33 on him, but at the police station Mrs Beckman, at her husband’s handed over L 250 which she had concealed, wrapped in flannel, in the. bosom of her dress. It was deposed by a woman named Christina Cole, who wfas employed at Jones’ Temperance Hotel, Eketahuna (where Mrs Beckman stayed for a few days) that she saw Mrs Beckman stitching, notes into some flannel. Annie McNeill, formerly a housekeeper for the prisoner, deposed to Beckman stating that he was going to “clear out” and go to Qieensland. The prosecution wa3 brought in respect of the L2OO as being the amount received for the furniture, which was the bankrupt’s.

Mr Skerrett asked, when the case for tho prosecution was closed, whether there was any case to answer. The indictment was brought under section 364 of the Act, which provided that if any person who has been adjudged a bankrupt, after the presentation of the petition, quits the Colony or attempts to quit it, taking with him property to the amount of L 25 or upward, ho is guilty of felony. It must be proved, however, first., that there was a valid bankruptcy petition ; and, second, adjudication upon that petition. Ho submitted that the petition produced was not a bankruptcy petition, and could not bo so, for it purported to be the petition of - Mr Castencyk and Mr Focke, and was only signed bp one. His Honor, having heard Mr Skerrett, said he did not think ho could stop tho case on that ground, but he would reserve the point. Mr Skerrett asked his Honor to direct the jury that the purchase money of the sale of the hotel and property was not the property of the bankrupt. Hi 3 Honor said that was'so. No evidence was called for the defence. Counsel for the defence having ad dressed the jury, and his Honor having summed up, the jury retired. After au absence of an hour they returned with a, verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. Wednesday, October 9. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) ALTERING AND UTTERING. Con Williams (who, under the name of Southee, was acquitted on Monday of a charge of altering and uttering an order for money) pleaded not guilty to a charge of having altered and uttered a cheque on the 26th of August. Mr Bell prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Skerrett was for the defence.

The evidence for the prosecution went to show that the prisoner got a cheque for L 4 8s 8d from Messrs Joseph and Phillips, of Dry River, cn the date named, and presented it to several tradesmen in Greytown as for Ll 4 8s Sd, eventually getting that amount from Mr R.

Thompson, storekeeper of that township. Payment of the cheque being refused, Mr Thompson, on meeting the prisoner at the Woodside station, subsequently demanded LilO from. him. The prisoner gave him L 9, and asked for the cheque to be given back to him, stating that he had not altered the figures, but that Mr Phillips must have made a mistake. This Mr Thompson refused to do. It was also sworn by John Donovan, a mate of the prisoner’s, that when they were riding away together Williams said his cheque could easily be altered from L 4 to Ll 4. No evidence was called for the defence. The jury, after about fifteen minutes’ deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of uttering the cheque knowing it to be forged, but acquitted him of making the alteration. The prisoner, in answer to the usual question, said all he had to say was that he had never done anything to the cheque. His Honor remarked that if Mr Thompson had exercised a little more care the prisoner would not -have got any benefit from the cheque. He sentenced the prisoner to .18 months’ hard labour in the Terrace gaol. THE CHARGES AGAINST ROBERT BURDEN. Robert Bullen (formerly an inspector in the police force) pleaded not guilty to a charge of having assaulted Austin Coombe on the 27th of July last. Mr Bell conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner was undefended. The evidence for the prosecution was similar to that given in the lower Court. Austin Coombe gave evidence as to the prisoner going to Mrs Mackinder’s honse in Taranaki-street, on the night of the 26th of July, where, in the course of a disturbance, the prisoner fired off a pistol. Next morning, when Coombe asked for an explanation, prisoner struck him, and, presenting a pistol at him, threatened “to blow his brains out,” saying “you’re the b that upset me last night.” Subsequently the prisoner apologised, saying that he mistook the witness for Mr Norbury. This evidence was corroborated by two other witnesses, and Constable O’Rorke deposed to finding a five-chambered revolver, of which four chambers were loaded, in the prisoner’s house.

The prisoner, electing to be sworn, gave evidence to the effect that he mistook Coombe for a man who interfered with him when he was going into Mrs Mackinder’s house on the previous evening. He took the revolver with him to use simply to avoid a breach of the peace. When he went to Mrs Mackinder’s house for certain articles which he claimed as his, he only took out the revolver (saying, ,£ This is what will stop you ”), but did not attempt to use it. It might have been an error of judgment for him to produce it, but ho did so with no' intention of using it, nor did he raise it. Ho denied that he struck Mr Coombe. He called an expressman named Dyons who was present at the time, and who corroborated the prisoner’s evidence as to the revolver being produced, but not raised. He also said that the prisoner made a blow at Coombe, but did not strike him ; and that the prisoner j did not threaten to blow Coombe’s brains out. Coombe, recalled, stated that the blow struck him in the mouth and brought blood. The prisoner briefly addressed the jury, saying that he could not explain matters further if he spoke for two hours. He again denied striking Coombe or presenting the revolver at him Inspector Thomson deposed to having known the prisoner for upward of 20 years, • and that he was much surprised to hear that he had presented a revolver at a maD. The Inspector also gave evidence as to Bullen’s good conduct in the police force, the esteem in which he was held in different districts, and his having received a special badge for saving life. By Mr Bell : The prisoner had of late been somewhat violent in his temper and manner. The prisoner : Do you think that; has been occasioned by disappointment in consequence of loss of office ? Inspector Thomson thought that was probable. Mr J. G. Fox, accountant and chief clerk in the police force, also deposed to the prisoner’s long service and good conduct in the force during the 27 years he was connected with it. Hia Honor, summing .up, directed the jury that a man might be justified in using necessary violence (but not to the extent of using a pistol) to recover his property from a person who refused to give up possession of it. When the jury had been out nearly an hour the foreman (Mr R. H. Cate) came into the Court and asked whether a threefourths verdict would be taken, there being no apparent prospect of the jury agreeing. His Honor said he could not take anything but a unanimous verdict. After further deliberation for about a quarter of an hour, the jury found the prisoner iot guilty. Mr Bejl, in answer to his Honor, said he did not propose to offer any evidence in the other charge against Bullen (that of forcible entry into the dwellinghouse of Elizabeth Birkett, otherwise krown as Mackinder). His Honor did not think any petty jury would convict upon it. With the consent of the prisoner the same jury was empanelled, and the prisoner was arraigned on the second charge. His Honor said lie had read the depositions, from which it was certain that there was some squabble between the

prisoner and a woman, the exact nature of which was not shown. Therefore he thought the Crown was right in not offering any evidence, and the jury would simply acquit the prisoner. The jury at once declared a verdict of not guilty. His Honor, addressing Bullen, expressed a hope that this inconvenience and, to a certain extent, disgrace, would have an impression upon him, and cause him to keep his temper under control. Bullen : I assure you, sir, it’s altogether a mistake. I was as cool then as I am now. I did it after thought and serious consideration. This woman is indebted to me His Honor said it was nob necessary to go into that. The prisoner was then discharged, and the Court rose.’ (PUB PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Christchurch, October 7.

Mr Justice Denniston, in charging the grand jury this morning, made extended reference to the changes in the law of evidence made last session, by which criminals may be examined on oath, and wives and husbands give evidence for each other. He also drew attention to the dangerous position in which judges are placed by the Acts coming into force the very moment they receive the Governor’s assent at Wellington. It might lead to most awkward results, and it was advisable that a certain lapse of time should be allowed so that, it might be physically possible for the Judge to know the law he was administering. Referring to the Criminal Evidence Act, he said by that Act in the first place the last remnant of a system which had made certain witnesses incompetent had been swept away. Wives will be competent witnesses for their husbands, and husbands for their wives, in criminal cases, as they have long been in civil cases. They are still, on natural consideration, not witnesses against each other. “I cannot,” said he “but think the Act has removed in this respect an anomaly in the law of evidence under which serious injustice must have occurred. The Act further provides that a person on trial for a criminal offence may tender himself in evidence, and may bo examined and cross-examined on oath. This is a very important innovation in existing practice, and the results of the experiment will doubtless be watched with interest, not only in this Colony but in other parts of the Empire. In connection with this Act there is a point to which I should, through you, draw the public attention. As you may be aware, an Act comes into force, unless itself contains some provision to the contrary, on the day it receives the Governor’s assent. That i 3 the instant it . becomes an Act. This Act was assented to on the 16th September. Now it so happens t.hat on that day I was holding a criminal sitting of this Court in Hokitika. I was, therefore, supposed to be administering this Act at a time when I did not, and could not, know of its existence as an Act, much less of its provisions. Had anyone then, being tried, been undefended by counsel, it would have been my duty to have read to him a formula contained im. Iho net, and given him the option of giving his evidence . on oath. Fortunately there was no conviction, or a very serious difficulty would have existed, and it may have had an awkward consequence in all the Justices of the Peace Courts in the Colony. A similar anomaly exists in connection with another Act of the same session. By the Offences Against the Person Act, 1889, an important alteration has been made in the law raising the age of consent in certain crimes. This Act also came into operation the very day it became law in Wellington. Now it is a legal presumption that everyone knows the law and that ignorance of the law does not excuse its breach. A man there fore might be convicted for doing something which, however immoral, he could not have known to be a crime when he did it. I think it is not too much to ask that when important changes are made in the administration of the criminal law and the crimes created by statute such Acts should not come into operation until after such lapse of time as would make it at least physically possible that those who have to administer the law, and those who may be punished for breaking it, should know of their existence. I think myself justified, gentlemen, 'as one called on to administer criminal law in this Colony, to take this, the only formal occasion open to me, to publicly draw attention to these considerations.” James Stewart, alias David Grey, for two charges of forgery aud uttering, was sentenced to four years ; Charles Villary Parker, for a similar offence on five charges, nine months ; Joseph Earnshaw, for horse stealing, nine months ; Mark Bayliss, false pretences (two cases), two years ; Denis Murphy, alias Patrick Shine, unlawfully wounding, six months ; Edmond Reynolds, larceny, five years ; Walter Ullmer, breaking into and stealing, two years ; W. Milligan, convicted of larceny, sentenced deferred till tomorrow. Christchurch, October 8. The criminal sittings were continued, to day. Minnie Brown and Annie Cassidy, for larceny from the person, were sentenced to six and three months respectively. John Martin and Henry Sorry, for conspiracy at Lyttelton by

means of the three-card trick, three months 5 William Milligan, for larceny of a cheque, Was discharged on probation ; Robert McCreadyj for cutting and wounding his paratfiouiq Annie Rielly, Was acquitted; . Christchurch, October 9. The criminal sessions were continued to-day, the case against Harry E. Stirling occupying the Court throughout. The prisoner was convicted, but sentence was postponed until the Court of Appeal decided aS to the admissibility of certain questions piit to the vltnesses by the Crown Prosecutor. 'She cates against Abbotsford, for ill-treating Esther Povvditch, is to be heard to-morrow. Dunedin, October 7. Daniel Ross pleaded guilty to several charges of pawning watches left for him to repair, and was sentenced to twelve months* imprisonment. Mary Smith pleaded guilty to larceny of jewellery and Harry Thomson to larceny from a dwell* ing ; sentence in each case was deferred, until to-inorrow to enable the Probation Officer to report. Thomas Henry Richards pleaded guilty to having gone out of the Colony leaving his wife without adequate means of support, The accused had eloped to Tasmania with A girl, and as he is a master mariner, and if he followed his occupation the police would havg a difficulty in keeping an eye upon him, the Judge put off, dealing with the case until to-morrow. William Robert Waite was sentenced to six months for larceny from a railway siding, and Samuel Fraser to four years for housebreaking. The charge of .perjury against George Wallace was only partly heard when the Court adjourned. After this is disposed of there are only the cases against Waugh, late Post-office clerk, of larceny. Dunedin, October 8.

At the Supreme Court Harry Thomson, who was convicted of larceny, was sentenced to six mouths. Thomas Henry Richards was placed under probation on condition of his supporting his wife and family. Thomas Easton Waugh was found guilty of embezzling post-office funds, and sentence was deferred. Dunedin, October 9. The criminal sessions are concluded. George Wallace, for perjury, received two years, and Thomas Ernest Waugh, for embezzlement, 12 months.