Criminal Sittings.

Monday 26th May 1902

Before His Honour his Justice Williams

The Court at 10.30 am.

Grand Jury Sworn

John Hardy Morrison Foreman...James Mann

Alexander Begg..............................George Hutton Moodie

Alexander Black.............................Alexander Palmer

Walter Bull.....................................James Teinster Passmore

James Burrows...............................Adam Paterson

Francis Arthur Cutten..................Robert Stirlin Rankin

David George Davidson..................Robert Challen Skeet

James Fortheringhim....................William Wills

Walter Gow.......................................Robert Young

Paul Frederick Kahlenberg...........William Robert Jameson

His Honour delivered his charge to the Grand Jury

The Grand Jury found time bills in the following cases.

Rex v. Hugh Sweeny - Murder

The Grand Jury was discharged.

%META:TOPICINFO{author="PaulKlemick" date="1185590115" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="PolishArtilces"}%

-- PaulKlemick - 28 Jul 2007

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Monday, May 26.

(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Williams.)

His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.30 am.

GRAND JURY

The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury:-J. H. Morrison (foreman), Alexander Begg, Alexander Black, Walter Bull, James Burrowes, F. A. Cutten, D. G. Davidson, J. Fotheringham, Walter Gow, P. F. Kahlenberg, J. Mann, P. Miller, G. H. Moodie, A. Palmer, J. L. Passmore, A. Paterson, R. S. Rankin, R. C. Skeet, W. Wills, R. Young.

HIS HONOR'S CHARGE

His Honor charged the Grand Jury in the following terms:-Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,- The calendar this morning contains the names of 12 persons, who are charged with various offences. Most of the offences are of the kind which commonly come before the court on these occasions. There are several cases where certain employees of the Union Company are charged with stealing paint, oil, and stores of that description. There is a person charged with stealing a cow; there are two persons charged with theft from a till; there is a charge of false pretences; there is a charge of assault and robbery; there is a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; and there is a charge of criminal assault upon a girl. As to all those cases I think you will find no real difficulty. The most important case on the calendar is one where the accused is charged with murder. The facts of the case are peculiar. I do not propose to go into the evidence in detail, but I will just give you a very short sketch of the salient features of the case. The deceased was a woman. She lived at the time of the occurrence by herself in a house at Allanton. She was last seen alive at Allanton by a witness, Joseph Kreft, between 10 and 11 in the morning of Wednesday, 26th March, and at that time she was not sober. That was when she was last seen alive, but a witness, Hasler, passing her house the same evening, about 8 o'clock, heard her voice in the house. He heard no other voice in the house, but he heard her voice. So we have this: that the last that is seen of her is at 11 o'clock on the morning of the 26th, and that the last that is heard of her is at 8 o'clock in the evening on the same day. About half-past 8-that is, about half an hour after she was last heard of - her house was seen to be on fire. The neighbours go and find when they arrive there that the house is in a blaze, that the bedroom window is partly open, and that the door is closed, but neither snibbed nor locked. They see her body lying on its back in the kitchen. Then the police and the neighbours try to get the body out, and they succeed after some difficulty owing to the heat. The body is brought out considerably burnt. Then when they have time and look at it, it is found there is a one-pronged fork sticking, firmly fixed, in the heart. This one-pronged fork belonged to the deceased. The medical evidence is to the effect that is probable that this fork was stuck into the heart during the lifetime of the deceased. If that was so, then, of course, it follows that the deceased was either murdered or else that she stuck it into herself. Then comes the question of what is the connection of the accused with the affair. It appears that the accused and the deceased had formerly lived together, but they had ceased to live together at this time. The accused lived in a hut not far from the deceased's house by himself. On the evening, however of the previous day-of Tuesday, 25th March-accused had been at the deceased's house with a man named Switalla. They had been drinking there, and there had been a quarrel between the accused, Switalla, and the deceased. The accused was apparently jealous of Switalla. So that the accused had been in the deceased's house certainly the night before. Then on Wednesday, 26th, the day on the evening of which the death happened, the accused was seen in the neighbourhood the worse for drink. Shortly before 7 in the evening he was seen to go to the house of the deceased and try to get in. Two of the witnesses say they saw him go into the deceased's house about 7. However, if he did go in, he came out again, because about half-past 7 he turned up at the hotel close by and was there for about half an hour. Then when the fire was observed he was seen going to the fire. The next day the accused was arrested, and he stated that he had not seen the deceased since the night of the 25th, and had not been near her place since that night. That is a short summary of the salient features of the case, gentlemen. I need hardly remind you that in this case as in all the cases your function is not to decide finally on the guilt or the innocence of the accused. What you have to determine is whether the evidence brought before you discloses a prima facie case which the accused should be called upon to answer. If it does you should find a true bill. It does not disclose a prima facie case the bill should be ignored. Gentlemen, if you will kindly retire to your room the bills will be laid before you... "The Otago Witness", 4 June 1902.