SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 153, 13 May 1862, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

THIRD DAY.—Ma^-lOth, 1862. Before His Honor, Judge Gresson. STABBING. Joseph Wecldon was indicted for stabbing John Andrew Johnson, at Dunedin, on 27th February, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Howorth prosecuted ; Mr. Soxith defended the prisoner. John Andrew Johnson deposed he was <i ship carpenter by trade, had known the prisoner .about- nine months. Remembered meeting the prisoner about the 27bti February; had met him at tlm Provincial Hotel pie nighc before. Prisoner agreed that lie was to so in partnership in fishing with him. Next day he sold a b >nt-luad of fish for llie prisoner; was in company w.jh the prisoner at noon the same day, and hxti' souijj drink together at various placpg. Had an a'fgu : men t. about stop-rigging, and told prisoner he kjiew nothing about it. Prisoner pot vexed and began tfl use bad language, and witness made a retort to the effect that lie (prisoner) was ad— d slucer. All then left the hotel together, and'when they were abreastof tlie Arcade prisoner slewed round, took a olasp knifo out of his pocket, opened it, wiped the blade with hisfinsjer, and struck liim (witness) with it, on the right shoulder. Thought the knife produced. Was the same as prisoner stabbed him with. . Witness then asked prisoner, "what he liad done that for V' but prisoner made no reply. Cross-examined by Air South : Sa^ the prisoner on shora about half-past 0 or 7 on the morning- of the 00-' currence ; paid prisoner the money for the flsh about 7 o'clock ; then wont and had a drink with prisoner at the Provincial Hotel. At thnt time they only had one t&l-u of gin. Then went and had some breakfast together; as they were .tyoing to the coffee shop, prisoner gave 'liim live shillings out of his pocket, saying it would make his (witness's) mind better. "\Vit : ness had been hard up. Were on the most friendly terms together. Prisoner took him as a partner in the fishing without any payment on his part. After breakfast prisoner and he separated, and met agajp about ten o'clock. Had had no more drink up tp that time. Prisoner then'asked him tP go up ana have' a glass. They went to tho Provincial Hotel again and had one glass each. After ho (witness) had been down to the boat again, they again went to the Provincial J3ar nnd hod two glasses each. There was a third party drank with them, but he was unknown to witness. Can't recollect having more than two glasses each at that time. After leaving the Provincial they went to another hotel, and had another glass each. This was about 11 o'clock. Prisoner was drinking heavily that meming. Did not set the prisoner cutting tobacco that morning; he was smoking. Witness then repeated his previous evidence as to the stabbing. Prisoner used very bad language before the witness made use of the offensive expression towards him. By Mr. Howorth : AVas before the Magistrate at 2 o'clock the same day. Was very weak when examined.

Dr. Hulmc, Provincial Surgeon, .gave testimony as to the nature and extent of the wound inflicted upon. Johnson. Considered the, wound a dangerous one. The prosecutor was a month in. the Hospital. He had lost a great ilcal of blood. . '■ "*■ ' George Gaynor, Police Constable, deposed to his bavin's arrested the prisoner,'and_ the prisoner saying he d'd not care a Un for having stabbed the prosecut jr. Prisoner was rather drunk at .the time he tfas arrested. "■ • * Michael O'Keefe, Police Constable, .gave fi:rtlit^|B^B| evidence in connection with prisoner's {""rest, and ot " having found the knife (produced) upon the persun of the prisoner. ' ' •' ' Mr. South addressed the jury for the defence, disclaiming there bad been any malicious -intent on the part of the prisoner, who- had behaved kindly to the prosecutor and assisted him. The learned gentleman argued that the prisoner had been unaccountable'fcr his action at tlie time of committing the offence.' 'His Honor, in summingup the c&sc, laid down to the jury that drunkenness was no excuse for crime. Tne jury found a verdict of Guilty.

The prisoner was senteneed'to twelve months' ituferisoninent with hard labor, computed from' 28th Slareh* ■William Shepherd Stanton was indicted for stealing1 three paiis blankets, one coat, o»n pair bouts. »nd ore tuning weighing uincliine, the property of Henry Law, on the -2Uih January. Prisoner pleaded Sot (jniliy. I Mr. lloldworlh prosecuted; Mr. South defended the prisoner. • . | It tippunreil that the prisoner had been in the employment of tiie pro&eeutor, on the gold fieWs. borne arrears of wnscs were due from the prosecutor to the pri&oner, which the prosecutor was unable to pay, , nnd the prisoner was allowed by the tacit consent of ■ the prosecutor to take certain articles, nut included in ■the indictment, and the prisoner had taken the'additional, articles, for stealing which lie was now ° Henry Lnw deposed, that he kopt a restaurant at Tuapeka. The prisoner had been in his employ at £4 a week ; ha had also worked overtime for him, inn king ginger-beer, for which he mas to receive extra pay. At the time of the alleged stealing, the prosecutor was owing prisoner arrears of pay—about £8 5s Prosecutor had been absent some days, from his store, and on his return he found the prisoner had shut up the store and gone away. Witness went to prisoner's house, and while there prisoner gave him what money he had received during his absence, also the key of the store. Witness saw there seven pair of blankets, and on asking prisoner respecting, them, prisoner stated that he had bought six pair at Wetherstone's Gully, but would not account lor the other pair. Witness then took out a warrant against the prisoner. He mentioned to the prisoner that a pair of boots was missing; did not then know about the steelyards, ns he had not then been to his own premises ; he had seen the missing coat upon the pri-: goner's parson ; had never given prisoner permission to take any of the property. Cross-examined by Mr. South : When he first saw the coat on the prisoner, he (prisoner) told him he had only put it on him because his own coat was w«t, and he intended to return it. Had never agreed ■he was to receive goods in payment for making ginger beer. Could swear that the steelyards produced were not given to him in payment. Saw prisoner in; Wetherstone's Gully the day he had left his employ. Prisoner gave hint an account of the money he had_ received on witness's premises during his absence. "Prisoner gave him a written account of a number of platess, knives, and forks, and some cups and saucers' he had taken away. -■• By the Court: Was positive there had been no agreement respecting the articles the prisoner is charged with .stealing. Made no objection to the prisoner keeping/die cups and saucers. Detective Johnston* deposed to having arrested the prisoner, aud charged him with stealing seven pairs blankets, one pair boots, a coat and other articles; asked tjje prisoner at that time if he had any articles the property of the last witness; he replied he had •not. Witness theii searched his premises, and on a Bed he found theblunkets produced, which prisoner stated were his own property. On making further search he found, in the front room of the store, the -steelyards produced, which prisoner also claimed as his own property. He stated that he had taken the • blanket from Law, who owed him a certain amount of woges. ■• ■ , • Mr South addressed the jury for the defence, and urged that, although irregular aud wioiifj in point of law,. there had been no dishonest intention on the part of prisoner, but there had been in a measure a sort of -negotiation between the parties. The learned gentle-, man was about to ask the Court to allow the prisoner: to make a statement, but on the opposition of the prosecution, his Honor ruled that the prisoner being in the.hands of his counsel, could not be permitted, in'■• additiou, to make a statement.* The learned t counsel then told the jury that he would produce the .testimony of a' respectable resident in Jhinedin, in whose employ the prisoner had previously been, as to the good character of the prisoner. ;■■ On the name of this witness being called he did ,jjot appear, althoueh Mr. South stated that he had pjpressed'tiis intention of appearing to speak to the prisoner's character ; "His Honor then summed up the ease, and pointed .out to the jury, that to support the charge against ;the prisoner, they must be clearly of opinion that at ■ the time of taking the goods, he did so with the felonious intent, as laid in the indictment. If, how-1 ever, wrong in a legal sense, the condnct of the prisoner had been, if they did not believe that he took the goods with a felonious intention, the inditement would not be proved against the prisoner. The jury then retired to consider.their verdict, and after some time returned and found a- verdict of 'fjuilty/but strongly recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the Court. On his Honor inquiring what were the grounds of the recommendation, the jury stated for the reason, that the prisoner had acted, through ignorance, and without the intention oi steal-

ing. ■'''■'■ ' '"" ■ His Honor pointed out to the jury that suoh a verdict was tantamount to an acquittal. His Honor again'laid down the law of the Case," and desired the jury to reconsider their verdict. .'......' The jury retired' accordingly, but as they renlained a cpnsiaerable tiiiie in their room (near an hour) his P'pnor rightly suspected they were iii some difficulty find hot yet properly understand the Bearings Sj the case; he accordingly sent for tliem'and a?ain explained the points to them. They retired and H»u short time returned fi verdict of guilty. {lis Honor in passiug sentence, expregped an- opinjon that there had been some confusion jn the prisoner's mind as to his rj; ; ht of takjng the goods, md would accordingly pass a light sentence. His Honor then sentenced the prisoner to three months' • imprisonment, computed from 25th February. The Court then adjourned until Monday (this day) at 10 o'clock.