RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume 2, Issue 94, 29 August 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Thursday, Adjust 21

(Before Vincent Pi/ke, Esq.,R.M )

REGINA v. CARPENTER.

STEALING AMALGAMATED GOLD.

Thomas Carpenter surrendered to his bail, on a charge of stealing amalgamated gold from the Royal Standard Quartz Crushing (Jo. The following is a copy of the information : —That Wm. Watson, manager of the said Company, suspects that Thomas Carpenter, who was a servant to the Company, did while he was so employed, in or about March last, feloniously steal, take, anil carry away a quantity of quicksilver containing , gold, (usually called ,l amalgam,’’) to the value : of £2 I 3s, and within six calendar mouths there-j after. in or about April, a further quantity of | quicksilver containing gold to the value of £45 | 3s 21. and in or about May, quicksilver containing gold, to the value of £4!) lls 10d, and in or about July quicksilver ooitaining gold to the value of £44 7s Id, and the same did feloniously steal, take, and carry away respectively, of the goods and chattels lawfully in the possession of the said Company. ('octal, £153 5s Id.) : Mr Brough (instructed by Inspector Persy) prosecuted ; Mr Wilson defended the accused. The Court-house was crowded throughout the day. Mr Wilson ; Before the case proceeds, I wish to say that, as yet, there is no prosecutor in this case. My client is accused of stealing amalgamated gold, the property of the Royal Standard Quartz Crushing Company. At the last hearing the information was amended, or, rather, a new information was laid. I have written to Mr Jenour, the only legal manager of the Coinnany. and he informs me that the cotn--1 pany are not the prosecutors, and certainly he is not. As it stands, this is a prosecution by one servant of his fellow-servant. This cannot be done without the employer’s consent. One servant cannot prosecute another for felonious appropriation of Ids master’s goods and chattels. I want to know whom we are to look to, in case this prosecution fails. Mr Pyke, K.M. : William Watson says,—“l | am working manager of the Royal Standard Quartz Crushing Company. Mr George Jenour is the legal manager.” Jenour is the only legal representative of the enmpanv. You say one servant cannot prosecute his fellow-servant for larceny without his employer’s consent. I will make, a note of the objection. Mr Brough : The information may be amended at any time. Mr Pyko : Three is hut one manager known to the law, viz., the “ legal manager.” Watsun is onlv a servant, like the accuse I was. It is a . question whether, if I commit the prisoner as the information is now laid, an indictment could he framed thereon. Mr Brough : I am content that it should be , altered to “ William Watson, miner, of Smith’s (•hilly. ” Mr Pyke : I will reserve the point. Mr Wilson : But that won’t do ; suppose the man is committed for trial. I have to defend him. 1 Mr Pyke,: I cahnot carry a. law library about '! on my back, and th«*rc is no room for one here j (in this small Court-house).

Wm. Watson, recalled and sworn : Since last hearing of this case, I have made a plan showing the relative positions of the different houses, &c., about the machine: the measurements were verified by Sergeant Cassels. From the back of Carpenter’s house to the hole in the race, of which I spoke in my evidence, there is a distance of 13 feet. Mo one was in the habit of “ panning off” stuff in the race above the hole. Mr Wilson objected to the reception of this plan, as it was not made by a competent person. Mr Fyke: I shall admit it. I have not to give a judgment, but simply to make a magisterial enquiry. Witness: The company panned off their amalgam in the machine-shed. Mr Wilson : What do you mean by the Royal Standard Company ? Answer: The representatives of the Company. Question : Who are they ? A. I am one.

Q. And was Carpenter one ? A. Yes ; ho was employed by them. Q. How do you know that anyone has panned off in the hole ? Have you ever seen anyone do so ?

A. I have never seen any authorised agent of the company panning off in the hole. Quicksilver and amalgam were found in the hole; I saw both there.

Q. Have you any permission from the com pany to prosecute in this case ?

Mr Brough objected to this question, but was overruled by the Bench. Witness : I have not received permission from the manager of the company to institute this prosecution. I have not been directed by any member of the company to institute this prosecution. I have received no authority from Mr Jenour, the legal manager, who is also a servant of the company. By the Bench : I am the person who laid this information ; I am the prosecutor. Gilbert M ‘Cube : I am a miner, and employed as a feeder of tbo Royal Standard Company’s machine. About the Ist of April, [ was outside the machine-house, and picked up a piece of amalgam weighing 6or 7 grs. It came from the Heart of Oak stone ;it was rather coarse. The company hail been crushing their stone. I remember the washing-up of the Border Chief stone in July : when it was completed, 1 put all the quicksilver in bottles in my hut. shortly after 1 went to Bendigo ; on returning, I found a pound of quicksilver in one of the buckets. This was strange, as I had cleaned the buckets before I went away. I asked Watson if he had used it. He said “ No.” I know Mrs Watson ; she showed me a piece of chamois leather, about the mouth of June. It had every appearance of having been just used for squeezing amalgam ; it was moist, and had globules of quicksilver adhering. 1, soon after, noticed a slight running from the back of the accused’s house, — actually from the house ; it seemed to be from the inside, —from the kitchen. It was not ordinary refuse, it was clay and sludge,—just as though some one had been panning off inside. I know the hole in the race, 13 feet from the accused’s house. I have seen very small pieces of amalgam taken out of it. All the amalgam was panned oil' in a tub in the machine-house. Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : I was away at Bendigo a week. No crushing was done when 1 was away, because the key of the tables was in my hut. 1 went a Way on July 15, and was away till the Thursday following. When I came back I found all the quicksilver there which I had left. The machine-shod was not locked ; anybody could get into it. I mentioned the matter to Watson, but not to Jenour. It would have been gross carelessness to leave a pound of | quicksilver in the bucket; but L left the buckets ; clean when I went to Bendigo, By Mr Fyke : It vns the practice of the com- ■ pany to retort the gold as soon as ever it was 1 crushed.

Richard He rberfc sworn : 1 was employed by the company in July lust. The accused was in their employ at tire same lime. 1 noticed, on several occasions, at meal hours, that accused left the machine-shed with his coat on his arm, and it seemed to have something in it. I mentioned it to Watson, but not to Jenour, as he

was never up at the machine in my time. Watson employed me. I twice saw a retort upon a tire at the hack of accused’s bouse : he was there on both occasions. I saw accused, on six occasions, panning off stuff at a hole in the race. The first and second occasions were in February. 1 examined that hole on the 12th inst., in company with .Sergeant Gassels, and took out about three pounds of stuff, which I panned off; it contained dwt. of amalgam, which I gave to the sergeant. The gravel in the hole was peculiar, and at the bottom there was a quantity of Royal Standard stone : it is peculiar,—a blue and white kind of stone, which is different from any other at present found in the Garrick Range. The hole appeared to have been used for panning off stuff (amalgam). Mrs Watson showed me a wash-leather in June. (The witness corroborated the evidence of previous witness.) I remember seeing accused cleaning a mortar, which belonged to Gossar and Staite, about the begin - I ning of June : it was in the machine-house, but

was afterwards removed. In July, Watson asked me to get a dish to pan off in, I could not then find one belonging to the company ; but subsequently the accused handed it to me,

saying he had had it to try a prospect. I remember the second crushing of the lloyal Standard atone ; the accused and myself cleaned it up. I cleaned out the boxes, and handed the amalgam to the accused, making the remark to him, “it looks very good.” it was his duty to put the amalgam into the bucket. Some of the pieces were about the size of a pigeon’s egg. Watson squeezed it; the accused panned it off. It would have been possible—easy—for a man panning oft'the amalgam to abstract some of it, by shaking it out of the dish into the waste tub. Some of the lumps of amalgam wh ch 1 saw were not in the waste tub. 1 reported the matter to Watson.

Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : I have had five months’ e-perience as a quartz miner ; but am a sailor by profession. I hold myself as a servant of the Koval Standard Company. The Border I‘hief was the last crushing I attended to. Watson is my brother-in-law. The first occasion on which 1 saw a retort on the accused's fire was in February : the second was soon after the first Heart of Oak crushing. I do not know the dates when (on six occasions) I saw accused panning off stuff’ in the race. 1 do not remem-

ber seeing Watson intoxicated in May, soon after the Heart of Oak crushing ; I never saw Watson worse for drink. Ido not remember the accused being asked to pan off the stuff, because Watson was “ not fit.” Although 1 have only been employed since April at the machine, I swear that there is no stone in the Garrick Range like that of the Royal Standard. I have seen amalgam squeezed in wash leather a dozen times. It was unusual to see the accused cleaning out a mortar ; I suspected he wanted it to pound quartz, and reported it to my brother-in-law (Watson). There was not some one always present representing the company to watch the crushing. Bor all the companies, with the exception of t 1 \ Royal Standard, there was some one present watch. It was perfectly easy for a person panning off to abstract a portion of the amalgam by shaking it into the waste tub, I panned off some of the last Royal Standard’s crushing. I informed Mr Jenour of my suspicions once when I came in to get paid. Mr Jenour has the date, and he kept the accused in the company’s employ after that. I did not see what was in the retorts.

Re examined by Mr Brough : On the morning after the washing-up of the Border Chief, I was requested by one of the shareholders to re-pan off what was in the waste tub, and I could have the result myself. I found line tailings substituted for the original quartz, and three pieces of sods. I panned the whole off, and only got half a pennyweight of silver. Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : George Taylor was the shareholder who told me. I did not see the accused put the tailings into the tub. I did not pan off the contents of the tub for a week after.

By Mr Pyke : I did not examine the bucket; I was not asked to do so by Watson. He remarked on the small quantity of gold yielded by the Royal Standard’s crushing. William Walter Watson, son of a previous witness, an intelligent boy, 8 years of age, having satisfied the Magistrate that he comprehended the nature of an oath, was sworn, and said : I know Carpenter’s house ; it is close to the race. I found some amalgam in and around the hole in the race, similar to that produced ; I showed it to my mother. I found quicksilver in the race.

Mrs Watson, mother of last witness, sworn : Early in June 1 went to the accused’s house to feed the fowls ; he had asked me to do so. I found a wash-leather in his premises, on two occasions. It was hanging on a nail against the wall. It looked as though a ball of amalgam had been squeezed in it. I showed it to my husband. ] subsequently replaced it where I found it. My little boy handed me some amalgam, which 1 gave to my husband. On July 27, I found another wash-leather on the accused’s premises (in the same place) : it was in a similar state to the other, and I showed it to my husband.

Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : I said nothing to the accused about it, nor did 1 ask him what he had been doing with it. I generally see the washings-up. I had about an ounce of retorted gold, belonging to the Royal Standard Company, which I carried in my purse. My husband gave it to me to carry. I showed it to Mr Colclongh at the machine. lie might have said, “Oh ! that belongs to the Hoyal Standard Company.'’ The wash-leather was hung up where everyone could see it : there was no concealment.

Joseph Holliday, a shareholder in the Heart of Oak Company, sworn : I remember the accused being on night-watch with roe in May or June. The accused said to me, “You must be knocked up for want of sleep. - ’ 1 replied, “No; I can do without sleep for a week.” lie said ha would watch for me if I liked, and look out for the tables. I did not accept his offer. We have had two crushing,s of the Heart of Oak stone ; the first was the best, and there was a perceptible difference in the two yields. On July 27, I saw the accused riding through Clyde. He told roe he was going to the Hospital to see a party. A man named Swan directed him the nearest road. I watched him, and he took the road to Alexandra. I had suspicions about the accused, and that was why I watched him. Some amalgam had been shown me, which the little boy had picked up. The boy took me to the race, and there I saw more amalgam and quicksilver.

Andrew Whitfield ; 1 met the accused at the Bannockburn at 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8. He then had a pipe like one used for retorting. It was a starlight night. Constable George Comyn : On Thursday, the 10th inst., I removed the prisoner from the Court-house to the lock-up. He said, “I know nothing about the search-warrant on Monday when I came in. I have not been out there since. If Cassels is going out there, he’ll see all there is.”

Anthony Christophers, agent for the Bank of New South Wales at Clyde ; I saw the accused in the Bank at Clyde on Saturday, March 25. I knew him previously, and have known him about eight years. He offered retorted gold

for sale in two or three small cakes, in all Cozs, 21grs. I gave him £2l 35., being at the rate of £3 10s. per ounce. He said it was from the Garrick Ranges. Cross-examined by TV! r Wilson ; He has borne a good character hitherto. I never heard anything against him. By the Bench : I never asked his name, —for I knew it. Henry Conway Jones, agent of the Bank of New Zealand at Alexandra, sworn : 1 first saw the accused on April 21. He offered retorted gold for sale : I made him an advance of L.42 iSs. for 12 ozs. 5 dwts. 5 grs. of gold, at the rate of L.3 10s. per ounce. He said it was from the Garrick Range. I expressed my surprise that he should bring it there (to Alexandra), as it was much handier to sell it at Cromwell. He said it was just as handy for him, as he li V/l high up the range. He told me to place iny balance from Dunedin to his credit. He g p the name of George Green. 1 sent the gfild down to be melted, and I placed a balarm° to his credit of L.2 ss. 2d., for which he drew a'cheque [produced]; he signed it in my presence. Ho gave me his address, on the second occasion, “ George Green, care of Thomas Carpenter, Bannockburn.” He said Green was a mate of his. On the 3rd June he again brought to mo 13 ozs. M dwts. 10 grs. of retorted gold, on which I made another advance of L.48 Os. 5d., at L.3 10s. per ounce. On the assay being made, there was a balance in Carpenter’s favour of L. 1 11«.

5d., which was put to credit of George Green in the Bank’s hooks. That dav he told me I had better send any balance to “ Thomas 1 ’arpenter” direct, as he (George Green) was likely to be awav for some time. He signed, and left with me, a blank cheque [produced], which he signed “George Green.” I subsequently filled up the cheque for L.l 11s, 5d., and forwarded a draft on Dunedin for the amount to Thos. Carpenter. The gold was pretty much like the first lot. On July 27, he brought to me 12 ozs. 17 dwts. and 12 grs. of retorted gold, on which I advanced L.38 12s. fid. On this I only gave L.Spnroz. He sold it in the name of George Green. This lot was but very indifferently retorted, and that was why 1 only advanced to him at the rate of 60s. per oz. instead of 70s. as on the former occasions. The gold was m the form of almost roun& balls. I am not much accustomed to reto/ gold. He said I need not forward any balauu'vto him, but to place it to his credit, as he woullj; he down again in two or three weeks, a balance of L.5 14s. 7d. accrued ; it still remains to the credit of “George Green.” His words were to the effect that his mate “ might as well have it as himself.” Sergeant Cassels, sworn : I remember going out to Carpenter’s house on August 12. On the 9th instant, at 3.30 in the afternoon, I arrested the accused on a warrant at Cromwell. 1 told him what he was charged with. 1 took him to the Camp, and searched him : the only property I found was L.2 19s. in silver. I obtained a warrant for his arrest on the previous day. I saw him that morning in Cromwell I returned that evening from Clyde, and made search for him in the town. In the presence of his wife, on the 10th instant, I searched the place. I found nothing that I had been searching for in the house. I went to the water-race and waterhole, and found that some persons had been panning off in the hole ; there was a heap of pannings off in it. On August 12, I visited the locality, and examined the hole in the race in presence of Richard Herbert. (Here the witness only corroborated previous evidence.) This was the case for the prosecution. Cross-examined by M r Wilson ; I got the warrant at Clyde on the Sth inst. I might have told some one I had a warrant. I will not swear that I did not. I do not recollect telling anyone. If I met a reliable man I probably might tell him. 1 got back to Cromwell at 7-39 p. in., and searched for him in the town till past midnight, hut 1 did not find him. I found nothing at the accused’s house. The Court then adjourned (at G p.m.) til! next morning at 10 o’clock. Friday, August 25. (Before Vincent Pt/kc, Ksq., Ti.lT ) The hearing of the case was resumed at 10 a.m. Mr Wilson called the following witnesses.? ; George Jenour, sworn : I am legal manager of the Roval Standard Quartz Crushing Company (Registered). I have not missed any stone, amalgam, or retorted gold, the property of the company. Watson is a servant of the company ; he laid the information. Question: Have you authorised him or any other person to lay that information or cany on these proceedings ? I am sneaking to you in your position as manager of the company. Answer: T have not. Hot him or anyone else. Q. Have you been applied to to institute proceedings against the accused ? A. No. By Mr Brough : I had no opportunity of superintending the working of the machine. Watson acted as engineer for the company. If any stone or amalgam were stolen, it was more likely Watson would miss it than that 1 would. I had no opportunity of ascertaining when a robbery had been committed. I believe I remember Herbert informing me that'be had susnicions of atone being stolen. Watson is not acting in opposition to the expressed wish of the shareholders in taking these proceedings. Q. is it the general wish of the shareholders that these proceedings should be taken ? A. I believe it is. None of them have objected. By Mr Brough : If any amalgam was in the machine-house of the Royal Standard Company, it would properly be in the possession of Watson, as servant of the company. By Mr Wilson : There is no specified time for the servants of the Company bringing down gold. 1 should expect it down within two or three days after crushing. Q. Suppose there was any dishonesty among the servants, would it not be Watson’s duty to report it to you ? A. Yes. it would. Alexander Fleming, sworn : I am an engineer. 1 was engine-driver to the Royal Standard Company, and worked in the same watch as the accused. I recollect being sent to call the accused to aid in washing-up for the Elizabeth Company. I know Mr Richards, one of the shareholders of that company. He was present at the panning off; so were the accused, Watson, and others. The stuff was panned off in the machine-shod, into the “blanket-tubs.” I also called the accused to aid at the washing-up at the Heart of Oak crushing previous to the 4th of April ; 1 think at the end of March. Carpenter always washed up ; ho retorted it. It was the best yield the Heart of Oak had had ; the shareholders wore pleased. The majority of them were present at the washing-up. The accused made the additions to his house himself. Cross-examined by Mr Brough : I left the company’s service in April, and know nothing of what has occurred since. 1 called the accused to assist at 'Watson’s request (at the Elizabeth’s crushing in January). I have known the accused for some time. The additions to his house were of stone and mortar ; he got the stones on the hill-side. Some hinges were lost, and found on the door of an outhouse belonging to Carpenter. i George Hancock, miner, residing at Smith’s Gully : I recollect watching the machine in June last, when the Elizabeth Company had a crushing. I called the accused one morning at 6 a. in. help to wash up. Watson told me to do so. /F‘Mr Wilson then addressed the Court, and 11 aid : I submit that there is no proof, in this a r e,on y been committed.—there i\A. tittle of evidence of ray client having coN/Vitted the larceny imputed to him. He might-as well be charged with any other offence of which'there is no legal proof against him. In a case recorded by law authorities, the prisoner was indicted for stealing a shirt. It was submitted for the prosecution, that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury to prove the prisoner was the thief; but Barou Pollock said, " It will be pushing the doctrine of possession

too far to hold this sufficient. There is a certain period after which it is very unfair to assume theft from mere possession, even where the property is proved aliunde to have been stolen. ■Still less can I infer felony where, from anything that appears, the article may never have been stolen at all.” Justice Coleridge assented, and the jury were directed to acquit. In a charge of larceny, if the prosecutor cannot swear to the loss of the article said to bo stolen, the prisoner must he acquitted. Here there is no possession at all. I ask, where is the evidence of the article alleged to be lost or stolen ? It is sworn by Mr Jenour, the legal manager of the company, that nothing has been lost. He never received information that anything had been missed from the machine, but was merely informed of Herbert’s suspicions. Supposing that there was evidence of something having been stolen, still the stolen goods—or article—must be identified ; its identity must be proved. Where, I ask, is it? There is absolutely nothing,—not an iota or scintilla of evidence as to the identity of the property alleged to have been stolen by my client. Where is the proof of identity ? “ Roscoe on Evidence” says, “Evidence must be given to show the identity of the property taken ; but a resemblance between the article stolen and the article lost will in some cases be sufficient, without positive proof of the identity, as in the case of goods stolen.” In this case there is no proof, of either one kind or the other. Nothing was found upon the accused, nor at his house when it was searched. It is absurd to charge ray client with having stolen some amalgam, the property of the company, because he sold gold at Clyde and Alexandra. That is no proof. _ There must also be proof of the taking ; there is none here. Roscoe has recorded a case “ where the only evidence offered against a prisoner accused of stealing a quantity of brass was that he had been seen going into the place where the brass alleged to have been stolen was kept. It was held that there was not a scintilla of evidence to go to the jury.” My client was lawfully' on tlie premises of the company. Nothing was found on him, nor at his house—not a grain of amalgam or gold. There was no attempt made to identify any gold,—and Mr Jenour, the company’s only legal representative and manager, had sworn that he had missed none of the com- 1 pany’s property, and he is no party to this prosecution. The information alleges that the accused stole certain property of the company,— that allegation was unsupported by legal proof. 1 have yet to learn that one servant of either a private individual, or of a public company, or a corporate body, can lay such an information as this against a fellow-servant. On that point of law alone, leaving alone the other points raised, 1 would he satisfied to allow the case to rest. There is no prosecution before the court,—before going into the evidence. Mr Pyke : My decision is that the points raised by counsel are proper ones for submission to a Judge, but not for me to decide. Mr Wilson ; Such points have been taken before the Courts at home. There is no proof of taking—possession—or identity, which must be proved; otherwise it is useless to put the colony to the expense of sending accused to trial. There is no proof of felony here. The case for the prosecution rests upon mere suspicion, of the most meagre and vague kind, originating in ill-feeling which existed between that busy-body, Mrs Watson, and the unfortunate wife of the accused. The Royal Standard machine may have been a most imperfect one, and parlies might have collected amalgam that escaped from it, or was left about tho place,—saved it up, and retorted it. Such tilings were possible. There is no proof that the gold sold by the accused at Clyde and Alexandra was identical in character, or resembled any that had actually been missed from the machine. In fact, a prana facie case has not been made out by the long, tedious, and often inadmissible evidence. There is nothing adduced that can be called conclusive evidence. In all my experience of criminal prosecutions in these colonies, I never knew a case worked up to such a pitch with so little base of evidence. And I will also say that 1 never knew a case of felony attempted to be substantiated bv purely circum-stantial—-and especially incomplete circumstan-tial-evidence. My friend Mr Brough, in his opening address to the Court, mentioned various circumstances which have not been substantiated by the sworn testimony of the witnesses. Taking the whole of the circumstances, and reviewing the evidence, there is nothing beyond vague suspicion. And the first “suspicion” is that Carpenter asked for employment, —lie desired to get a situation ; and he got one, with wages at the rate of £4 per week. I ask, is it fair ground for suspicion of a man’s character that he asks for work? Allow, even, that he is, or was “hard up,”—does that prove anything detrimental to my client ? No. Just the contrary. Even as to the improvement of his dwelling ; it turns out that he did the work himself. As to the yields from various “ trial crushings,” all that we learn is that the shareholders expected a great deal more than they actually got. This is no proof of larceny. In fact I never knew a quartz-mining company—except the Caledonian —in which the yield came up to the expectations of some of the shareholders. They always expect it will go higher. It is shown that the machine was never properly watched,—nor was the “panning off.” It was attempted to he proved that the accused was always getting in tho way at tho times of washing up. I called two witnesses, who swore that he was called by the request of the working manager. The evidence of both Watson and Herbert was evidently given with a strong bias —an animus—against the accused : sift that testimony, and there is absolutely nothing left as against my client. Much was tried to be made about the hole in the race ; and even in regard to that there is nothing more than suspicion, which is, as the Court knows, less than presumption. Nothing has been adduced to justify this case being sent to a jury ; but if sent I feel confident that a Grand Jury would not find a true bill. The very acts which, being committed by the prisoner, are tried to be construed into evidence of guilt, arc, in fact, proofs of innocence, There was no concealment, no desire to avoid observation, even in the matter of the mortar, of which so much has boon made. I ask, Would a man who had stolen gold act in the open manner in which witnesses have declared the accused did ? To do that, the man would be a fool as well as a knave. This remark is also true as regards the chamois-leather, and the alleged retorting at the back of Carpeuter : a • house. ■'That* very bright youth, Herbert, who has had two months’ experience as a quartz-miner, swears very positively ; but, I ask, is it probable a man, having

stolen amalgam, would go and retort it in broad daylight iu the vicinity of the place from whence he had taken it ? The thing is absurd and preposterous. To call this circumstantial evidence is wrong ; it is not evidence at all. My friend’s (Mr Brough’s) benevolent lemark about my client preferring, or desiring to be sent to Dunedin for trial is a matter which I certainly cannot understand,—l can’t see it at all. I canuot comprehend why ho, or any man, should prefer to be put to the inconvenience and expense of undergoing an unpleasant and very unnecessary ordeal. All that it could possibly prove would bo that the Royal Standard Company had lost something,—what is not known, and by whom taken there is no proof. Is it likely that Carpenter would have left behind him all the traces of guilt which it is said he has done ? In this view, much of the evidence is rather in his favour than against him. Watson’s experiments, calculations, and anticipations as to the probable result of different trial crushing.? are simply worthless. He has been only eighteen months on a goldfield, and yet he pretends to be a judge —an expert—in the matter of valueing quartz. Why, it takes years to obtain a reliable knowledge of quartz. As to vague suspicions and common reports that “ somebody was robbing the machine,” why were not the machine, and the prisoner, watched ? It is quite as likely that somebody else was the thief. In all bad cases, especially in this Colony, it is the practice to back up, and endeavour to strengthen the case for the prosecution by the evidence of a detective— Mr Brough : No detective has given evidence. Mr Wilson : Well, we have had the evidence, —such as it is, —of a sergeant of police wdio was a detective, and who, being a sergeant, is more of a detective than he is a constable. What is his evidence as to his mode of procedure after getting the warrant for the prisoner’s arrest ? I will only say that it was highly improper. If he was my subordinate, and I was his officer, after such conduct he would only remain but a very short time in the service. I ask the Court to dismiss the accused. There is really no legal evidence against him, —nothing more than the bare suspicions which appear to have existed in the minds of Watson and Herbert. The legal manager had and has no suspicion, and there is no primn facie case to go :o a jury. Mr I’yko : I shall take some time to consider the evidence before giving my decision. The Court was adjourned for two hours. On resuming, Mr Pyke gave his decision as follows This is a case iu which the prisoner is charged on the information of William Watson with stealing amalgamated gold, while a servant iu the employ of the Royal Standard Quartz Crushing Co. (Registered), the larceny being committed while the amalgam was lawfully in the power and possession of the said company. It is no part of a magistrate’s dab/ to give reasons for his decisions ; and, as a rule, it is perhaps best to avoid doing so. iu this case, however, I shall offer a few comments on the evidence adduced, —as the case is one of no small public importance, and in order that my actions m ay be understood. A “cloud of witnesses” lias been arrayed before the Court ; but on sifting the great mass of evidence I find that there is but a very small residuum material to the issue. The first witness, Dr James Corse, proves really nothing as to the pecuniary condition of the accused at the time of his entering the service of the company,—for he could not swear to anything “ of his own knowledge.” M'Cahe’a evidence is pointless, except as showing to what extreme lengths a witness may swear, and yet, ill his own mind, speak truthfully. 1 refer to his evidence about the amalgam. He said, “ 1 picked up, outside the machine-house, a piece of amalgam weighing six or seven grains. It came, from the. Heart of Oak Company’s stone: it was rather coarse. The Heart of Oak Company had had their stone crushed.” Now. it was preposterous for a man thus to swear that so small a portion of amalgam (picked up in the manner described) oamo from the stone of a particular claim. Whitfield’s evidence only goes to show that he mot the accused on a starlight but moonless night, and saw him carrying something which ho says was a small pipe, but which might have been a stick, or anything else. The evidence of Constable Coinyn merely repeats a statement of the accused—(and such evidence is always to he regarded with extreme caution)— that lie had not been at his residence since the previous Monday,—a statement at variance with Whitfield’s allegation that the accused had been seen in Smith’s Gully late on Tuesday night. Such evidence is useless. Sergt. Casscls proves nothing but the arrest of the prisoner, and the result of the search of his house (under warrant), iu fact he is rather a witness for than against the accused. Holliday’s evidence is absolutely less than valueless, lie knows nothing about the affair; as he merely says that the accused was at Clyde on a certain day, and that he rode away on the road leading towards Alexandra. As to the evidence of Mrs Watson and her son, I shall make no remark beyond saying that, seeing they had so little to relate, it was a great pity they were ever put into the witness-box. Fleming’s evidence is chiefly explanatory of the mode of manipulating the result of the crushings, and also as to the practice of persons having stone crushed at the Royal Standard Co.’s battery attending and being present at the wash ings-up. Let me say that although much of the evidence which I have criticised is inadmissible as evidence, it is yet very properly put before this Court, which is a Court of Enquiry only. His Honor Judge Johnston savs, in Iris “New Zealand Justice of the Peace,’’ p, 13 “ When they [the Justices] are acting ministerially hi the preliminary investigation of charges within the jurisdiction of another tribunal, they may with propriety listen to statements not strictly admissible in evidence, for the purpose of arriving at evidence of a more legitimate kind, but always keeping in view the necessity for some legally admissible evidence to establish the charge.” I make these remarks because a mass of testimony has been submitted, which F have listened to in order to eliminate what is purely legal proof. The evidence, it now appears, is reduced to that of four witnesses, viz., Watson, Herbert, Jones, (bank agent at Alexandra), and Christophers, (bank agent at Clyde). Even the evidence of the latter may, I think, he dispensed with. The aecused is charged with several offences ; and, having regard to economy of the public funds*- by- causing a reduction of their number we might obviate the necessity of Mr Christophers’ attendance at the Supreme Court in Dunedin. The evidence of Watson and Herbert has certainly disclose;! a. state of affairs ia

connection with the working management of the Royal Standard Company’s machinery which, I sincerely trust, is without a parallel, and is of a nature to excite very grave alarm in the minds, not only of shareholders in the lloyal Standard Company, but also in the min is of the public, who send quartz there to be crushed. It reflects infinite discredit on the witnesses, and suggests an utter wane of managerial ability. The evidence is very vague, inconclusive, and unsatisfactory. It seems that suspicion of the accused had been aroused many weeks prior to action being taken ; but, up to the last moment, no proper attempt was made to detect the accused hi jil'jranti ddict:>, (taken in the fact,)—which surely would have been easy of accomplishment, had proper means been adopted to that end,— always presuming the accused to have been guilty of larceny,—a matter which it is not my prov.nce to decide. The most damning fact remains, as disclosed in the evidence of the agents for the Banks of New Zealand and New South Wales. Carpenter has from time to time sold retorted gold to the former (to whom he was personally unknown) in the name of “ Geo. Green,”—a circumstance suspicious in itself ; and to the latter (by whom he was personally known) in his own name, on one occasion only'. Within five months the accused disposed of various quantities of gold in this way, amounting in the whole to the value of £1(10. His wages” in the meantime, were at the rate, first, of £4 per week, and then at £3 10s. per weak ; and he was employed as “ feeder” to the crushing machine, and could not have had time to mine for gold. Had ho obtained the gold honestly, ha would have had no difficulty in sheaving how he became possessed of it. It has been suggested for the defence that the machinery was so defective as to have lost quantities of amalgam. Still, the taking and keeping of a lost article avhen the owner is knoavn, or can be found, is a felony : and I wish this to be known, as it may deter others from imagining that they arc at liberty to take and use amalgam (or anything else) under such circumstances. Mr -Tonour’s evidence docs not touch the question of the probable guilt or innocence of the accused ; and that, I hold, is the only question for me to consider. It only bears on the point, raised by Mr Wilson, as to the capability of a servant to lay such information against a fellow-servant without the master’s authority. In this case, the lloyal Standard Company stand in the position of “ master,” or employer, to the accused. I remit this important point for tlio consideration of the Grown Prosecutor. It is purely a legal point. Judge Johnston says;—"lt is most common in the English system of prosecution to treat the person to whom the direct injury is done by a crime— c. rj. the owner of stolen goods, or the person who receives a personal injury, &e. —as the prosecutor, and to bind him over, and so render him responsible for the conduct of the prosecution. But when such person is not desirous of undertaking the duty of prosecution, it is not unusual in England,—(in some places it is the usual course, whether such person bo willing or not ; and in this Colony it would seem specially convenient,) —to bind over either some constable who can give evidence in the case, or the head constable or inspector of police of the district, as the prosecutor.” The proper parties, in my opinion, to lay this information were the police. I said so at the outset. By the police, 1 mean the chief police officer of the district. The learned counsel for the defence has raised several most important points, which, being argued before the Supreme Court, ffi/y bo beneficial to the prisoner. Those points arc : —The question of anything having been stolen from the company ; no identification of the property alleged to have boon stolen ; no proof of taking ; and the question of the validity of an information laid by a fellow-servant. But lam not here to decide these, legal points. My duty is plain. The Justices of the Peace Act says ; “ If, in the opinion of such Justices, such evidence is sufficient to put the accused party upon liis trial for an indictable offence, or if the evidence given raise a strong or probable presumption of the guilt of such accused party, then such Justices shall, by warrant, commit him, &c.” Therefore lam justified in sending this caae to a jury. Some objection lias been raised by the counsel for the defence to circumstantial evidence— Mr Wilson : I beg your Worship’s pardon : I do not object to circumstantial evidence ; but to render it reliable it must be in one unbroken and faultless chain. Mr Tyke : Well, I hold that circumstantial evidence, is often the strongest and most reliable of any. A great English authority has said, in 1 one of those epigrammatic sentences which fix themselves in men’s minds, that “Man may lie ; but circumstances cannot lie.” I think it is my duty—after self-commune—to commit the accused for trial, and to waive the purely legal points so ably taken by counsel, it is a matter of very grave importance, not only to the persons supposed to have been robbed, but to the whole of the mining public. Believing there to be a strong and probable presumption of the guilt of the accused, I commit him for trial at the next Criminal .Sessions of the Supreme Court, to be held in Dunedin on the 4th of September. I will admit the prisoner to bail, —the same as before. I shall at present only bind over the four witnesses I have named,—Messrs Jones, Christophers, Watson, and Herbert. Mr Wilson demanded, as a matter of right, that all the witnesses should be bound over. Mr Dyke declined to do so, Our reporter’s “notes” of Mr Whitfield’s evidence having been mislaid, he supplements hia report with the following : Andrew Whitfield, sworn : I am a miner, residing at Smith’s Gully. I remember Tuesday, the Bth of August. 1 met the accused at Smith’s Gully on that night. Ho was going in the direction of Cromwell. It was about half-past 11 o’clock. He was, when 1 met him, about quarter of a mile from the machine. He had a bundle under his left arm, and had in Ids right hand what appeared to me to bo an iron pipe ; ( think it was about two feet long. It bad a crook at one end. At that time a man named Thomas Horn was with me, and lie was a little the. worse for liquor. He staggered against the accused, which caused the bundle under his arm to jingle ; it sounded like iron. Horn spoke to hi'in thn did not reply, but merely said “ 1 lorn,” and passed on. Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : 1 know what a retort ia. 1 saw one on Saturday last. Thu thing which accused carried might not have been an it on pipe. I could not swear that it was. By the. Bench ; li. was a starlight night, but i there was no mo on..