SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1351, 11 June 1885, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SESSION,

Timaru—Tuesday, June 9th.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.)

THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were empanneled as the Grand Jury :—Messrs Q. Laing-Meason, B. F. Barber, Wm. Rutherfurd, M. Jonas, J. E. Mourant, D. Maclean, R. H. Rowe, Geo. G-ibites, J. C. McKerrow, J. T. Warren, J. W. S. Ziesler, R. Kelland, E. Kelland, D. Stuart, F. J. Wilson, W. A. Mason, M. White, E. P. Wareing, E. Pilbrow, P. Wareing, J no. Jalbot, J. T. M. Kayhurst, and W. Proctor. Mr John Talbot waf chosen Foreman.

his honor's charge.

His Hotior made a rather long charge to the Grand Jury. He first referred to the case of Patrick Ryan, tegarding which the jury would not have mnch difficulty. Next on the calendar came three cases of embezzlement against one Alfred Fisher. His Honor pointed out that embezzlement consisted in the appropriation by a servant of moneys or goods received by him for hia employer, and which ho (the servant) failed to account for. The mere nonaccounting was not evidence that a man had committed the crime, but it was generally the strongest evidence of misapproprial'ons. H,ia Hooor then briefly touched on the cases of embezzlement io point, and said the jury would have but little trouble in arriving at a decision on them. He now came to. a charge of forgery and uttering preferred agaiuat one George Tooti Kahu a Maori, regarding which the depositions wore not very clear. The order to | which the signature was said to be forged I was far I ho sum of £l6, made payable to Messrs White and Smithson, a:;d wis in respect to some lands rented by Mr While. The signature was made in such a manner that His Honor could not understand it, and he left it to the jury to say how it was a forgery. If any question of law should r.rise. however, he would give them his assistance. With regard to the case of murder and that of attempted murder, great brutality, most painful to contemplate, w;is shown on the part of the husband. In dealing with the murder caso, they had to look at it apart from sentiment and s«e how far the evidence warranted an indictment for murder. From the despositions he gathered thai the woman Treogrove died on the 11th May, and that for some weeks before that she was suffering from typhoid fever and had been attended by some medical man. It also appeared that during some weeks before the woman's death her husband used to come home in a state of drunkenness and abuse her in almost disgraceful way. The facta of the case would be placed before them, and witnesses—including the mother and sisters of the deceased woman—would show that brutality of a most extraordinary

kind had been used to a woman on he dying bed, and who was at times in : state of unconsciousness. The facis wen plain, but the question arose whether oi not the husband caused or accelerated the woman's death. The medical man win attended her took part in the post morterr examination, and so far as His Honoi could learn said the iwoman died ol fever. It seemed not improbable, however, that her death might have been accelerated by the conduct of the prisoner, but His Honor understood the medical men were not prepared to give a definite opinion to the jury that death was actually accelerated by the blows and ill-treatment the woman bad received from her husband. The law was this : if a person inflicted injury upon another which would not have produced death if the person injured bad been healthy, and there had not been any unusual conditions—if the person had by violence accelerated the death of another by even half-an-hour, and it could be clearly proved to be attributable to such violence—the man who thus accelerated another's death was guilty of murder. In the case before them there could be no question of manslaughter—it was a case of murder or no murder ; there were no circumstances in the casein point of law which tended to reduce it from a case of murder to one of manslaughter. Therefore what the jury had to find out was, was the man Trengrove guilty of murder. If they found there was prima facis evidence to show that death V7as accelerated by the man's violence, they must find a bill for murder, but they must be extremely careful how they came to their decision. They would in a matter of this kind be greatly guided by the opinion and the evidence ot the medical men, who, no doubt, would go into the case under a strong sense of responsibility. If, however, tLe jury found they could not return a bill tor murder they probably would have placed before them an indictment charging the man with assault. His Honor once more impressed upon them the great necessity of studying the case and weighing the matter very carefully. Next they came to the case of a man named Lucas, charged with an attempt to murder, which was, fortunately, not successful. This case also showed brutal conduct on the part of the husbend, which it was most painful to find existing in a community like ours. His Honor then shortly referred to the depositions in the case, which he said they would have little trouble about, aa then was ample evidence that the assault had been committed. His Honor then briefly referred to a charge against Woods of attempted suicide, by throwing himself on the railway as a train was approaching. He thought the police bad acted quite right in proceeding againßt the accused, as his action endangered the lives of others. TRUE BILLS. During Ihe day the Grand Jury returned bills as follows :—Against T. Woods for attempted suicide ; P. Ryan for larceny and housebreaking (three charges); Alfred Fisher for embezzlement (three charges) ; George Teoti Kahu for forgery and uttering; F. Lucas for assault with intent to murder ; and against C. Trengrove for assault with intent to murder, the jury throwing out the indictment for murder against the prisoner. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. Thomas Woods was charged with unlawfully attempting to commit suicide on the 2nd May, 1885, by throwing himself in front of a train. He pleaded guilty, but urged in extenuation that he had been drinking and it had affected his mind. He asked to be let off and said he had ; determined to give up drinking.—lnspector Brohara said the man had wonderfully ' improved in health since he had been < confined, and perhaps would give up the < drink.—His Honor told prisoner he would i be allowed to go free on his entering into ! a bond to come up for sentence when i called upoD. If the police found him 1 drinking again he would be brought up I for judgment at the next sitting of the " Court. : LARCENY AND HOUSEBREAKING. 1 Patrick Ryan was then charged with 1 that he did, on the 15th March, 1884, 1 break into the house of M. McS. Gentle- < mun, and did steal therefrom one silver 1 watch, value £4 10a, and money to the value of £8 17s 6d, the property of one | M. Shea; that he did, on the 31st of 1 January, 1885, break into the same dwelling-house, and steal therefrom i clothing, etc., the goods and chattels of e the said M. McS. Gentlemuh ; and fur- c ther, that he did, on the 15th March, r 1884, break into the house named before, * and steal therefrom several articles of c jewellery and the sum of £6, the pro- \ pertyof M. Shea and M. McS. Gentle- c mun. The prisoner pleaded guilty to all c the charges. c In reply to His Honor, Inspector c Broham. said the prisoner had been wall known to the police ever since his arrival t in Timaru. On the 16th March, 1883, he had been convicted in the Districc Court t for fraudulent bankruptcy; he had been p imprisoned for various terms for several c larcenies, and had been before the minor li Court many times for drunkenness. ci His Honor sentenced prisoner to seven t years' imprisonment, telling him he was r. liable to fourteen years on each charge. I EMBEZZLEMENT. e Alfred Fisher was charged on three l indictments with iaving embezzled the following moneys from J. M. Twomey, «j his employer, viz :—On the 3rd July, y 1884, £1 5s ; 7th July, 1884, £lss; 20th August, 1884, £1 Is; 22nd September, ' 1884, £1 3s 6d ; 26th September, 1884, \ £1 Is; 27th October, 1884, 10s Gd ; 7th April, 1884, £1 Is; 26th May, 1884, £1 ; l 23rd June, 1884. £1 Is. ' Mr Hamersley appeared for the prisoner, c who pleaded guilty to all the charges. ' His Honor sentenced prisoner to twelve ( calendar months' hard labor on each charge, to run concurrently. * FORGERY AND UTTERING. *' George Teoti E.ahu (native) was charged -with having on the 17th October, 1884, forged and uttered an order on John William White for the sum of £l6. Pri- '. Boner pleaded not guilty. < Mr Hamersley, for the Crown Prose < cutor conducted the prosecution, and Dr ] . Foster appeared for the prisoner. 1 The evidence in this case was similar 1 to that given in the R.M. Court, Temuka, i a short time back. Messrs White and 1 Smithson conducted a case for certain i Maoris, and prisoner gave an order for 1 the costs to be paid out of the rent accru- 1 ing to the natives from the Maori Reserve 1 in Timaru. Two natives whose names i ' were attached to the order swore that i they did not sign the order, and that they 1 did not know it was given* <

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment.

YESTERDAY. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER. FYorierick Lucas was charged with

assaulting and wounding his wife with intent to murder hoi, on April Bth, at Timaru.

Prisoner having pleaded not guilty, the following jury was empannelled ; Messrs G. Brassill, jtin., G. T. Griffiths, J. Macaiister, T. Copestake, W. Hopkinsou, C. Jackson, R. Thompson, A. D. Lowe, H. N. Hulland, J. Ballautyne, H. Burmester, and G. W. Ellis.

Mr Thompson was chosen foreman. Mr T. C, Pknte was fined 40s (unless cause be shown) for absence.

This was a case in which the accused on the same day that his wife was confined went into her bedroom under the influence of drink and ptteinpted to murder her by cutting her throat with a knife. The evidence of Catherine Lucas, the wife of the accused, proved this, and Dr Macintyre, Annie Hickey and Sergeant Cullen also gave corroborative evidence. The defence of the accused appeared to be that he was not the father of the child ; that he was incapable of being a father, and that the child Belonged to a Chinaman. The Judge ordered Drs Macintyre and Hogg to examine the prisoner, with the result that they reported that he was to some extent correct in his statemeiit regarding himself, but they would not undertake to say that he was incapable of being a father. His Honor in addressing the jury said the physical condition of the prisoner had nothing to do with the charge at all.

After an absence of about half-an-hour the jury returned a verdict of guilty of wounding with intent to do greviously bodily harm. His Honor, after commenting in very severe terms on the conduct of the accused, sentenced him to five years' penal servitude.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Samuel Charles Trengrove was charged with an aggravated assaulc upon his wife Hannah, on March 27 and April 30. The piisoner was tried by the same jury as Lucas and was not represented by counsel. As soon as the indictment was read the Judge asked who Mrs Pratt was, and on being informed by Constable Willoughby

that she was a sister of the prisoner she was ordered to stand forward.

His Honor then asked her why she had written to him a letter. She replied that her brother was deaf and she would like

to represent him. His Honor said he jvould take good care prisoner would hear what was said. Mrs Pratt could sit in Court and suggest questions but must not interfere. Mrs Pratt was then accomodated with a seat, and took a lively interest in the trial. Elizabeth Bennett, Elleu Stringer, and Dr Fish were examined, but nothing new was elicited. This completed the case for the prosecution, and for the defence Mary Ann Pratt, sister of the prisoner, was examined : She said she did not see any ill usage of Mrs Trengrove, but saw her fall off the sofa on the sth of May. Noticed accused doing all he could for his wife. Never saw accused drunk duriDg his wife's illness. Sarah Fenn said : I came to attend Mrs Trengrove on the 11th of April. Accused never ill-used his wife whilst I was there. Mrs Trengrove never complained of having been ill-used. John Charles Trengrove, aged D years, son of the prisoner, was called for the defence. [The Judge administeied a caution to accused that in calling such a witness he might be committing as great a crime as the original one.] After several questions had been asked of the boy he was sworn, and he gave his evidence with great clearness and independence. In reply to the prisoner he said he never saw his father strike his mother during her illness. Two or three weeks before her death he with his brother was helping his mother into the room, and she fell down against the door. She was hurt on the left side of the head.

This having completed the evidence, the prisoner addressed the jury to the effect that the injuries were caused by falls. His Honor then addressed the jury and said there were two separate charges of assault against the prisoner and unless it could be shown that these assaults were not committed no other evidence would be of any avail for the defence. The prisoner had tried to prove that he had not ill-used his wife during her illnes?, but that would not do unless he could prove he had not committed the assaults with which he was charged. The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of guilty. Accused had nothing to say in reply to the usual question, and His Honor, in passing sentence on him, said he had been convicted of a set of brutal assaults on his wife, which were followed by her death. If the Grand Jury had found a true bill for murder, he would have had probably to forfeit his life for the crime, He had no doubt the Grand Jury had good reasons for this. The medical testimony could not prove that his violent accelerated the death of ids wife, and on that ground he thought the Grand Jury were justified in the action they had .•ik n. Morally he was guilty of her tuatli, and it was merely an accident that he was not arraigned for her murder. He was found guilty oa both counts, and he (His Honor) was sorry that owing to the wny the indictment had been drawn out he could not give him more than three years on each count, to run concurrently. The prisoner, who was weeping, protested his innocence and was removed. This exhausted the criminal calendar and the jury were discharge 1.

At the R.M. Court, Ohrisfcchurch, on Tuesday, John Christophers Cuff, a halfcaste Australian native, was brought up, charged with uttering a forged note at Invercargill in 1881. He was only just fit to leave the hospital, where he had been for some months in consequence of injuries be suffered from exposure when he escaped from custody at the Waiau some months ago. He had lost an arm, blood poisoning having rendered amputation necessary, and at one t'me there were little hopes for his life. The prosecutor and the police did not offer any evidence as the man had been punished enough by his sufferings, and the Bench allowed the charge to be withdrawn.