SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2529, 7 June 1895, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. The Chief Justice tool: his sent upon the Bench at 10 o’clock yesterday morning. SENTENCES. Michael Knight, who had pleaded guilty the previous day of having obtained money by means of false pretences, was placed in the dock for sentence. Mr IVilford applied for the admission of the prisoner to probation. Ho was the son of a respectable and well-to-do settlor in one of the outer districts of Wellington. Tho learned gentleman was proceeding at some length to discuss what ho took to be the principles of tho Act and tho purposes it was intended to subserve, when

His Honor, interrupting him, said ho was not prepared to listen to a disquisition upon the Act. Tho t.imo of tho Court was too valuable. The learned counsel must confine himself to reasons in support of his application. Mr Wilford then called Acting-Detect ive burnt ley, who, in reply to questions, stated ho had known tho prisoner for some time. He wars an associate of thieves ami spielers, although ho could not say the prisoner was himself a spieler or thief. His Honor, in passing sentence, said that tho prisoner, as well as Parsons, who had also pleaded guilty to the same charge, were both the sous of very respectable people, and ho dared say it was a matter of groat pain and trouble to their relations that those young men bad not chosen to avail themselves of tho great advantages they had had. They had taken a different course. Ho could not allow tho prisoner to have probation, as ho did not think ho was, one whom tho Legislature intended to have tho benefit of probation. He could not malm any difference between Knight and his companion Parsons. Tho sentence of tho Court would therefore bo four months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Ho lightened tho punishment for tho same reason as was assigned in Parsons’ case : that tho prisoner is young, that tho offence was■ false pretences and not actual stealing', housebreaking, or tilings of that sort ; that ho has friends who, llis Honor hopod uni believed, would make an effort to reclaim him,'and that ho had shown contrition hy pleading guilty. Frederick Maryolt, convicted of tho thoft of jewellery from tho Masonic Hotel, Wellington, also camo up for sentence. His Honor said tho jury had recommended tho prisoner to mercy on account of his age. Well, his ago wars 20years. Ho could not admit tho prisoner to probation ; ho had already boon convicted. His case, thorofrru, did not como within tho letter, aud ilia Honor did not think it camo either within tho spirit of tho Act. Tho prisoner was then sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, j THE FAJKAKAEIKI SHOOTING AFFAIR. Thos. Mclntosh was charged with having on tho Bth April last, at Paikakariki, attempted to murder Mutu Aporahuma, a young Maori man, hy shooting at him with a revolver. There was a second count of shooting with intent to wound and disable. Tho prisoner was defended by Mr Montoath (who was instructed by Mr Ward, of Otaki). Tho Ovidenoa in this oaso for the prosecution was fully reported at the time tho accused was before tho lower Court. On the evening of the Bth April, Mutu Aporahama was at Paikakariki awaiting the arrival of some friends by tho 7.30 train. On tho arrival of the.train, Aporahama met his friends, and they proceeded to Slight’s Hotel, whither Mclntosh, who was a railway guard, also repaired as soon as his duties on the train weio finished. One of tho Maoris offered to stand treat for him, and Mclntosh made some remark about not allowing a— — Maori to pay for him. which remark Aperahama resented, and an altercation followed. Nothing more serious-happened at that time. Later on .in tho evening, however, Aperahama went to prisoner’s house, knocked at the door, ,and proposed that they should shako hands, and drop put of mind tho quarrel at tho hotel. Tho prisoner declined to shako hands, and eventually began shooting at Aporahama, one bullet striking him on tho hoot and another wounding him on tho loft shoulder. Subsequently the accused appeared at Slight’s Hotel, whither Aporahama had been conveyed, expressed sorrow for what had happened, and offered -to sit up with tho Maori all night. Tho accused had then a wound over his right eye (which ho said had boon inflicted by the Maori), and some spots of blood on bis coat and sleeves. For tho defence Mr Menteath contended that accused was justified' in using the revolver, seeing that lie was attacked by Mutu, who was accompanied by another man, and that in shooting ho had no intention of injuring Mutu, ,but only of frightening him. The prisoner gave evidence that on tho night of the Bth April he partially undressed and lay on tho bed reading. At 11 o’clock he heard a loud knock at the door, and ho at once ran and opened it. Immediately after he received a blow on tho right eye, which knocked him down. He took tho revolver off the wall, and seeing two men ho called out, “ Who are you ? Clear out of my house or I’ll shoot you. He fired two shots over their heads to intimidate them. Mutu retreated a little way, and thinking they were going to got his axo ho wont towards the wood pile. Mutu took off his coat, and rushed him again and knocked him against tho house, saying he would do him out of his job the next day. Mutu followed him up, and in doing so came within tho lino of fire, but ho went away with his companion Thompson, without making any fuss and without saying anything about having . been shot. To Mr Gully: He could not suggest why Thompson should have como to his house to aid in attacking him. Ho never challenged Mutu to fight when at the hotel. The blow ho received from Mutu knocked him nearly the full length of the kitchen. He fired tho first two shots from tho inside of tho kitchen through the porch. -Mutu was inside tho porch, and he fired over his head. After that Mutu backed away, aud witness followed him, immediately after which Mutu rushed him, and used both hands on-him. Witness then fired one shot to the right of Mutu and another to tho left of him. Mutu then came at him again, and witness fired a fifth shot, which struck Mutu, who came into the line of fire. He did not intend to shoot Mutu, but merely to intimidate him. He did not fire a sixth shot. Elizabeth McTntosh,>ife of tho accused, stated that on tho night of the shooting she - found a -pocket-book belonging .to Mutu on the doorstop of her house. The jury, after a few minutes’absence, returned a verdict' of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. the Court, at 4-.30 p.ra., adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.