SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7222, 18 July 1884, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, July 7. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) GRAND JURY. The following gentlemenkomposed theJGrand Jury Messrs T. IC. Macdonald (foreman), Jas. Ames, W, J. Gandy, J. Gibbons, Jas. Lockie, F. C. Binns.H. Kember.W. F. Kitchen, S. S. Downes, H. J. L. Augarde, D. P. Blundell, Jno. Duncan, \V, France, A. E. ftowden, W. F. Burgess, H. M. Lyon, R. S. Ledger, W. Cable, E. S. Martin, W. Cock, and C, P, Vincent.

His Honor, ia charging the Grand Jury, said ;—Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Inquest, I am happy to tell you that the calendar on this occasion is not of a serious character. It is made up of charges of larceny and petty matters, for the most part; and there is a charge of perjury. Of course, when I speak of these offences as light I am speaking comparatively. There is but one charge of an unusual nature. It is for a breach of the Marriage Act, by a false declaration, and you are, no doubt, most of you aware that under this Act, one of the parties contracting marriage has to make a declaration as to among other things, the ages of the parties contracting that marriage. In this case it is charged that a false declaration was made as to the age of the woman, or, perhaps, I should call her the child, if what is suspected on behalf of theprosecution be true. The declaration is said to be also false in another particular—viz., in regard to the consent obtained to the marriage. I believe that charges will be brought not only against the man, who is said to have contracted marriage on this occasion, but also against a female, who held herself out—falsely, it is said—as the mother of the child. The statute makes these offences misdemeanors. I do not go into the particulars of the case, because, if what is stated be true, the case is one of a most disgraceful nature; but, of course, I cannot say that the charge, which will be brought before you by private parties, will be proved. In view, gentlemen, of the approaching session, there is one word I should like to say to you now, because I am justified in addressing you as representatives of Her Majesty’s subjects in this district. In my opinion some reform in the jury law is^ urgently necessary, and the necessity for it may become much more apparent some day than it is at present to the general public. In that great English-speaking nation, which is a model to us in so many things, and which in other things may be a warning to us, the state of the jury law has quite recently brought about very disastrous results. The right to challenge in America is even more extensive than in this country, and also more used than it is here. The recent riots in Cincinnati are, I believe, traceable to the state of the jury law ; and the disinclination of juries to convict on capital charges is another cause. The extent of right to challenge in America and the abuse it has led to, in my opinion, has led to most disastrous results. And I have frequently had occasion in this Court to comment on a similar, though very much less signal, use of our own law. In my opinion, the peremptory right of a prisoner to challenge to the extent of twelve is excessive, and, in my opinion—and it is only an opinion—it is continually used for the purpose of selecting as unintelligent a jurv as possible. I have frequently had occasion to say that, from a public point of view, this is a disastrous use of power, I cannot say that the prisoners’counsel who exercise this privilege are going beyond the line of their duty ; that is for them to consider rather than me. There is no means of preventing them. But, as the law stands, # I repeat that I am of opinion that, not only in this district, but every other where I have sat, the right to challenge is occasionally abused in a maimer which leads to frequent {allures of

justice. Especially docs it seem to mo that the policy of the Legislature in uniting grand a.’-d petty jury panels has been frustratedalmost 'bv thi- usage. T observe very commonly that gentlemen who are on the Grand Jury panel are s-lected for challenge whan their names are called on petty juries, and I attribute this to nothing else than the object I have mentioned —the deliberate intention, where there is no good defence, to elect as unintelligent a jury as possible ; sometime;* to leave on the jury some per.'on who has prejudged the case in favor of the prisoner. 1 mention the matter now because wo are speaking in a perfectly calm atmosphere. There is not the slightest apprehension that during the current sessions any of the cases are at all likely to give rise to such practices, and, therefore, it is a view to the future that I .speak to you, and in tho hope that, in some court or other, it may be thought desirable to take the subject up. There is one other matter I should like to refer to while I am speaking on the jury law, and that is, the necessity we are under of calling so many names for the Grand Jury. I must say to you who constantly attend here that that body is needlessly large ; but you are aware that as the law now stands we are required to call 23 names. In my opinion a jury of 12 or 13 would be amply sufficient, and a true bill might be found by a majority of throe-fourths of such a jury. The jury services press exceedingly hard on tho citizens of Wellington, and I am sorry that on this occasion we have had to call so many gentlemen on this business. However, gentlemen, I will not further detain you. The Grand Jury then retired, ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. A true bill was returned against Alfred Hawley, charged with attempted suicide. In answer to His Honor, the accused said he had no friends or relations in the colony. He (lid not know that he had threatened to repeat the attempt to take his life. His Honor: I shall discharge you on your own recognisance of LIOO to keep the peace towards Her Majesty’s subjects for twelve months. Ido not know what else to do with y °The prisoner was thereupon removed. LARCENY.

A true bill was returned against Robert McCarry, charged with larceny. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was undefended. Mr Bell appeared on behalf of the Crown for the prosecution. From the evidence taken, it appeared that on the Oth May last, a boy named Larson, on coming out of Mr Bell’s baker’s shop in Willia-street, saw accused leaning over tho counter with his hand in the till. In the till when Mrs Bell left the shop to go into the bade, there was some L 3 odd, and when she returned there not more than three or four shillings, McCarry made no statement, and the jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor intimated that sentence would be passed at 10 o’clock the following morning. HOUSEBREAKING. A true bill was returned against Harry Walters, alias “ Dutch Harry,” charged with housebreaking. Mr E, Shaw appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. The evidence indicated that the house entered was situated in Brougham-street, occupied by a Mr Bowden, whose brother also lived with him. The two brothers being absent all day, the house was locked up, and in order to guard against burglaries, a loaded gun was fixed to the door in such a way as to go off directly the door was opened. In May last accused entered tho house by the back window and proceeded as far as the door to which the gun was attached, when that weapon going off, ho immediately left the house. The evidence for the defence was to the effect that at the time the offence was said to have been committed, the accused was in Tasman-street. Testimony was also brought to contradict the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution as to tho clothes worn by the prisoner on the day of the alleged offence. , Counsel having addressed the Court, and his Honor having summed up, tho jury retired for a few minutes, returning with a verdict of Not guilty. Walters was thereupon discharged. „ The Court rose shortly after 4 o’clock, the Grand Jury having been adjourned earlier in the afternoon till 10 the following morning.

Tuesday, July 10. (Refora Hie Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) Tho Court sat at 10 o’clock, SENTENCE.

Robert McCarry, who had been found guilty of larceny the previous day, said, in answer to his Honor, he had nothing to say. i His Honor, in passing sentence upon tho prisoner, said that the sentence would be much lighter, seeing that the present was the prisoner’s first offence, than it otherwise would - have been. The sentence inflicted was one : year’s hard labor. The prisoner was then removed. REFUSING TO ASSIST THE POLICE. Albert Kemp, mate of the Hudson, was charged with refusing to assist a constable in the execution of his duty. The accused pleaded i not guilty, and was defended by Mr Fit/.- 1 Gerald, Mr Bell conducting the prosecution on behalf of the Crown. j This was a charge arising out of tho recent melee on the wharf, near the barque Hud- ( son, when Constable P. O’Farrell, being assaulted in the attempt to arrest two or three men, called upon tho accused, then chief ] officer of the barque, to assist him; this, however, Kemp declined to do, and hence the pre- < sent charge. The evidence was almost the ] same as that previously heard, no witnesses ] being called for tho defence. j Mr Fitz Gerald, in addressing the court, , alluded to the accounts of the matter which had appeared in the local Press^—accounts , apparently dictated by the police. He thought that such accounts as these, only displaying 1 one side of the question, were exceedingly un- 1 fair to the persons who were accused. In con- 1 nection with the actual offence, the counsel I alluded to the conflict of testimony between ] the various witnesses as to the manner in which the assistance had been asked for. , His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that it was clear from the evidence that an offence against the law had been committed. It was , quite enough if the jury were satisfied that a breach of the peace was being committed, and that the prisoner, when called upon, had refused to give assistance to the constable. Tho jury then retired, and in half-an-hour returned and asked whether the offence was punishable by fine or imprisonment. His Honor said the offence was a misdemeanor, and punishable either by fine or imprisonment, or both. The jury, however, hod nothing to do with the punishment, but simply had to consider whether or not the accused was guilty. The foreman explained that a knowledge of the punishment might help them to arrive at a verdict more expeditiously. His Honor remarked that it ought not to do so, and the jury, after a few minutes* deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, on account of the present being his first offence. The foreman of the jury added that the jury were of of opinion that the constable should have inquired for an officer before going ol The prisoner said he had no statement make beyond that he did not interfere to vent the constable being “ doused.” His Honor said the offence committed serious one, and it was absolutely necessary treat the case in such a way os to make it # deserving the severe censure of a court of justice. The sentence of the Court was that the defen dant forfeit L2O to Her Majesty forthwith, and, in default of payment, that he be imprisoned for ono calendar month, unless the ine be sooner paid. true bills. True bills were found against Thomas Clew, perjury; Alice Lynch, misdemeanor; and Charles H. M. Monkton, misdemeanor. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Thomas Archer was indicted on a charge of larceny as a bailee. Mr B. Shaw appeared for tbe prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. Shortly before 3 o’clock the jury returned a verdict of guilty, at the same time recommending the prisoner to mercy for the sake of his wife and children. The prisoner made a statement to the effect that he was drunk at the time of the conveyance, and being no scholar, had not really been aware of what he was doing. His Honor said that in view of the smallness of the amount, and the recommendation of the jury, he did not feel bound to beset the case with severity. The sentence would he that the prisoner be kept at hard labor for three calendar months. FALSE STATEMENT UNDER THE MARRIAGE ACT. Alice Lynch was indicted on a charge of committing a breach of the Marriage Act, 1880, by making a false declaration in regard to the age and parentage of Emma Mary Howell. The prisoner, who pleaded guilty, was represented by Mr Cutten. His Honor said he would giye judgment later in the afternoon. Charles Henry Monkton was then charged with a similar offence. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Cutten, pleaded not guilty. Mr E. Shaw conducted the prosecution. The evidence in this case was the same as that previously taken, with the exception that the woman Lynch was called, and deposed as to her marriage with Baxter and subsequently her life with him, and Baxter knew that she (witness) and Monkton were living as man and w ife—it was an understood thing. Baxter, in fact, was also living with them. To the best of her knowledge Monkton did not know that the girl Emma Mary was not witness daughter. Maggie Beckwith, sister to the girl who had been married to Monkton, was also examined, and was subjected to a severe crossexaniinationby Mr Cutten as to her present manner of living. William Stuart Baxter deposed that he was the husband of the woman known as Alice Lynch. Emma Howell, sister of his wife, was living with them at Wanganui. ■ When Monkton first came to witness’ house, Alice Lynch introduced Emma as her sister, i adding that as the girl's mother was dead they i had adopted her. Emma never passed as witness’ or his wife’s daughter, nor did he ever say • that she was his daughter. In cross-examina- ■ tion he admitted that the girl had been known I as Miss Baxter when she took music lessons. 1 At the conclusion of the ease for the proser cution, Hr Shaw put into Court documentary • evidence of the registration of the girl, showing ■ that she was at the time of marriage twelve 3 and a-halt years of age. Mr Gotten, for the 2 defence, did not call any witnesses. i Mr Shaw having addressed the Court, Mr £ Cutten pointed out that the prosecution was

a private one, and therefore to lie regard*’* with a certain amount of suspicion. In rogan uo the girl's appearance, he contended that n< one would take her at the present time to b loss than 17 «r 13. The witness were al such as were likely to be biassed, and shouk be regarded with great caution. His Hmmr having summed up at considerable length, tin jury retired, and after a few minutes’ delibera thm, returned a verdict of guilty, and HiHonor directed that the prisoner •- Lynch an> Monkton should be brought up f »r sentence if U) the following morning.

Wednesday, July 0. (Before Mr Justice Richmond), The Court remaned at 10 a.m. SENTENCE.

Hi? Honor pa-nod sentence upon the prD uier Charles Monkton. He said; Charles Mmktou, the scandal which your trial has exposed to view is one which must make even a hardened .profligate blush to have occasioned. At the present moment you are justly Urn object of public contempt and disgust. The act of which you have been found guilty may in Home oases be almost a venal offence, but you stand convicted of having made a lying declaration to advance a vile purpose. I call it a vile purpose, because marriage under the circumstances was nothing less than a disgusting kind of prostitution. Tho institution of mar/iage is the corner stone of society, and you have vilified and degraded it in a manner almost unheard of. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Wellington for two years, I feel justified i-.i taking notice of the special circumstances of the case. SENTENCE. His Honor, in pacing sentence on the woman Lynch, who hud pleaded guilty to a charge of committing a breach of the Marriage Act, said :—“Alien Lynch, I have conaidered your case with a view to seeing whether I ought to make any difference between your punishment ond that of the man who was your associate in the offence, I think there is sonic ground for making a difference in your favor, although I do not think it ought to hs a great one. I think you acted, to a certain extent, under the Influence of the man—that we have on the evidence of the girl herself in the court below • but I do not think that ou that account the difference in your favor should be a great one. It ia certainly a matter of opinion whether you were not as bad as be ; for you owed a duty to the child which he did not, and you grossly betrayed that trust. 1 do not wish to aggravate the shame of your position, and I may therefore tell you at once that the sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for eighteen calendar months.” The prisoner was then removed.