SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2387, 30 November 1899, Page 44

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, November, 27. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.30 a.m.

NO BILLS. In the following cases the Grand Jury found no true bills: — Alfred J. Price and Catherine Ashton, conspiring to procure abortion ; James Hammond, robbery.

ASSAULTING A CONSTABLE.

William Saunders, alias James Kelly (30) waa charged with having, at Waikaia, on or about October 3, 1899, assaulted Patrick Jeremiah Heilihy, a police officer, then engaged in the execution of his duty, with intent to do^m grevious bodily harm. ' v

Mr Hanlon appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded " Not guilty."

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser), in opening the case for the prosecution, said the accused >was charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The assault took place in the township of Waikaia — a remote country district lying on this side of Gore, that had come into notoriety lately in connection with dredging operations. Constable Herlihy was the only constable stationed there, and was also clerk of the court.. On the 3rd of last month he was on duty, and at about 20 minutes past 11 o'clock he visited the Crown Hctel. When he went into the hotel the accused and another man named Cairns were standing outside at the side door, and when the constable came out the men were still there, but they followed him out as far as the foot- i path. When* the constable got to the centre 1 of the street the accused called out: " It is no use now, that b y Herlihy has spoilt the whole thing." The constable walked along the street, and was talking to some other men, when the accused and Cairns went up to them. Accused then struck a match, held it up, and said : " There is a nice push of b y donkeys." Herlihy said something to the effect that there was one donkey too many, and that if accused did not go home he would put him in the lockup. Accused replied : " What b y right huve you to order me home? It would take a better man than you to take me to the lockup. ' He then became abusive, and struck at the constable, who noticed him change something from one hand to the other. The constable said : " What is that you have in your hand," and made an attempt to get hold of 'accused, who stepped on one side and struck Herlihy on the side of the face with a full porter bottle. The bottle broke over the constable's head, and inflicted a very serious wound indeed. The constable, however, very pluckily stuck to his man, and effected his arrest. The result of the assault was that the constable had sustained a permanent injury. He had to undergo surgical treatment at Waikaia, and afterwards in Dunedin. Some time after the assault an operation had to be performed upon his cheek, and the doctors would tell the jury that the cheek bone was injured, and it was very difficult to say what the result of the assault would be. He (the Crown Prosecutor) thought the jury would come to >the conclusion that a very brutal and cowardly assault had been committed, and, if they did, they would have no hesitation, in returning a verdict in accordance with the evidence. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Drs Closs, Murphy, and Ward, Constable Herlihy, Samuel George Inder, James Holland, and William Francis Inder.

Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, said the indictment against the prisoner charged him on two counts with having assaulted the constable — first with intent to maim and disfigure him, and next with intent to maim and disfigure him and with actually doing him bodily harm. On each of those counts it was necessary for the jury, in order to convict, to be satisfied that the assault was committed -with the intent wh'ch was alleged in one or other of the counts of the indictment. On the other two counts the prisoner was charged— first with that he assaulted a police officer in the execution of his duty, and secondly, that he committed a common assault. He (counsel) submitted that there could be no doubt that there should not be a conviction on either of the first two counts of the indictment. If there could be a conviction at all it could only be on one or other of the last two counts. He would ask the jury whether they could find any evidence of intent to maim and disfigure the constable? Was there any evidence from •which they could draw the inference that the accused deliberately and wilfully assaulted the constable with the view of disfiguring him-? It was-clear that whatever the constable thought of the language or conduct of the accused he stepped forward for the, purpose of arresting him. If he stepped forward to arrest him for a breach of .the peace what became of this charge? All tho accused appeared to have been charged with was committing an assault on the constable. He (counsel) put it td the jury that the suggestion that the accused had provoked a breach of the peace was simply an excuse for the constable's wrongful interference with the accused. That wrongful interference the accused resented, and he (counsel) asked the jury to believe that the disturbance that took place between the constable and the accused was in consequence of that wrongful interference, and that in the scuffle the constable got injured. The slightness of the injury to the constable's head showed that there was not a deliberate and wilful throwing of the bottle. If the bottle had been deliberately thrown at the constable it would have smashed his skull. His (counsel's) theory was that the accused aaid the con-s-table were scuffling; that tho accused had the bottle in his hand; and that the constable was injured by it. His Honor having summed up,. The jury retired at 2.28 p.m., and returned to court at 3.15 with a verdict of " Guilty " on the first and second counts of the indictment.

The Crown Prosecutor stated that the accused was a native of Ireland. He had the name of a bully and a fighting man when under the influence of liquor. There was nothing previous!;' known against him.

His Honor aaid he had no doubt that drink was at the bottom of tho affair. There appeared to be nothing against the accused hitherto, but the offence of which he had been convicted was of a serious kind, and it could not be passed over with light punishment. The sentence of the court was that the accused.be imprisoned for a term of three years, and kept to hard labour.

STEALING A HORSE. Francis Smith (1G) pleaded guilty to stealing a horse at the Knikorai Valley on September C, the property of Thomas C. Briley.

The Crown Prosecutor, in reply to his Honor, said that the police report stated tbat the accused was oJ indifferent character. On September 6 he was fined 20s for theft, and on September 22 he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on two charges. Hi«j Honor sentenced the accu9ed to thrco jiiDutlis' imptisonrjaent, with hard labAUS-

I BHUASIKG AND ENTERING.' ! John Ambler (51) pleaded guilty to breaking into and. entering the dwelling house of Walter i Paterson on October 19, and stealing therei from a quantity of clothing. , Mr Phillips stated, in reply to his Honor, I that the accused was about half-witted. He I had been examined ny the gaol surgeon two or i three times with the view of seeing what was ! wrong with him, but the surgeon had given no instructions about him. His Honor sentenced the accused to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and ordered him to be examined again by the doctor, and also watched. STEALING FKOM EMPLOYEES. Charles Stewart Gordon (30) was charged on two indictments with stealing several sums of money from his employers, Thomas Scott and James Wilson. Accused pleaded " Guilty." His Honor sentenced the a-ceused to twelvo months' imprisonment, with hard labour, on each indictment, the sentences to be concurrent. ALLEGED THEFT FROM A RAILWAY STATION. James Reid was charged with having stolen from the Milton railway station, on August 29, a Gladstone bag, containing a quantity of clothing, tho property of Albert Edward Matthews. t . .. . .• ! The accused pleaded-" Not guilty," and was defended by Mr -Harden. The Crown Prosecutor said Mr Matthews "was a commercial traveller in the employ of 1 Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co., and on the 29th of August he left his hag in charge of the porter at the Milton, railway station.. The bag .was next found in the possession of the accused. Evidence ior the prosecution was given by Albert Edward Matthews, Constable Boddam, ; and George Neil. I Donald Reid, who was called by Mr Hanlon, I deposed that he had known the accused for thirty years. He had considerable dealings with him, and always found him straightfor- : ward and honourable. ' Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, said it I was quite evident from the evidence that hao been led by the Crown that the accused never stole the bag. It appeared that he was muddled with drink, and while in that condition walked off with a bng which he believed to be his own. His Honor having summed - up, The jury retired at 4 o'clock, and returned to court ten minutes later with a verdict of " Not guilty." ' Tho prisoner was then discharged, and the court rose until 10.30 this morning.