DISTRICT COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 582, 18 November 1869, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Clarke.) The sittings of the District Court commenced on Tuesday. Thomas Broggy surrendered to his bail, and was charging with having, on the 2Sth September, committed upon Peter O'Neill an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A second count in the indictment charged a common assault. Mr William Pitt, the Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case on behalf of the Crown. Mr Home, of Charleston, defended the prisoner. Peter O'Neill, Owen O'Neill, John Parrcll, Charles Lempfert, Dr Thorpe, and two constables were examined. The evidence disclosed that on the evening of the day mentioned the prisoner was in the Odd Fellows' Hotel. "Without any provocation he commenced throwing tumblers at the O'Neills. Serious injuries were inflicted which, confined Peter O'Neill to the hospital for about a fortnight The evidence given in the Resident Magistrate's Court, which was fully reported at the time, was in all respects repeated. Mr. Home then addressed the jury. He said that it would, be idle tor him to pretend that no assault had been committed, and if the first count, charging the more aggravated offence, had been withdrawn, his client would have pleaded guilty. The Crown Prosecutor had not felt able to do so, and therefore the prisoner was obliged to go to the jury, and urge such circumstances of mitigation as present themselves. The learned counsel then urged that the prisoner must have been brought to a state verging upon insanity by the drink he had taken that day ; and that his actions proved that he was not responsible for what he did. There was no quarrel between the parties ; the prisoner had asked all hands to drink, and still without reason he threw these tumblers which had caused the injuries complained of. • It was true drunkenness was no excuse for crime, but in judging of intent that fact ought to weigh with a jury. He proposed to call witnesses as to the character of the prisoner, and would show that he was a quiet and peaceable man.

Several witnesses were then examined as to the prisoner's character for humanity, none of whom were crossexamined by the Crown Prosecutor. In reply to his Honor, Mr Pitt said that he did not propose to reply. The Criminal Law Amendment Act gave him the right, but inasmuch as a dictum of Piggott B. suggested that witnesses called to speak as to character were not to be regarded as " witnesses for defence " he would waive the reply. His Honor then very fully summed up the case, very clearly explaining to the jury the law in reference to the question of drunkenness as affecting the intent of a person committing any offence.

The jury, after retiring about half-an-hour, returred a verdict of" Guilty" upon the first count, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of the good character he had previously borne. His Honor, in passing sentence, remarked upon the dangerous character of the missiles prisoner had used, and that it was a most Providential thing that O'Neill had not been killed. As it was, none could say whether he might not yet be permanently injured for life; in fact, he might become an idiot. The recommendation of the jury, and the evidence as to his character alone the prisoner from a heavy sentence. His Honor hoped that, when the prisoner regained his liberty he would be more careful. The sentence he should pass was that the prisoner should be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for nine calendar months. This completing the Criminal business the jury were discharged. The Court was then adjourned until Wednesday. CIVIL JURISDICTION. "Wednesday, 17th Noyesibeb. sheiian t. hamilton. This case being called, Mr Pitt stated that ho had issued the summons on hehalf of Mr Guinness, of Greymouth. He had since had no instructions'. He had heard, however, that morning, that the case had been settled. Case struck out. MINING APPELLATE JURISDISCTION. KENNEDY and pabty v. petebson and PABTY. Mr Pitt stated that this appeal had been lodged by him under instructions from Mr Perkins, Greymouth. He had received intimation that, in order to save expense, the parties had consented to the case before his Honor at Greymouth. Case adjourned inglyBANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION. In re white. Mr Pitt applied for final discharge. This was a case taken out of Court under the 14th part of the Act, a composition having been effected. Still the law required baukrupt to apply for discharge. Mr Home said he appeared to oppose ou behalf of Messrs Kempthorne and Co , Dunedin.

Mr Pitt objected to Mr Home appearing inasmuch as Messrs Kcmpthorne and Co. had not proved. They had certainly filed a document which could scarcely be described by any technical name. It was simply sworn that they had a claim to a cerLaiu amount. The Bankruptcy Act required that the creditor should do more than merely make a claim. Any one could do that, and to any amount. The Act required oath that the amount claimed was justly due. The learned counsel said ho would not under ordinary circumstances take such a point, but here was a case of composition. The several meetings had been duly gazetted, aud Messrs Kempthorne did not take the trouble to attend. Now at the last moment, perhaps not vexatiously, they sought to oppose andharrass the bankrupt. Mr Horno urged that the proof, although not strictly formal, was sufficient. His Honor decided that it was altogether informal and refused to receive it. After some further discussion the order of discharge was granted ; Mr Home intimating that he would take steps, within the 21 days allowed by the Act, to have the order reviewed. In re gardtxer. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Discharge granted. In re morey. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. The Trustee, Mr Humphrey, opposed. Bankrupt was examined. Discharge granted. In re temperly. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Discharge granted. In re hunter. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Discharge granted. In re palmer. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Discharge granted. In re mmms. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Meeting adjourned to next sittings in consequence of bankrupt's absence. In re ai/tce m'oee. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Discharge granted. In re daktel II'GEE. Mr Pitt for bankrupt. Discharge granted. The Clerk of the Court then applied to his Honor to fix a time within

which creditors should prove before distribution. His Honor fixed six months. This exhausted the business of the Court, and it was adjourned sine die.