INANGAHUA DISTRICT COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1183, 22 September 1882, Page 2

INANGAHUA DISTRICT COURT.

TnunsDAY, Septembei 21st, 1882,

(Before his I'onor Judge Broad.)

This Court wa» held yesterday, bu.t as has already been stated, the business was light. Mr Perkins prosecuted-911 behalf of the Crown, and the bar was represented by Messrs JoneSy A. JR. Guinness, and Lynch. *>£< . i On the fist of- jurymen being called .ojgfii^^jttro. were* some, Hall wgre utoaole to attend thrwH illness, and they were excused. Augus^l tvs Sangster, who had heen summoned, sent a rioie to the Judge stating that he had been out of the district for two years, and requesting to be excused on that ground.

Sergeant Neville said that he served this juror on the 4th instant, and that he them did not demur to attending. I ! c (Sangster) had been working on and off at Boatman's during the time he said he was absent from the district. His Honor inflicted a fine of £3 on the absentee.

MALICIOUSLY WOUNDIXG. Gebhardt Guth was indicted for having on the 15th of July, maliciously wounded Edward Francis. Mr \V. H. Jones defended the accused. The facts of this case are already familiar to our readers. The men were drinking together at Antonio's Flat, vhen a dispute arose, and the alleged stabbing resulted. The wound was a very slight one, and the defence was that the prisoner was cutting up some tobacco

at the time, and in the drunken scuffle that occurred, the injury complained of was occasioned.

The jury, without , hesitation, acquitted the accused, >the Judge remarking that it was a base that should never have been sent to that Court, but should have been dealt with in the Resident Magistrate's Court.

REFUSING TO ASSIST A COXSTABLF.

Joseph Graham was charged with having refused :to assist Constable Bamford in arresting a man named Sockbum, on the Ist of ' eptembor, though called on to do ko in the Queen's name. Mr Lynch defended the accused.

The Crown Prosecutor ("VTr Perkins) in opening the case, said there had been a great deal both written and spoken on it, but he called on the jury to disabuse their minds of all they had heard, and bring in a verdict as they had sworn to do in accordance with the evidence. He remarked that the offence charged was not a felony, but merely a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment, and he pointed out how necessary it was that the police should be assisted as the defendant had been called on to d«.

The facts of the case arc already well known to our readers, and do not need recapitulation. The defence in substance was that defendant did not know he~was doing wrong, and that he was not sober at the time, and was incapable of rendering the assistance asked.

At the conclusion of the evidence Mr Lynch addressed tho jury, ami Ms Honnr slimmed up favorably to the accused. In his remarks he questioned rather the leaality of calling on any person to assist in the capture of another in a private house, and also regretted that the Legislature in passing tho recent " Justices of the Peace Act " did not authorise the lower courts to deal with this amongst other classes of offences.

The jury without hesitation, acquitted the defendant.

Probate was granted in the estates of the late Charles McGaffin and Jame3 Danks, which concluded the business, and the court then adjourned.