SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6912, 26 February 1894, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Couolly). Thb half-yearly session of the Supreme Court commenced this morning. The formal opening ceremony with the Crier's proclamation, " O yez, O yez," took place m the R.M. Courthouse, after which the Court was adjourned to Macfar lane's Hall, where there was a large assemblage of members of the bar, jurors, witnesses, and of the general public. THB GRAND JURY. The following was the Grand Jury:— Messrs John Townley (foreman), C P. Davies, Thos. Dalrymple, W. F. Crawford, Robert Colebrook, G. A. Beere, J. W. Bright, W. H. Clayton, George Bruce, F. J. Shelton, C. C. Lucas, G. J. Winter, C. D. Pitt, A. R. Muir, Edward Murphy, Charles Gray, William Morgan, H. M. Porter, A. Dewing, J. C. Dunlop, J. W. Sunderland, A. Teesdale, and R. J. Reynolds. His Honor said their labors on the present occasion would not be very great, there being only nine indictments against five persons, and several of those would occupy them but little time. There was a charge of horsestealing, which should not occupy them very long uuless the question of ownership arose, as the case seemed very clear. There was a charge of maliciously wounding against two j young men. Briefly reviewing the evidence as it appeared on the depositions; His Honor said that it appeared there had been a struggle m which a man had been wounded. The difficulty which they might find would be as to the identity of the person who made the wound. They would have to be satisfied that one of the persons inflicted the wound or that there was what was known as common design. The Grand Jury might think that this was a matter to be tried m open Court, but that was a matter for themselves to consider. There was also a case of rape, and His Honor explained the law as to such cases. The other charges were against one person for alleged breaches of the Bankruptcy Act of the year before last. As to the first charge, they would find it clear that the man kept no proper books of account. The second case was a charge of failing to disclose all his property. The defence, it appeared, relied on some document purporting to make the property over to his wife, and the question for them to consider would be as to whether the reason he did not mention the property was that ifc was his wife's. The other four indictments, charges of obtaining goods or money without reasonable hope of paying for them, practically hinged upon the same qnestion, as the goods were obtained by the wife and for the land which, it. was alleged, was her separate estate. One case, however, that of obtaining credit from the Farmers' Co-operative Association, arose over certain advances on maize supplied by the accused, and His Honor expressed an opinion that there was hardly a case for trial. COMMON JURY. N. R. Wyllie, Geo. Garrett, T. J. Dickson, W. Pool, John Coleman, J. M. Smith, George Smaill, William Law, S. B. Hair, Edward Parnell, P. W. Dormer, W. H. Skeats, J. Swarbrick, P. H. Bourke, W. A. O'Meara, Donald McKenzie, John Ormond, James Winchcombe, Dugald Fergußson, E. Habgood, George Fitzell, W. Adams, James Macfarlane, W. Johnston, A. Sawyer, Jas. Erskine, Geo. Howarth, F. B. Barker, T. W. Sadler, A. Hatton, W. O. Skeet, Joseph Martin, Isaac Gibbs, C. Patterson, James White, Geo. Maher, Jas. Kennedy, and E. P. Joyce. UNLAWFUL WOUNDING. In the charge against John Brown and Joseph Brown, of unlawful wounding, Mr Nolan appeared for the Crown to make an application that the case stand over, as one of the witnesses, Thomas Gray, waß not forthcoming. Mr DeLautour, for accused, said that they were on bail. It was very unfortunate for the two young men that they should^ have this charge hanging over them. He did not wish it to be suggested that there was collusion between accused and Gray. His Honor said that he thought if Mr DeLautour pressed it he must refuse to grant the adjournment. Mr DeJLautour said the young men certainly had no knowledge of Gray's whereabouts. He thought it his duty to his clients to ask that the Crown proceed with the trial or enter a nolle prosequi. His Honor thought the accused were entitled to this. The case would be called on m itß proper order and dealt with. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills against William Penfold, horse stealing ; Michael Hickey, misdemeanors of Bankruptcy Act ; John and Joseph Brown, unlawfully wounding } Mahaki, rape. NO bill. In the indictment against Michael Hickey for contracting a debt with the Poverty Bay Farmers' Co-operative Association just prior to his bankruptcy, at such a time when he could have had no reasonable hope of paying the debt, the Grand Jury iound a "No BilL" HOESESTEALINO. William Penfold was charged with stealing a horse the property of Albert Rangiuia. Mr Rees appeared for accused, who pleaded «• Not Guilty." The jury empanelled was as follows : — Messrs E. P. Joyce (foreman), F. B. Barker, Isaac Gibbs, S. B. Hair, A. Hatton, George Howarth, John Howarth, W. A. O'Meara, W. O. Skeet, W. Law, James White, and W. Johnston. Tamati Tuhewai gave evidence that he sold a horse to Tamati Rangiuia, who was with accused. The horse was bought for a pack horse, and witness was paid by a cheque signed by Rangiuia. Albert Rangiuia deposed that the horse m question was his. He bought it and paid for it m August.— Cross-examined, witness said it was m October he bought the horse with a cheque received on an order upon Fraser and Friar. The order was for £5 m favor of Penfold and witness. £2 10s of it went to Fraser and Friar for a debt he owed them, and the other £2 10s witness took as Penfold owed him that amount ; with it he paid for the horse. The horse was purchased for packing, but he did not buy it for Penfold and himself, who were packing together. Asked why he paid for it out of the order, witness admitted that Penfold had an equal interest m the order, but denied that the order was got from Malone for the very purpose of paying for the horse. The reason witness appropriated the whole of the £5 order was that prisoner had received money from Murphy and McQueen and did not pay him his portion. They fell out about it m October after the purchase of the horse. Accused the horse away afterwards saying that he claimed it as equivalent for half of the £5 order. Witness protested against his taking it away. This was m October. He got the receipt for the horse four days before. Mr Rees said that the receipt of purchase of the horse from Tamati was dated November 27th, and was made out m witness' name alone. * Witness (cross-examined) said he did not go and obtain the receipt after Penfold took the horse away for the puropse of prosecuting Penfold for horse-stealing. The reason the brand was not stated m the receipt was that Tamati could not distinguish and did not know the brand. Mr Rees : Yet Tamati half an hour ago swore to the brands of the horse. Witness, further cross-examined, said he did not go to the police until December 6th, when he heard Penfold had sold the horse, for he did not think he would do such a thing as go and sell it. He could not tell why he did not go immediately to the police. His Honor said he ought to stop the case. It was clear the horse was openly taken away under a right or a supposed right. He should be sorry to convict a man of horseetealing upon such evidence. The jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty," and prisoner was discharged from custody. UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. John and Joseph Brown were charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding, ■with inflicting grievous bodily harm on George Timms, and with common assault on Timms. Accused, who were represented by Mr DeLautour, pleaded not guilty. Mr Nolan conducted the case for the Crown. The following jury was empanelled :— P. H. Bourke (foreman), William Adams, J. M. Smith, .Tames McFarlane, W. O. Skeet, Geo. Garrett, N. R. Wyllie, W. Pool, G. Smaill, John Howarth, W. H. Sceats, and Joseph Martin. Evidence was called similar to that given the lower Court and published fully at the