SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7444, 19 May 1911, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS ■ TWO PRISONERS ON TRIAL. Ilis Honor Mr Justice Chapman presided at the criminal sittings of the Supremo Court yesterday, in the absence of the Chief Justice, who was attending a meeting ox the Prisons Board. ; TIIF.PT OR MISTAKE? ' A JURY’S DIFFICULTY. An. intelligent-looking yoring man named Arthur Gifford St. Clair Isbister was charged with having stolen a. heifer worth 10s, and a mare said to no worth ,£23. ■ > ■ Hr T. Reave appeared for the Crown. Prisoner was not represented by conusel. , ■ . „ Isbister took over a lease of a farm at Lower Ilutt from one Timothy Toomey,' who at the time the exchange was made had twenty or thirty head of cattle'and some horses running on the place. " Toomey took all his animals away except two or three. Subsequently It was discovered that the prisoner had' sold a black and white heifer at Ngahauranga for 15s. This beast Toomey identified as his own. On behalf ox prisoner it was stated that Isbister sent a heifer to Toomey after taking the place over, but Toomey returned it, after some throe months, saying that it was not his property. The animal which prisoner sold had been missed in mustering, but Toomey was certain that it belonged to him. It was suggested that prisoner might have made a mistake. Concerning tho theft of the marc it was alleged that a man named Burton sent his mare to graze" on prisoner’s ■ farm, and prisoner, without proper authority from him, sold the more to one Hancock at the Hntt. Prisoner "had authority of a sort to sell for A'23, but it was suggested that he obtained the authority by fraud, and it was a fact that ho sold the horse for .£l2 a day or two afterwards. After an absence' of about an hour tine jury returned to tho court, and the foreman communicated to his Honor the position of things. They were agreed that prisoner was not guilty ox the theft of the heifer, but there was no chance of their agreeing as to the other charge. His Honor Informed them that they would have to consider the matter further, as ho had no power to discharge them. . After the full four hours’ retirement the jury returned with the verdict,of not guilty as to the count relative to the ■theft of the heifer, but they had not been able to agree on the second count. Ilis Honor ordered a new trial on the second charge. • INDECENT ASSAULT. An elderly’ man named William Earning was charged that on February Bth, at Wellington, ho indecently assaulted a, girl of the age of five years. Tb“ case was heard with closed doors. Mr T. Neave conducted the prosecution and Mr T. M. Wilford the defence. Mr Wilford intimated at tho outset that he would ask no questions of Crown .witnesses, that he was willing even that the depositions as taken in tho .Lower Court 'be read to the jury. He intended t<> put his client, a man sixty-five yeai’s of age. In the box to say that at the time of tho alleged offence ho was in such a states as to bo mentally irresponsible for anything evil, that he might possibly have done. .He (Mr Wil,oi\i) proposed then to argue thxit prisoner was in such a state that his will or .mind could not be said ; to be directed tc the deed, and that, following a iudgment of Mr Justice Day. if prisoner was in such a state as not to know the nature of his act, or not to know its wrongfulness, his act would be excusable. The prisoner, evidently a well-educat-ed man, went into the box and told his 'story. It was merely that hq had been drinking for several days,, and that he bad not the slightest knowledge or recollection of the affair. It may be explained that the offence was committed m a public street, and at X o’clock in tho afternoon, in full view of several people. The jury s verdict was one of guilty with a recommendation to mercy on tho ground of the prisoner’s age and previous good , career. Prisoner was remanded for sentence until Saturday morning at 9.30.