Thursday, 2nd June. His Honor took his seat at ten o'clock. THE INTENDED PRIZE FIGHT.

Otago Witness, Issue 653, 4 June 1864, Page 10

Thursday, 2nd June. His Honor took his seat at ten o'clock. THE INTENDED PRIZE FIGHT.

John H. Dufty and Richard Hill were "brought up in custody.

Articles of the peace, sworn by Detective Farrell, were read, setting forth the circumstances under which the men were apprehended, and which were published at the time. The Crown Prosecutor said that the men had been in prison for two months through rot being able to Snd bail, and they would probably be unable to find it now. Bat the public ought to be guaranteed that no further attempt to commit such an outrage as a prize fight would be made in this Province. It was entirely for his Honor to decide whether the men's own recognisances would be sufficient.

His Honor : Well, my m9n, I think you must see, now, that this sort of thing won't pay— that's the best way of patting it to you ; and when you see that it won't pay, I feel certain that you will drop it. I require you to enter into your own recognisances in LIOO each to keep the peace towards each other and the public for twelve months. Do that, and you will be discharged. But mind, you will suffer smartly if you go attempting to fight again.

THE BEARDED IiADY'B GONG.

His Honor said he had read the depositions in the case of George Mackie, charged with stealing a gong (at Queenstown). On the depositions, the case was certainly a weak one. What did Mr Howorth say about going on with it 1 The Crown Prosecutor said there was good reason for believing that the man accidentally lost the gong. He was not inclined to go on with tbe prosecution.

His Honor said that if there was no more than appeared oa ths depositions— and especially if what there was additional wentMn the man's favor— it was clear there could be no conviction. He thought Mr Howorth exercised a wise discretion in not going oa with the case. He hw the man was out on bail, and he neei not be called. The witnesses could be relieved from attendance.

CHARGE OF FBLOHIOUSI.7. WOUNDING A WIFE,

Charles Crawford (53) was indicted for having on the 28th February, feloniously wounded Elizabeth Crawford, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. The Crown Prosecutor said that the prisoner had, when arraigned, confessed to an assault, and he understood the prisoner was now ready to plead guilty to the minor charge of maliciously wounding. He (Mr Howorth) was not inclined to press the charge of felony, especially consider' ing that the person assaulted was the prisoner's wife, and conviction of feloay would involve the forfeiture of property, to the great injury of the wife and family. His Honor explained to the prisoner the difference between the charge in the indictment and that to which he was now offered the chance of pleading Guilty ; but the prisoner simply repeated ♦' I acknowledge I struck her, but I did not intend it." Again His Honor explained, adding that he was bound to say, having gone through the deposition, that there appeared to be evidence to substantiate the charge of feloDy. Did the prisoner plead guilty to the charge of wilfully and maliciously wounding.— The PriBoner : No, Sir, I can't admit it. I can only stick to the truth.— His Honor : Then the trial must proceed.

It appeared from the evidence, that on the evening of Sunday, the 28th February, Mrs Crawford was on her way home to Tomahawk Valley, and was overtaken, by the prisoner somewhere near Anderson's Bay. According to Mrs Crawford she simply asVed him where he had been, and after she had gone a short distance he struck her with his fist on the right temple. She remembered one or two other blows, but after them she became insensible. She was next ween staggering towards the house of Robert Francis Duckworth, a settler. Her face was covered with blood, her hat wa3 tarn, and her hair was hanging loosely. Duckworth took her in, and while he was washing the blood from her face, she fainted. Mr Hardy, surgeon, was fetched, and Mrs Crawford remained under his care, and in Duckworth's house, 1 for very nearly five_ weeks. Mr Hardy stated that he found various contusions on the head and body of the woman, and over the right eye, there was a cut about an inch and a half long. The wound was jagged and was caused by some blunt instrument —it might have been a stick or a boot. To a young person the injuries would aot have been dangerous ; but their eff icfc upon Mrs Crawford, in her debilitated state, was to put her life in, danger. Mounted-constable Bevan and Hergeant Barrett proved that when the prisoner was apprehended, he said his wife wanted to hang him, and he would yet give her ft knock that would do for her. , He had evidently been drinking, bnt was not drunk at the time— two o'clock on the morning after the assault. The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he had been drinking, and for a whole day he had kept out of the way of his wife, lest he should become aggravated. Unfortunately he overtook her ; and he had no more to say.' The jury found the prisoner Guilty of wilfully and maliciously wounding. His Honor said he rejoiced that the jury found it consistent with their duty not to convict of the felony, considering .the effect; that would have followed to the wife whom the prisoner had so brutally assaulted. The punishment of the prisoner would be' light as compared with that for the felony ; bat still it must be substantial. The ' sentence .was, that the prisoner be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for 12 months.' The labor would be tempered by the Gaol authorities, to meet (he weak bodily condition of the prisoner. BTHALIHO NOTBB.

John Casey, (on bail) was indicted for having oa the 26th March, stolen from Edward Rose

three LI notes. Mr O'Longhlin appeared f«rthe defence. The prosecutor is a miner in Peg-leg Gully, Hill's Diggings, four miles from Dunstan Greek. Late on the evening of the 26th March, be an* some mates got into the Wunstan Creek townl ship, and went into Hildebrand's Golden Age Hotel. It was clear from his own account that ~ he was drunk, and he could give no definite acoount of what money he had m his possessiOßat the time.

Matthew Cellem, detective constable stated z,Myself and Detective Kowley got into the township about ten o'clock on the night of the 26th March, and went to Hildebrand's where we meant to stay for the night. The prisoner was playing cards. Rowley and myself went up tbe township and saw the prosecutor and his mate drinking in several places. We got back to Hildebrand's between eleven and twelve o'clock. The prosecutor, the prisoner, and others 1 , were standing at the bar shaking dice; and tbe - prisoner was hanging over the prosecutor in a suspicious way. We stood watching him. The - prisoner knew me well, and came up and said, " Hallo ! Cellem, won't you make one :" I tossed in for drinks round— six or seven; I think. After that, I went into a small room behind the - bar. A few minutes later, when I was coming; out, I met Rowley and the prisoner just at the door. Rowley said, " Just step thia way ;" and wheu the winner was in the little room, Rowleysaid, '* Where's the money you stole from that man V The prisoner asked, " What man 1 ?" and * Rowley added, " Oh ! I kcow, here it is," and be took from the prisoner's coat pocket a roll of ' three £1 notes. The prosecutor was called ins and asked if he had lost anything ; and after he had examined his purse, he said he waa three or four pounds short. By Mr O'Loughlin ; The prisoner was a carter. - I knew nothing against his character before this, but I suspected him of some little matters. They did not relate to harness. He did complain to me about some harness lost by a friend of bisv He never charged me witn neglect of duty in that matter, until after he had been committed for ~ trial on this charge. He has often spoken-to me about it— chaffed me, 1 mean. The Crown Prosecutor said that thia was tbe case. Mr O'Loughlin submitted that there was really • no rase. Where was Rowley] The Crown Prosecutor: He is not here. His Honor : Then he ought to have been. The Crown Prosecutor : I did not know, yonr Honor, that Rowley was absent, until after the - case had been called on. • His Honor said there must be inquiry into the matter. Two detectives appeared before tbe Magistrate and testified against the prisoner--One of them swore that he saw the prisoner take something from the prosecutor's pocket; and yet that officer was not called. He (the Judge) > agreed with Mr O'Loughlin that it was a veryweak case. Did Mr O'Loughlin think it worthwhile to address the jury ? Mr O'Loughlin : I think not, after what your Honor has said. His Honor said he was very much astonishedat the case being presented in such a state. Here was a prosecutor, who was in such a state of drunkenness that he could not give any intellible account of the money he had : and yet the jury were asked to believe the prisoner to/be** thief, because a man in such a state said, that he was three pounds short. The absence of Rowley was unaccountable ; and it must be inquired into by those responsible for police management. The prisoner appeared to be a man following at regular occupation. There was nothing against him except a detective's suspicion. Well, it was the duty of detectives to suspect— they suspected - everybody; rand there had been words between the prisoner .and, Cellem. That officer said that -^ the prisoner did not complain of bis want of due diligence in another matter until after committal, bat he admitted the prisoner had' I chaffed him. * But chaff meant some sort of' complaint or. contempt; and a man might feel a thing more keenly, after he found himself committed for trial, under such circumstances. Mr O'Loughlin wished to mention that the prisoner had been for five years a Warder at- | Pentridge, and bore a most excellent character.

His Honor : That is not evidence, and it isscarcely necessary for you to call any witnesses to prove what you say. The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty. His Honor : John Casey, you are discharged. There has been no distinct charge made out against you at all.

aguiiißv yvu at au, OBTAINING MONET BY A FALSE PRETSNOE. Charles Samuel Ollis (23) was indisted for - obtaining money by a false pretence. Up to the 16th. March last, the prisoner was »■ shipping clerk in the employment of Dalgety, Rattray and Co., but he was then discharged. On the Ist April, he was at Port Chalmers and, dined there, in company with members of thefirm of Mallach, Kennedy and Co. Mr James Mallseh put to Mr Morton, one of his partners, the question, " Who is that 1 ?" meaning the prisoner, and the reply was, " Shipping clerk to Dalgety, Rattray ;" but Mr Mallach stated to the jury that he believed this did not pass in the presence of the prisoner, or so that he could have heard it. SubsequentlyMr Kennedy asked the prisoner to take charge of LBft and deliver it to Messrs* . Dalgety, Rattray and Co. The prisoner consented, received 80 sovereigns, and' gave a receipt as for Dalgety, Rattray and Go, for LBO, "to be remitted to Potter, Wilson and Co. on account of Capt. Wilkie, ship Aboukir." This receipt was produced ; and Andrew Kerr proved that it was in the prisoner's handwriting, and that the prisoner was paid off from Dalgety, Rattray and Co, Mr Mallach in giving his evidence, said ' that had it not been for a letter which he received front the prisoner, at the Bluff, and which:*, contained an enclosure whioh he delivered to Dalgety, Rattray and Co. he shonld not, until hereceived advices from home, have known or suspected that the money had not been paid to* Dalgety, Rattray and Co. and been duly forfarded home. His partner, Mr Kennedy; had gone to the Fiji Islands. There was no evidenceas to the writing of the letter, and It was therefore not produced. A statement made by the prisoner, when before- - the resident Magistrate at Fort Chalmers, waa pat in and read. , The Prisoner, in hw defence, said the statement read was true. He never, by word or by act, or by his silence, made the pretence or encouraged the belief that he was in the employment of Dalgety, Rattray and Co. The money was voluntarily offered by Mr Kennedy ; and no- - one else could prove that he (the prisoner) received it or that he gave a reoeipt But he fully/ - admitted that he did receive the money, and he? -

-Intended at tbat time to hand it over to Dalgety, fiattray and Co. He wrote to Mr Mallach, from Hie Bluff, stating the unfortunate position in which he had placed himself, and requesting Mr Xallach to draw a cheque upon his (the prisoner's) father in "Victoria, which cheque would Ikave been honored. He cojld* only hope the jury would look leniently upon the case. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty ; and 4he Judge passed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, with hard labor. CHARGE OP BIGAMY. Caroline Beavis, or Launder, wa3 indicted for bigamy. Mr Barton appeared for the prisoner, *rho, on being called to plead said. " I admit to liaving married one Walter Alfred Crouch, knowing there was no other to claim me " The Crown Pro>ecutor, after commenting upon ihe nature of the evidence it was intended to ' «ffer 'in proof of the first marriage, stated the facts shortly :— Up to the 23rd March, the pii»neir was living on M'Phereon's Flat, with John Laun4er, to whom she was married in England, in 1863. On the day named, Launder left home •for Dunedin. with his dray ; and he did not re- • torn for eight days. The store, which had been feft in charge of Walter Alfred Crouch was found closed np, and, he, Mrs Launder, and the servant ml had departed. They wera found at Wa&ouaiti, where the prisoner had mairied Cromch, and she was apprehended on this charge Mr Howorth proposed to put in a certificate^ purporting to ba an examined copy from the register of marriages at the church of '* the parish pf Portsea, in the county of Southampton," showing a marriage on the 23rd August, 1853, Iwtween John Launder and Caroline Beavis. It •was signed "% . Amos, curate." Mr Barton submitted that the document was not admissible. For the purpose of the prosecution it must be a«sumed that they were now in Westminster Hall ; and as the document would not be admissible there, it was not admissible tere. What was required was a sealed copy of an -extract from the registrar's book. his Honor thought the document was admissible under 14 and 15 Viet, c. 99, s. 14. That Act Aad been adopted in the colony and was part of its law, M r Barton said that if there was a marriage in England, it must have been in accordance with <*he law of England, and it must be proved according to that hw. His Honor said that by the 11th section docu•aents admissible in England in proof of signa- • tore were equally admissible in any of the Cokmies. Mr Barton submitted that such a document to ' lie admissible must be proved to be an examined -copy or extract — which could not be done in this -«■*> > or provided it purported to be signed and ■certified as a true copy or extract, by the officer -entitled to have tha custody of the original. Section 14 by no means discharged those who produced the document before the Court from fvoviue that W. Amos was the curate of the that he wasthe person entitled to have ««tocly of the original, and that the writing, "** Wo Amos," was bis signature. His Honor said it purported to be what counsel ■wanted, and was so far evidence. Mr Barton said that the certified copy or extract was not admissible unless it was from a -document entitled to be received in evidence on in the proper custody. Parish-registers ■were never allowed to be so entitled iv England, tad so the copy was useless. His Honor had no doubt whatever that a ftarish rpgiater was a public document within the terms of the Act. He believed that a recently"JteMed'Case, JEx parte Hall, before the Lords -Justice*, fully established the admissibility of the -espy document produced.. • ■ After further argument, His Honor said that the document purported to be an examined copy from the register of the ' -parish of Portsea, Southampton; and he hid '4btX the sifcuature, *' W. An»os, curate," made at prima facie evidence for the purpose of tte -Statute. Mr Barton : Does your Honor hold that the i«ere writing gives you judicial notice that the «Roature is the signature of the proper officer in •■•bese custody the original should be. His Honor : \ es, Ithnk so I'he Crown Prosecutor said a few words in jneply. His Honor ruled for the admission of the -document, and took a note of counsel's objection. Frederick Walford : I am a miner. I knew 4he prisoner when she was at the M'Pherson's <371 a& Accommodation Store. John Launder lived there, and I knew the prisoner as Mrs Launder. In August, 1863, 1 stopped four days at the store. "3. mas ona day baking some scones, and the priso•oaer spoke about some bits of gold which I had, aad which she wan'e3 for earrings to take home to 4he old country. I &«ked when she was going, aad she said at Christmas. She told me she had "Iwen married nearly 14 years, and had been eight in America and nearly six here. I sup9ne she meant married to John Launder. Susan Miller : I know the prisoner and John ttimnder, and I worked for them at M'Pherson's ifltatiion. ' I entered the service shortly after the Wwr Year, and stopped nearly two months. The prisoner and John Launder used to go into the same room at night ; I do not know wbe.tber «4hey were married or slept together. I know "Walter Alfred Crouch, who was storekeeper. I renaember when John Liunder left for Dunedin About the end of March, on a Thursday. On the Jbllowing ■ Monday, the prisoner went to Waifcooaiti, and Crouch and myself went with her. Ob the Sunday, she told me she was going to leave Launder, for she could not put up ■with his hi - usage ; and I said that if «he went I would go too, for I would aot etop and keep the store after she was gone. flolfcing was ssid about Crouch. We stopped «t Beale's, at Waikouaiti; and two days sfter «»>t there, I was presjnt in the Church of Jrag«and, whea the prisoner was married to v Cr«ach. - ■■

_ By Mr Barton : I don't know what a Bishop to, er whether what I call a church was ever «on«ecrated. It was like all the Ohurches of lagiand I ever saw. It wasn't a barn, of that Vm sure. I never was in a theatre, so that I •ere* saw a stage clergyman. I should not take -12* for a cc ' CT gy m »» if you hadn't a wig on.— fUttghter.) You don't look at all like one.— '{Laughter.) Frank O'Brien, police sereeant: When I apprehended the prisoner at Waikbuaiti, and told fcer the oharxe.she said that she had been married to Launder in England, but that she was under «ge at the time, and she considered it was illegal, fnduce a document, which the prisoner 1 gave ■tome as her marriage certificate. I produoe omhti certificate given to me by John Launder.

Alexander Dasent: I em a clerk in holy orders, and clergyman of Oxford. I celebrated a marriage between the prisoner and Walter Alfred Crouch on the 2nd of April. This certificate Is in my band-writing. It is, as certified, a true copy of the entry in the tnai'riaj'e book, kept by me. In the " Gazatte"of 26th January, the aameiof Alexander Dasent appears as that of a clergyman authorised to solemnise marriage, and I am Alexander Dasent.

Crouch was brought up in custody, for identification.

Mr Barton submitted that there was no identification of the Caroline Beavis named in the first certificate with the prisoner ; nor any identification of Launder.

His Honor thought there was some evidence to go to the jury. Mr Barton had, dur'ng the evidence, asked to have notes taken of various objections ; and he now said that as all the questions he could raise were purely questions of law, he felt that it would be only wasting time to address the Jury. His Honor, in summing up, said that the prisoner was indicted for an oflence which, if not very unusual in this Colony, had never before been prosecuted in thi3 judicial district. It had been rightly said 'that the questions involved were almost wholly of law. He had already decided one very important point in the case— that the examined copy of the register as produced •vr&sprimafacie evidence of a marriage having been contracted between the persons therein named. It was noc enough, because it was possible that other people of exactly tho same name 1 ) might have been married. The jury would have to decide whether there was anything in the other evidence confirmatory of iieutification. Cohabitation was, by itself, no proof of marriage, but it was some help towards believing the prisoner to be the Caroline Beavis named "in the ce-tificate, when under that name she was found cohabiting with a John launder, from whose possession the certificate Was proved to have come. Tho jury were it liber ty to doubt the validity of the certificate if they saw reason to do so, and the prisoner must have the benefit of any such doubt, It was for them to say whether they had reasonable doubt that ths prisoner was the person named in the certificate. If not, there could be no difficulty in concluding that the marriage ceremony between her and Walter Alfred Crouch had been duly— not trindingly— performed. The decision which he had piven on the leading point of law in the case, would make it possible to punish for bigamy, in cases where the first marriage took place in England—a thing that would be impossible otherwise. The jury retired for about twenty minutes, and then returned a verdict of Guilty," the Foreman adding, " With strong recommendations to mercy, believing- that she was led away by Crouch."

His Honor: Well, she was led away in cne sense, certainly. Sentence was deferred. The Court adjourned at twenty minutes before five.