SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2032, 5 March 1908, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Honor Mr. Jnstico f jp\»pnjU»«-) ot promo Court wore continued yosU - day before l:ns Honor Mi.. JuMRi Chapman. ; ,hahe matenga. I Haro Matenga was brought forwanl nii a of st»ciilui£ iioin d" Oliii oV Afcod Brot„« S ? t SWJ. on or about Ist Octoboi, ■ • •> . a ies’ Oliver watch, silver chain, . gold and silver pendant. Accused pleaded not ' i • Tho following jurors woio empanu led:— J. Maynard (foreman), A. J. Poole, G. K. Moore, P. Sheridan. L. A. Good, A. Martiu, A. Maul, A. G. AA'ebb, F. Parnell, L. Red" aid, A. AV. Adams, K. Campbell. Mr J. AV. Nolan represented tin. Crown, and Mr. H. J - than appeared for the defendant. . Mr. Nolan said that accused admitted the theft to Detective Broberg. Ho pointed out that the circumstances of the ease, palliative or otheiwise, must not inlluenee the jury. ..U'-s Honor would doubtless take that into . account. Ho called . Detective Broberg. who said that : he saw accused tirst on the letli iJecember last at a Maori yah on tlie , ltuakituri ltiver. Constable bkni- , ner and Green were with him. -tin* accused was with a number ot ot i- - er Natives, and they took him aside and explained who they were, and told him that they suspected -him ot ■being Hare Matenga He said that they were wrong, and that his name was Taiori. AVuness then asked him ; where lie got a gun ho had left at a pah a fortnight previous, and he said < that it belonged to bis brother, who , lived at Mangapouata. He was then i searched, and in a trousers pocket a j J watch -and chain, with a pendant at- j • tached, were found. He then admit- j , toil that his name was Hare Ala ten- ~ ga, and that he had taken tho watch and chain from a cump at Alotu. He ! further exolainod that he took it on , the day previous to the day ho had l; been chased by a party and fired at. j ; He also admitted committing thefts from othor camps in tho Motu. Hare ; mas then arrested and brought to ; Gisborne. Tho watch, chain, and pendant (produced) were tho ones he admitted stealing. ; By Air. Finn: Some years ago had , some rough times chasing Hare lit : the East Capo district. In 1906 witness and his assistants were after hnn , for several months. Traces of all Ins ; camps were found, but Hare eluded , fbem. They returned when lie left that part of the country. A\ lien arrested Hare seemed excited through fear, and when satisfied that lie had i nothing to fear he became very quiet. ; He exolained that a -Maori constable up the coast had a set on him, and ho was afraid that if ho were caught ho would be shot. AYlien assured that he would not be shot he appeared quite harmless. Acting Detective Skinner, of Auckland, corroborated the jirevious evidence. Alfred Brothers, contractor, ot -Motu, stated that on the 12th October ■ last he left his whare shut and latched. Returned in the evening and found both doors open, and discovered that his watch and chain, pendant, and waistcoat had disappeared. The : door of the cupboard had also been opened, and the provisions were missing. Saw accused at 3 olclock the next day, witness being one of a search party looking for him. Hare was seen to be chopping some wood with a short-handled axe. Due ol the party called out to Hare to surrender, but the Maori made off into the bush, and witness did not see him again until tho dato of the Court proceedings. Had seen tho reports in the papers, which might have frightened some of the women. If Hare was harmless he would have gone out just the same. Acs, he did look like a wild bushman. One man of the party fired into the air. Air. Finn, ori behalf of the accused, admitted the facts as stated, but lie , raised a plea of insanity. Every man i i? was supposed to be innocent until prohftfi guilty. He would call evidence to show that this man lived with his wife up the coast, and was in every way a respectable man. Detective Broberg, perhaps the ablest detective in the country, had been eluded for months. AVas it possible, he asked, that a man who had been for years in the bush thought he was doing wrong. He callled Henry AfcClutchie, who stated that he had known the accused for about 20 years, and lie bore a very good character. Never knew of his com mittihg a wrongful act. By the Court : There was nothing particular about him; he was just an ordinary Alaori. He had a brother who was silly, but as far as he knew this did not apply at all to Hare. Accused, giving evidence oil his own behalf, stated that he lived at Tuparoa, but took to the bush on account of a horse trouble, and he heard that if he were caught lie would be shot, and he was very much afraid. AV lien they were chasing him the pursuers had guns, which they discharged, causing him fear. He lived on taws and other berries while in the bush. He hid himself owing to his great fear. AA'lien he came to this part ol the district lie came because he was tired of living in. the bush. AVhile at Alotu he lit a fire one evening, and he- saw Air. Brothers. A dog came up to him,) but lie went on with what he was doing. Some of the men saw him, and one of them saio “Fire l’’ and thinking they were going to shoot him lie turned to get ■away, but his foot caught and lie foil. Tho gun was fired twice. He got up, but again fell into a creek, and they again fired. Ho got up and followed the crock down. After ■a while the gun was fired again, end ■ then the party seemed to be going •away. Returned to his camp and picked up tho empty cartridges. He -went back to get the gun. He entered the house, but could not fine jt, and'he took the watch. Knew he was doing wrong, but went there to got the gun, because they 6hot at him, and one of the shots went close to him. -By .Mr. Nolan : The gun lie gave ' the,detective was his own, and he had it for some time. It had Ins name on tho stock. Bought it in 'Auckland a year before going to the hash. The letters “H.TV ! were on ihe gun. (It was produced, and boro pho letters as stated.) Had the gun sto shoot pigs and pigeons, but had mo cartridges. Gave the name 01 Taieri to fcl.ukanm. Put tho initials -“H.T.” on as they were his brother s initial's. Ho could not read and write, and nseel part ot 3ils brut Ijor s tbrand. His brand was *jnu ho used the “T.” to express it. Ihe gun cost £5; he gave £2 and his brother £3. Ho used the letter Ji • •as part of his name. During Jus hve years in tho bush ho did not take any guns. Did not toll tho detective that he stole guns from camps so that they coul-d not shoot him. The only occasion he took anything from a camp was when ho took the watch. Did not Dike any food from Brothers; ho did not think they had any. AVh.cn ho got the wstck it. was hanging on a nail, and he took it from there. Alfred Roberts, recalled, stated that it was a two-roomed whare, and when they left they closed both doom, Tho food, consisted of bread, moot; and hutter. It was not until after the theft that they pursued Hare. ; ,By Air. Finn: The people with him ‘ only visited him rarely. He knew of ;no one who would hare stolen the articles. Ho had heard of Hare bailing up females and asking them for food,. By Air. Nolan : The gun produced ,did not look as if it had been carried about for~Mire or Six years in the jgnoiv -and rain. Tho carving seemed to fiavo been done about 12 months. yThero was no rust in the barrels. Detective Broberg stated,that the rifle used at a target on tho Wainapu (l Hirer was a small bore rifle or a pea ■ trifle The cartridges wero not from '-a rain The conversation with accused 0 was in English, and he could be understood. Hc» told witness about hie experiences., .anu that he hn< * .heard a lot of firing hi the bush, and went to a camp and took a gun so ■j that tho ocenoants could nohim, Ho also said that when he ran out of ammunition lie throw the gun I away. Ho admitted taking watches from different camps, and ho said .that after carrying them about .for iiAJ --d.ftonifi.-t im o tlioy—would ..stop .and liO/

would throw them away. After sayir v 1 li'■»t the gun c ane from his bro"j, t , •v,lra‘ u<l Hint lie took it 1-.ini the minii) at .Motu. The letters on the gun nvemud quite recent. . By Air. Finn: Had a man with lam who could speak Alaori, and at times this man was used. The accused did not use the word “occuivation” or “occupier.” Air.'Finn, addressing the jury, said that the question was whether Hare was suffering from some disease of the mind. He pointed out that there was a conllict- of evidence. The only difference would ho ns to whether ho knew what he was doing. Tlio jury could judge from the demeanor of the accused in the box that he spoke the truth. Mr. Nolan said that Haro’s behavior in the box showed him to he a

very astute man, and he showed no evidence of insanity. Had he kept to the truth he would have gained more sympathy, but telling deliberate lies did him no good. It was absurd to believe that lie lived on berries, etc., and that it was a peculiar thing if losses and thefts occurred just where he was, and that he knew nothing about them. A man carrying a gun and ammunition for subsistence would not waste time practising at a target, and this was contradicted by the detective, who stated that the shots were fired from a pea rifle. Another misstatement was that ho did not go into the whare at Alotu to commit theft. There was no reason to disbelieve Air. Roberts in saying that the firing was before the t-heTt of the watch. The jury would see that the appearance of the gun did not bear out accused’s statements.

liis Honor said that unless the jury believed the story of insanity, the case must be regarded as undefended. The accused said that he was quite capable of understanding what ho was doing, and his opinion was that there was no evidence to show insanity. There was something unaccountable in his acts, and lie had the idea that- they wanted to shoot him, but Alaoris could be carried a way by such ideas and be perfectly sane. His own counsel put it to the jury that- he had eluded the ablest detective for years, and he did it with great cunning. His Honor was puzzled at- first why ho should take the watch, but lie would like to know the time as others did. He helped himself to the watch in the same state of mind as ho was at present. To agree with the defence, the jury would have to go to the length of considering him quite incapable of appreciating the real position in regard to his actions. After n short retirement the jury brought in a verdict of “Guilty.” Accused pleaded guilty to a further count of stealing a double-barrelled gun, a pair of boots, and a pocketbook, on 2lst October, 1907, the property of William Dooley, at Alotu. Op prisoner’s behalf, Air. Finn pointed out that accused had been in gaol since his arrest, and he asked that he be allowed the benefits of probation, or to come up for sentence if called upon. The detective stated to his Honor that ho did not credit the accused’s statements about not meeting white people. He waited till tho men had loft the camps, removing clothes, food, flour, etc., and planting it, and then taking it further /away. He stole about six watches. There was nothing to show that he terrified women at all. His Honor said that he could not allow probation, because he committed a series of robberies for a long time. It might have been true that he was afraid, but he said lie was coming back, and he should have done this long ago. It was well known that lie stole a number of gnus; he might have had reason for that, hut not for stealing watches. He must deal with him as with other Alaoris, and he had committed so many dishonest acts that it would be a bad thing for his countrymen if he were allowed his liberty. He would be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in Auckland Gaol. This was on both charges, the sentences being concurrent. ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION. James Gilbert Watt appeared for ■entence for making a false declaration in obtaining a marriage certificate. Accused stated that the girl complained of being ill-treated at home. His Honor said that accused had been guilty of a very serious offence, but in consideration of his good character, and having acted on an imoulse, he would be allowed the benefits of the Probation Act. The offence was committed more as a false step than as a- deliberate crime. He would he admitted to probation for 12 months, the only condition being that he would have to pay £5, within one month, towards-the cost of the prosecution. ALLEGED ASSAULT.

Robert Charles Brown appeared to answer a charge of assaulting Cliing Pop on or about 13th January, so as to do him bodily harm. The following jury was empanelled —J. Maynard (foreman), L. Redward, T. AA r . Revell, C. A. SherrifF,. J. McKee, R. Colebrook, It. Barker, H. Currie, S. J. Ensor, D. Blair, G. AV. Primrose, A. Ward. Air. Nolan' prosecuted, and Air. Stock defended. Air. Nolan stated that on the evening in question the prisoner and othir young men were having some drink, and they went to the house of the Chinaman, Cliing Poo. They threw stones on the house, and whilst he was remonstrating with them, he was struck with a stone, and up to the present he was practically an invalid. It was difficult to say who actually threw the stone. Imt they had got as near it as possible. Dr. Schumacher stated that ho saw the sufferer on. the 14th January, and lie was suffering from a wound over the right eye, and there was a fracture of a bone. Before the 29th lie saw that tho bone had decayed, and he saw that an operation would ho necessary, and oil the 29th ho removed a niece from the skull, rather larger than the size of a shilling. The most likely thing to cause the injury would be a missile, possibly a stone thrown. It could hardly be caused by a fall, from the nature of the wound, and tho size of the fracture. A fall from a height on to a raised abject would produce tlio same injury. The blow had the effect of stunning the Chinaman. Cliing Poo, gardener, deposed, through his interpreter, AV. Tan, that on the evening in question -he was in bed, and was aroused by something striking the roof about midnight, and this frightened him. AVitness thought Hie offenders had gone, and lie opened the door and saw three or four men near the gateway. Ho .remonstrated with them, and they threw more stones, and one struck him on the head, causing him to fall. He lay there a long time, and then awoke, and found a stone near him. AVitness then entered the house and wont to bed. AVhen he woke in thej morning ho found blood all over bis clothes." The blood came from a wound on his head from tho place where the stone hit him. A boy came, am! witness'asked him to send one of his countrymen to him. AVoug came, and lie was sent for a doctor. Dr. Schumacher then came, and attended him for the wound, and he had been attending on him since then. Bv Afr. Stock: His house would be about 20 vards from the road. The ni'dit was dark; he could see people, hut not clearly. Did not know how tri'iuv stones \voi\*s thrown. By Mr! Nolan: AYfioii fee came to the door lie was standing up. John Third, painter, said that lie was with accused on the night in question. Kelly and accused s brother were there also. • They went down to the Chinaman’s and lilted tho gate off its hinges, and. stones were thrown at the Chinaman s house. Witness .did not throw any. He knew that aroused threw one stone. Just prior to this, -tilling Poo came up, and he spoke to them. Did not know wliat effect tlio stone had. They then walked home after the stonethrowing, and said nothing. No one suggested throwing the stones, and he did not know whom the stone was thrown, at. Air Nolan said that this was contrary to a paper, which he read, showing that Boh Brown suggested stone-thfpwiug, and that he was certain that Blow); threw the stone which knocked the Chinaman down, pud. they, niii JA'y&J’....,

Air Nolan : Is this IruoP Witness: Yes, it is true. His Honor: You said you did not rim away, and now you contradicted it. It is true? Witness: Yes. Bv Air Stock: Was drunk that night. Did not remember very much of wlmt hapnoiiod that night'. Was locked up for drunkenness on-Mon-day last, and fined tlio next morning. Was iii a condition to know if any stones were thrown. They were about lit teen yards from the Chinaman, but they could not see him. Alter the stone was thrown tho Chinaman stopped speaking. By the Court: Brown throw the stone after tho Chinaman spoke.

Hugh Kelly said that he was with the accused on 13th January last. Tlioe wont from East’s corner to the Recreation Ground between 11.30 and midnight, and from there witness wont homo. Did not stop at the Chinaman’s house. Did not know whether the others did so or not. Could not say if any stones were thrown. Mr Nolan : Remember you’re on your oath. Air Kelly. Air Nolan : Have you told anyone tint stones wero thrown? Witness: 1 never swore that any were thrown. Never told anyone that Bob Brown threw the stone which hit tho Chinaman. Mr Nolan : Do you know vour own signature? Witness: Yes.

Mr Nolan read the paper which was as follows: “I had drinks at the Tur.inganiii Hotel, and at 1.1.31) p.m. 1 was in front of a fish shop with Third and two others, and at East’s corner we were joined by A. Hogg and J. Brown. 'They started .o throw stones in the Chinaman’s garden. Cliing rushed out, and i saw him tlroji because be was hit by a stone. We all went away home, and 'Brown throw the stone that hit the Chinaman.” ATr Nolan : Is it true? Witness: No.

AV it ness stated that he did it to clear himself. Ho was led to believe that Brown had made a statement implicating him. He did not see any stones thrown, as he was on the Recreation Ground by himself. By Air. Nolan: Do you think it proper to write a lie to get someone else blame?

AVitness replied that if others told lies ho could. Bv Air. Stock: Third was drunk that night, and he was not in u position to remember what occurred. Did not see any stones thrown that night. As far as he knew Brown threw no stones. He swore that oil his oath.

Constable Tait deposed as follows: —“I arrested accused on the 16th January. He said: ‘There’s more in this than me. Have you got them also? They can’t, put this on to me on my own, as we were all throwing stones.’ 1 asked him who the others were. He replied: ‘Aly brother Bill, Jack Third, and Hugh Kelly.’ I saw Kellv sign the paper.” Has Honor: That can only question Kelly credibility, and nobody believed him. Air Stock said that the only evidence that stones were thrown was the evidence of Third, and he admitted being drunk, and could not be expected to remember what took place. The statement at the Police Station was made for the purpose of screening himself, and such a witness could not be believed. He asked the jury if they could convict the accused on such evidence. His Honor said that it was beyond doubt that before the Chinaman came out, the place was battered by stones. The jury’s duty would be to decide whether the accused had done it. The point was whether these persons were acting in co-operation. If they thought it was common desire, however ever hastily concocted, the jury need not rely on' Third’s statement that accused threw the stone. The important evidence was the physical fact of the throwing, and the statement that all were throwing stones. It would have made the case worse if the stone was thrown at the Chinaman after he came out. Third was certainly minimising the matter, and Kelly was utterly untrustworthy and untrue, and if lie gave false evidence .it- could not lie helped, and the matter would he left to his disreputable conscience. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty of common assault. His Honor ordered tho prisoner to be removed, and that he was to be brought up in the morning. ALLEGED THEFT.

Frederick Sydney Spencer was charged with stealing two gallons of whisky from the dwelling-house of J G. Clark, at Rakauroa, on or about 4th January, and with breaking and entering the dwelling. The following jury was empanelled: G. R. Afoore (foreman), AA 7 . Scragg, K. Campbell, T. R. J. Adams, J. AV. Bull, F. R. Rendall, T. Bell, E. Roderick, R. T AVilliamson, F. Parnell, A. J. Poole, E. A. Good. Mr. Nolan prosecuted, and Air. AA 7 . L. Rees defended. Outlining the case, Mr. Nolan said that Air. Clark left his house locked up on the 3rd January, and in a cupboard were two gallons of whisky. Prisoner admitted taking it, and entering the house with a key belonging to Air. AA 7 . Clark. He said he was sorry, but offered to return the whisky, but Air. Clark said that it was too serious to overlook, and then accused offered him £lO to say nothing about it. J. G. Clark, a sheepfarnier of Rakauroa, stated he left his dwelling at 7.30 a.m. on 3rd January. All the outer doors and one middle door were locked, and the windows were also locked. ’.Returned on Tuesday, 7tli, The outer doors were as they had been left, but the inner door had been forced. The drapery of the wardrobe was pulled aside, and the whisky had almost disappeared. - Went over and saw the accused, and asked him what he had been doing. Tie admitted being drunk on witness’ whisky, but lie was sorry for it, and lie was willing to pay for it. He said that lie had opened the door with witness’ brother’s key, and he had taken the latch off the middle door. Witness replied that it was too serious a matter to settle with money in that way. By Mr. R ees : Accused was employed by witness’ brother' for about four months. They thought ho was an honest man, and 'knew that lie was in charge of his brother’s house. Before leaving, he asked his brother if he would allow accused to milk witness’ cows. Accused agreed to do this. On tho Sunday another man was to have relieved accused for the day. AVas on somewhat intimato terms with the accused, who spent evenings there, and lie had had whisky and ordinary hospitality there on more than one occasion. Before returning homo, he was informed at the Rakauroa store of what had taken place- AVitness’ half-brother, Peter Clark, told him, saying that accused requested him to tell witness. Accused was rather unfortunate in his love of whisky. AA'as annoyed more particularly at his bedroom Having been entered, lie believed that accused intended to pay for the whisky. Had known' accused for two years, and apart from his love of whisky he had been perfectly honest. Alfred Batchelor, a sawyer, of Rakauroa, remembered seeing accused in Sunday, sth January, at Air. J. Clark’s house. He asked witness’ for the loan of his horse, and offered him , a drink of whisky. AVitness helped himself to whisky out of a bottle, and after that ho wont awa.v and caught the horse and brought- it back, when accused asked him to have some more whisky. AVitness then left, and saw him at the samp place next day. They wont to witness’ camp.l fic.epsed bringing some whisky. AA’itness asked where lie got it, and he said ho got it from Air. Clark's, and that lie intended to replace it or pay for it: He explained how he entered the house. Saw a man named Aliller at the house on the Sunday. Ho had the keys of the house, to milk the cows for Spencer. John Claik sent a message by Peter Clark to Spencer to meet him at Rakauroa store. Accused asked Peter to explain to his half-brother that he woulu pay for tlio whisky or replace it. Constable Doyle stated that on the 11th January Ji*» saw accused at To Karnkn. AA’itness told him that Afr. Clark had made a complaint. On tho way to the police station, lie said. “1 may as well tell you now, as at any time, that I was in charge

of AATUio Clark’s houso, anil that 1 was to milk tlio cows for J. Chirk on Saturday. I had AV. Clarks key, and fried it on J. ClurlPs door and oponod it. I took the whisky. I have told J. Clark that 1 intend to pay for it.” Air. Roes said that tho facts were perfectly clear, and they wore not donied. lie urged that accused might bo liable for trespass, but not lor crime, and to convict it must be proved that the intention to commit a crime was present. The issue was whether tlio aroused intended to steal the whisky or not. It was an impudent, trespass, he admitted, but it, was different to a crime. Giving evidence on his own boha.lt, accused stated l hat tho evidence given was practically correct. Under Hi/' circumstances he did not think that Air. Clark would believe that ho intended to steal it. Had £4O on him and also had a hanking account, and thus was quite able to replace it. The trouble was because Airs Clark’s bedroom had been entered to got tho whislcv.

By Mr. Nolan: Thought Afr. Clark might be annoyed at bis action, but thought he would treat it as a joke. Went backwards and forwards to remove tli ■ whisky at different, times, and removed it in bottles. AVaggons were coining there frequently then, and it was not very difficult to get whisky conveyed up. By the Court :Could not say exactly how mat v bottles wore removed.

Air. R es said that the liquor was taken without, secrecy or concealment, and he asked the jury if they could b.’iove, on the evidence, that he intended to steal. Ho submitted that there was no intent to steal, and if lie was found guilty lie would ho branded for life and liablo to heavy penalties.

Air. Nolan asked how could the jury arrive at the conclusion that a person could got into the box and say that he took it, but had no intention of doing so. The intention was covered by the fact. The prisoner had a weakness for whisky, and that might have rendered him oblivious to what lie was doing, but that was no excuse. It was all very well to get into the box and say that ho intended to mako reparation. His Honor said that it was painful bha a person could have such a craving for whisky that he should act in this manner. All the jury had to determine was whether the prisoner was guilty of an intention to commit a crime. The ordinary inference was that when a person entered a homo by other than the ordinary way and look something away, that the intention was to commit theft.. There was no concealment, but tliis did not provo that it was not a crime. Tho earliest steps were taken by accused to inform Afr. Clark what ho had done. The offer of paying for tlio whisky did not overcome tlio criminality of the act. After a short retirement, the jnrj announced a verdict of “not guilty.” A SERIOUS CHARGE. James Ala lone was charged with carnally knowing an imbecile woman, knowing that the woman was an imbecile, at Alakaraka on 16th October, 1907, and with entering tho houso of Donald Gordon by night with intent to commit a crime therein. The following jurors were empanelled: R. Colel>rook (foreman), A. G. Webb, A\ ? . Gordon, G. 11. Renouf, AA’. H. Harding, A. J. Maynard, J. 0. Queenin, A Alartin, E. A. Sheet, F. AV. Fettie, G. AA’. Primrose, D. Blair. The Court was cleared of the public. Air. Stock appeared for tho accused.

The Crown Prosecutor detailed the main features of the case. Donald Gordon, a butcher, stated that he saw the accused about 7 o’clock, while they were waiting for the coach to start to town. Told him that they were going to town to see the play. The whole family wero away with him, and his step-child was left at home. Asked about her condition, witness said that she was silly and not responsible for her Actions, and this was quite apparent to anyone who knew her and saw her. Accused knew the members ol the laniilv and lie knew the condition of the girl.. The doors were locked, and when they returned the bathroom door was unlocked. This door was very seldom used, and it could only bo "opened about nine inches. This door was shut but not locked. Tlig family returned about 11.30, and fie gave "his little girl a match to light a candle, and she rushed back again crying out that a man was in the imbecile’s bedroom. AVitness took tho candle and went in, saw who it was, and came back and met his wife and told her it was Jimmy Alalone. His wife went outside and called Teddy Alalone, accused’s brother, to come and see where his brother was. leddy came in with witness’ sou Claude, and finding accused with the girl, who was asleep or pretending to be asleep, put him on to his feet and pushed him outside. Accused was very friendly with witness’ stepson, and had been to the house several times. Believed he had slept in tho house before and occupied a. room with witness’ stepson. It might have been that the girl was in that room, as his wife made a change, Accused was not under the influence of liquor when he was found. Alary Ann Gordon, wife of tho previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. By Air. Stock: The accused said to witness, “Well, Airs., I have done no wrong.” Claude went straight away to the police, and this was not against her wish. Did not say that she was satisfied that accused had clone no harm to ber daughter. Claude Gordon gave corroborative evidence, stating that he, with Teddy Malone, had discovered accused in a compromising position. Accused- had tried to hide himself to do up his disarranged clothing. Herbert Heeney gave similar evidence.

Mr. Stock raid that he would call evidence to show in what condition accused was in at the time mentioned. Edward Alalone stated that he was called into Gordon’s house. He found his brother lying as previously stated, and witness pulled him away, but his eyes wero shut. AVitness lot him go then, atul he fell with Ills head against the wall. Accused wanted to return, saying that it was his own room. AVitness told him to come homo. Dragged him home and put him into the harness shed. _ Accused was so much under the influence of Jiqr..'T that lie seemed to he drugged. AVitness was the first to see him in the morning, and he wanted to know why he was locked iu the shed, having no recollection of what had taken place. James Kelly, stableman, remembered seeing the accused outside the hotel door at Makaraka at 10.15 j).ju. He appeared to have been drinking, and ho was very much intoxicated, and he could hardly stand without support. ’ Air. Stock said that in cases of rape, it was important to ascertain by evidence of medical men, whether a person had been tampered with, and there was no such evidence in this case. The accused at the time said that lie had',done no harm, and Alalone had been' in the 'habit of stopping at the house and had used that room, but before they had been changed, and consequently he did not know of the change, and naturally he threw himself on the bed and fell into a drunken sleep, and no attempt to commit, the crime had taken place. Air. Nolan contended that the difficulty of entering the house indicated criminal intent. AA’liat object, lie asked, would the four witnesses for the Grown have in acting as they did? Tliev had no object in coming to tell lies," ap'd lip sufimitfed that they were not lying. AA’ith regard to the medical examination, lie admitted that it ■would have been wiser to have followed this course, but on this matter Airs. Gordon’s evidence was valuable. His Honor said that if a man pushed up a window kept down by its weight, that constituted breaking into a house, and this applied to the batiu-jjom pool,. The important question was whether a ’sexmil .offence was committed or whether he was qii the bed with such intent, or whether he was in such an absolutely drunken condition as to have no intention at all, and the jury would require tp take the surrounding circumstances into consideration. To treat this as a case of accidental blundering of a

drunken man. so many ciremnstances pointing to tlio contrary, must be considered. Then the- condition ol the man’s clothing must also be considered. If it was disarranged, as staled, the fact ■rendered, the series of alleged accidents very improbable. It was straining tlio evidence to think that the accused was in so absolutely a. drunken condition as to think, lie was going to his own home. The mere tact that accused vas diutik would not excuse him if he had been guilty of tlie offence charged. After a retirement of about threequarters of an hour, the jury brought in a verdict of “Not Guilty,” and tlio prisoner was discharged. IN CHAMBERS. The following matters were dealt with in Chambers yesterday morning:— , Sadie Jessie AVatson, otherwise known as Whatman (Air. H. D. Bell, K.C.) v. Joseph Burke (Air G. Stodk), for an order that the action ho tried bv a jury of lour.—An order was made for a jury of 12. Rilcirangi and others (Air. G. Hutchinson)'. v. James Wray Nolan (Air. If. ]). Bell K.C’., .instructed by Air. 0. A. DeLautour); summons to show cause why the plaintiffs should not have leave to deliver interrogations for the examination of defendant.— The matter was adjourned till this morning. Same v. Frederick Hall and another (Mr. 11. D. Bell, K.C., instructed by Air C. A. DeLautour), summons to show cause why the plaintiff’s should not have leave for the examination of the defendant, Frederick Hall.—Tho matter was adjourned. Petition of Hannah O’Sullivan (Air. 11. J. Finn), wife of Patrick O’Sullivan (Air. G. Stock), praying that six of tlio infant children of the parties remain in the custody of the petitioner.—This was also adjourned. NAPIER. SITTING. Press Association. NAPIER, Alareh 4. At the Supreme Court to-day a native named Potohiwko Paiako was acquitted on a charge of breaking and entering at Kotokikiokio, near AA'aikaremoami.