SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2953, 27 November 1900, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Per Press Association.

WELLINGTON, November 26.

Mary Henderson, a woman of middle age, was charged with the murder of Mary Alice Winifred Luke at Wellington on An gust 28th by the performance of an illega: operation. Mr Bell prosecuted on behab of the Crown. Prisoner, who pleaded not guilty in a strong voice, was defended by Mr Wilford. The case is the outcome of the finding of the Coroner’s jury which enquired into the circumstances surrounding the girl’s death, her depositions, which incriminated accused, having been taken prior to her demise. After certain evidence had been tendered concerning the depositions, Mr Wilford argued that prisoner was not given sufficient notice of the intention to take these depositions. Moreover, the caption or title of the depositions was not in the form prescribed by the statute; neither the day, place, time nor year of the taking of the depositions being stated. Mr Justice Edwards said that it seemed to him that a plain notice of the intention to take the depositions had not been served upon the prisoner in the way required. The Crown Prosecutor then slated that under the circumstances lie would not tender the depositions as evidence. Evidence was then given by Drs Anson and Fyffe. The latter deposed that on examining three instruments produced he found on each one large numbers of putrefactive organisms A person would run a very great risk who was operated on by such instruments, which were not antiseptic. The Court adjourned at 5 p.m. till morning, when Or Fyffe will be cross-examined. The jury were locked iqi for the night. The case will probably last till Wednesday. DUNEDIN, November 26. Mr Justice Williams, in charging the Grand Jury, said that none of fthe cases called for special comment. True bills were returned in all cases. In the first case, Sarah Jones, charged with stealing a- set of spring cart harness at Cromwell, was acquitted. At the Supreme Court to-day, Charles Hendricks, 25, charged with stealing from the person and with receiving stolen money,

was found guilty and sentenced' to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour. A rabbiter, being on the spree in Cromwell, was eased of his money. Accused a statement was that a man named Bryant took it and handed it to him, to plant and afterwards divide. An order was made for the restitution of £ll found in prisoner’s cell. . . Edward Horton, charged with receiving stolen property pleaded guilty through his counsel, and asked the court to be as lenient as possible. Mr Justice Williams referred to the bad feature of the piisonei enticing young men to steal the goods of their employers, which he took in payment for some article which he had tempted young men to buy. He was sentenced to five years’ hard labour. James Palatchie, charged, with stealing a watch at Roxburgh, was acquitted. Accused’s statement was that the prosecutor being in drink persisted in wrestling with him. A little later he saw a watch on the ground, and picking it up, mentioned to some young fellows that he had found it. He had intended giving the watch up when he was arrested.