SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 868, 6 April 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, April 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) STEALING POST LETTERS. Frank Mcssiter was indicted for having on the 20th October, 1874 ; March 9th, 1875 ; Ist April, 1875, stolen post letters, the property of the Postmaster-General of New Zealand. The following evidence in this case was taken after we went to press yesterday : Mr Fitz Gibbon further deposed The post office officials were not supposed to take money from the public except for stamps. With regard to one of the letters, a receipt for registration only had been given. The salary of prisoner, he believed, was £ls per annum, and his salary as telegraphist £75. Every postmaster had a credit stock of stamps equal to a quarter’s salary, advanced to liim, which he has to account for when giving up charge. Robert Patten deposed to posting a letter at South Rakaia, about 7th March, 1875, addressed to Miss Mary Macintosh, and paid for the stamps and registration. The letter contained a second of exchange for money. In reply to a question of his Honor, Mr Fitz Gibbon said that it was the duty of the postmaster, when letters were put into the office without stamps, to forward the same to the Chief Postmaster, to enable him to give notice to the writers of their detention. Bv request of the prisoner the second letter was opened, but no valuable security was found therein. For the defence the prisoner called James Hollis, who deposed to taking charge of the South Rakaia Post Office in April, 1875. The telegraph accounts were two months behind, and ho did not believe therewere any Post-office accounts. The letters were all mixed up anyhow. He "did not recollect that there was any money in the cash-box. The prisoner must have given witness over all the cash connected with the Post-office. For the first three or four days witness had no stamps and had to send the money to Christchurch until he received a supply of stamps. His Honor summed up to the jury. After a short deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty,” with a recommendation to mercy, as there was no fraudulent intent in taking the letters. His Honor, in sentencing the prisoner, pointed out that the Legislature had made this a most heinous offence, so much so that the punishment at one time was penal servitude for life, without any discretion to the Judge. This, however, had now been altered, and the Judge had discretion to award a sentence of a lighter character. The prisoner would be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. In the second indictment, the Crown entered a nolle proseqvi, and the jury returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.” EMBEZZLEMENT. J. W. Jacobson was charged with embezzling £37, the property of the Colonial Bank of New Zealand. The prisoner, who was represented by Mr G. Harper, pleaded “ Guilty.” The following evidence was called as to character; — Rev. James Gumming deposed to having known the prisoner for some years. He was a man whom he would have trusted with any amount of his own money. The prisoner, so far as he knew, had always borne an excellent character for uprightness and integrity. Thomas Mulligan deposed to having known the prisoner for some three years. His reputation was very high for uprightness, and he was the last' person in the world that he should have expected to see in the position he was now in. John Goodman deposed to knowing the prisoner for some two years and a half. The prisoner had always borne the very highest character. Benjamin Hale disposed to having known the prisoner for some two years. He had always borne the highest character. J. A. Redpath deposed to having known the prisoner as teller of the Bank, and had always known him as a straightforward man. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. FORGERY AND UTTERING. William Sykes and William James Falloon were indicted for having on the 3rd January forged and uttered a promissory note for £l2. The prisoners pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Izard appeared to defend Falloon; Sykes was undefended. ‘ The facts of the case for the Crown were as follows A promissory note purporting to bear the endorsement of one James Rosser was presented by the prisoners to one Murphy, a bill discounter, who negotiated it on the faith of the endorsement being genuine. Sykes, however, went to Mr Inspector Feast, and told him that he had been induced by a person to put the name of James Rosser to a promissory note for £l2, which had been discounted at Mnrphey’s office. Evidence was led by the Crown to prove these facts. That of James Rosser was to the effect that Murphy, when the case was brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court, came to him and asked him to swear that the name put to the promissory note was his (Rosser’s) signature, as that was the only way that Falloon could be got off. He then said he would take the money at 10s per week. _ For the defence, Mr Izard called evidence to show that Murphy had told persons outside the Court that Mr Feast had not the right bill, and that he had it in his pocket, and that the right bill was payable in a month, whereas the one in Court v\ as on demand. The evidence also went to show that Murphy had said Harry Feast might have altered the bill, but ho (Murphy) had not, and that he had the real bill in ins pocket, Mr Izard having addressed the jury for the prisoner Falloon. His Honor summed up. The jury retired, and after a short retirement returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty” against Sykes, and “ Not Guilty” against Falloon. The jury also added a rider to their verdict that the evidence given by Murphy could not be believed. His Honor said that it would be the duty of the police to see to what extent evidence existed of the attempt by Murphy to suborn Rosser. As far as the evidence went now, there was not sufficient to warrant him in ordering a prosecution for perjury, but he thought there was quite enough for the Crown Prosecutor to consider what should be done in the matter. Mr Duncan intimated that he would do so. Mr Inspector Feast gave evidence as to the character of Sykes, to 'the effect that he was an innocent, inoffensive man, and had evidently been made a tool of by Falloon.

His Honor asked how long the prisoner had been in gaol. Mr Inspector Feast said since January. His Honor said, looking to the fact that the prisoner had been some time in gaol, the sentence would be imprisonment for one week. The sentence was received with applause, which was immediately checked. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning. Friday, Aril 6. DEFAULTING JUROR. Mr D. G. Ward, who had been fined £5 for non-attendance as a grand juror, appeared to show cause. His Honor allowed cause shown, and the fine was remitted. THE POOLEY CASE. In this case Mr Garrick appeared for the prisoners, and asked as it was*a misdemeanour that the prisoners might be allowed to stand on the iioor of the Court. His Honor said that lie thought that this was making an invidious distinction which was hardly desirable. He should be glad to yield at once if the case was one which necessitated continuous communication with counsel. He thought it would be far better not to do this, as it might look as if to some extent ho wore prejudging the case. It would bo far better that the request should not be granted. If Mr Garrick could give him any reason why the prisoners should be allowed to stand on the floor of the court, he would at once grant it. The request was refused. Edward Poolcy and Albert Bramhall were then placed in the dock, and indicted for having, between the hours of 9 p.m. of the 28th February and 6 a.m. of the Ist March, in a house the property of William Radcliffo, situate in Cathedral square, Christchurch, unlawfully and maliciously committed injury to certain property belonging to one Ralph Donkin.

The prisoners, who were defended by Mr Garrick, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr F. Bonnington was chosen foreman of the petty jury. The following evidence was called by the Crown ;

Ralph Donkin—l am a surveyor, residing in Christchurch. I remember the 28th o£ February last. I was then living at the Commercial Hotel, kept by William Radcliffo. I occupied No. 5 bed-room upstairs. I had a disturbance with MrPoolcy that evening with regard to a bet. That would be about halfpast eight in the evening. Pooley threatened, if I did not pay the bet, that be would take it out of me. He struck at me across the barman’s shoulder, and hit me in the face and knocked me back. He struck me on the cheek. The barman put Mr Pooley on one side, and Charlwood, one of the cricketers, took me away to go to the theatre. Pooley is one of the English Eleven, and was here for the purpose of playing a match with the Canterbury team. On proceeding towards the theatre, with Mr Charlwood and Mr Buck, near the side passage going from the Commercial to the theatre I was taken by the shoulders and turned round by Pooley, who asked me if I was going pay that bet. I said No. He immediately struck me in the face as hard as he could with his fists two or three times. I was knocked back, and he was coming at me again when I put my stick up and waved it to keep him back. Ho ran in upon me and threw me down and deliberately hammered me while I was down. Some one took him off me, and I was taken up to my bedroom to wash my face. Whilst there Pooley came to the bedroom door and endeavored to force his way in whilst I was washing my face. Mr Radcliffe, the proprietor of the hotel, came up at the moment and persuaded him to go away. Pooley then used a threat, saying he would have me before the morning. In consequence of the threats I heard I did not remain in the Commercial Hotel that night. I left my room a little after nine o’clock. At that time the room was in its usual state. My clothes were hanging up on a rack behind the door. There were some plans in the corner of the bedroom and some tracings and specifications on the dressing-table. The chest of drawers, where I had spirits, &c, were closed when I left. A new black hat and two felt hats were hanging up when I left. I returned to the hotel the next morning between nine and half-past nine. I went to my room and found it locked. I spoke to the waiter, who took me upstairs. He took the key of the door out of his pocket and pointed out that the latch of the lock had been wrenched off, holding only by the upper screw. He opened the door and went in. I found that a pair of black trousers lying upon the floor had been torn up. On the bed were a number of coats trousers and waistcoats torn to pieces. They were ripped up the back and otherwise damaged and spoiled. The new black hat was on the floor crushed right down. The two felt hats were in the washhand basin, which was filled with water. Some of the plans were lying on the floor torn across. There were a number of embers in the room bearing marks of having come from missing plans. A portion of a plan burnt through the middle was also there. The chest of drawers was open, and all the things in it pulled out. A white shirt was torn down the back and set fire to. The clothes would take me £3O to replace, and the plans, &c., £SO or £6O. The remnants of the articles are produced. [The various articles were then produced.] The only articles of clothing left entire in my room were two pairs of trousers and a waistcoat.

Cross-examined by Mi’ Garrick—l do not know whether there was a farewell dinner to the cricketers. I do not remember seeing the waiter at any time during the evening. The disturbance arose between Pooley and myself respecting a bet which I refused to pay amounting fo some £34. I think Pooley told Mr Eadcliffe that ho would have me in the morning. I dare say that the waistcoats could be easily mended with a female at them for half an hour. They would not be much the worse. They were torn only through the lining and not, the cloth. As regards the coats they were simply ripped up the seams. They perhaps may be easily mended, but 1 am not in the habit of wearing mended clothes. The serge coat is torn through the material. It is not an old coat, though it is discolored by the sun. It was worth about £1 ss. His Honor said to Mr Duncan that before hearing argument he should be disposed to to hold that the expression “ value of £5 ” should mean that t he damage done would lake £5 to replace it. Cross-examination continued—Ey pasting a piece at the back of the plan produced it could be used for all practical purposes as well as before, I don't think it would cost

more than Is to do it. The linen tracing produced refers to a Government store on the railway. It belongs to the Government. 1 was in the employ of the Government then, but am not now. The tracing produced would take a draughtsman a couple of days to do it. Mr Garrick—A Government draughtsman. His Honor—Arc they paid by the day, Mr Garrick ?

Mr Garrick I don’t think so, your Honor.

Examination continued —The building was finished, and for all practical purposes the plan was done with. I should have returned it into the office. There were more tracings on linen, and some surveys. The surveys , were ray own property. They arc missing. I am quite prepared to swear that the plans were in my room. I saw a number lying in the corner on the table. The surv cys were all on linen. There was a number of embers in the room, which woidd shew that more than the centre of the plan produced had been burnt. I swear positively to this. Except the linen tracing referred to, the whole of the surveys belonged to me. They referred to land at Oxford, and some of land in New South Wales. They had a value for future purposes. I was a resident at the time in Christchurch. The surveys of the land at OxfordJ and Malvern had value from the intention to purchase. They took me some three or four weeks to do. If they are to be of any value to me, they will have to be replaced. I took four men on the survey for these plan, and paid them 8s per day. I estimate my own expenses at £2 2s per day. There will thus be four men for three weeks at 8s per day, and £2 2s per day for myself. I do not know Bramhall, nor do I suppose that he would do me any injury. I swore the information against the men. The only reason I had for laying information against Bramhall was solely from the information that he was seen in the passage. I never hoard any expression of illwill against me from Bramhall. Joseph Watson —In February last I was barman at the Commercial Hotel. I was present when a disturbance took place between Mr Pooler and Mr Donkin. Pooley told Donkin that he was a swindler and no gentleman, and that he (Pooley) woidd pay Donkin before morning. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick —No other of the cricketers were about. Ido not recollect whether Selby was there. There was a cricket dinner that evening. There was not an extraordinary amount of drinking about. I did not see Bramhall. Pooley was not before my bar after 8 o’clock. Pooley after the threat immediately gave Donkin a thrashing. I got a portion of the blow. lam not a betting man. I take care of my money. [His Honor —The witness is a better man.] I have laid a wager with Charley Burmcisten that Pooley would not get off. Burmcrster bets me that Pooley will get off. That was only a catch bet, because it was wanted to bring before the Court that I had made a bet on the case. I was told to-day that this was done purposely. Eliza Jane Shannon —I am housemaid at the Commercial Hotel. I know the room occupied by Mr Donkin —No 5. I was in there about half-past ten or a little later. The room was then in its usual condition. I didn’t take any notice of anything. I did not leave a light in the room when I came out. There was no one in the room with me.

Cross-examined by Mr Harriet —I was at the Music Hall that evening. It was not eleven o’clock, because the hotel was not closed. It was not closed when I was in the room. I went round a dozen rooms or more before I got to Mr Donkin’s. I had to take off my hat and got a candle, but I don’t think that took me more than five minutes. There were a few rooms which required attention. I saw Mr Donkin’s room the next morning. Pooley occupied Ho. 6 bedroom. There was almost a yard between the doors of the two rooms. Bramhall’s room was Ho. 1, opposite Mr Donkin’s room. I think the passage is more than three feet wide.

John Ackeman —I am waiter at the Commercial Hotel. I know the room occupied by Mr Donkin, No 5. Mr Pooley had the room adjoining, No. 6. That occupied by Mr Bramhall is opposite. I was outside the hotel between half-past ten o’clock and eleven. It was just before the house closed. It was my duty to see all the windows shut, and I was out on that evening for that purpose. I saw a light in No. 5, Donkins’ room. I went upstairs to the room to see if Mr Donkin had come back. As I was upstairs in the passage between No. 8 and No. 9 I saw Mr Bramhall between No. 5 and No. 6. He was walking in the passage towards his room from the direction of No. 5. I saw Mr Pooley come out of No 5 and go into his own room. I could not say whether Bramhall went into Ins room or downstairs. I went into Mr Donkin’s room, and found the clothes lying all over the room, and the drawers turned out. There was no light in the room. There is a gas jet at each end of the passage, which enabled me to see the state of the room. There were two hats in the water basin, and clothes on the bed. I went and brought a candle, being absent only a second or two. No one could go in during the time. On coming back wth the light, I found the clothes all torn, a black hat bruised in. I came outside, locked the door, jand took the J key. When I was passing Mr Pooley’s room, he said to me, “ Who sleeps in No 7,” point ing towards No. 5. I said, “Mr Pooley. No. 7is this way,” pointing towards No. 7. He then pointed to No. 5, and said, “ Isn’t that Mr Donkin’s room ?” and_ I said, “Yes, sir, it is.” He then said, “You tell Mr Donkin from me if he sleeps there tonight he’ll find himself half dead in the morning.” Next morning I went upstairs between 6.30 and 6.45 to see that the cricketers were all called. I saw Mr Pooley hammering Mr Donkin’s door with a stick. I said, “Mr Pooley, what do you want there ?’ He said, “ Did Donkin sleep here last night or not ? I said, “ No, lie did not.” I went to open the door to satisfy him that Donkin had not slept there, and I then said to him, “ My Pooley, some one has been trying to burst open the door.” Pooley said “ I suppose it was some ot our hoys last night because Donkin would not pay his bet.” The white hat produced was found on the table where the candlesticks are placed. 1 do not know whose hat it is. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—Bramhall was running up and down stairs the whole

evening. Mr Garrick applied to his Honor for the discharge of Bramhall. There was no evidence whatever of complicity. Ho desired Bramhall to be called as a witness.

His Honor asked Mr Duncan whether he thought he could prove any complicity as regarded Bramhall. Mr Duncan said that he did not think he could do so.

His Honor said that it would be necessary to consider the matter closely. At all events

the authorities laid it down that an accomplice were required to give evidence; the prosecution had to make application for his discharge before the opening of the case. Would Mr Duncan enter a nolle prosequi in the ease of Bramhall ? He did not suggest that he should, but it was well to consider the matter whether anything in the interests of justice was opposed to the prisoner Bramhall being acquitted. Though there was evidence to go to the jury, there might not be sufficient to acquit Bramhall, and it was for the Crown Prosecutor to consider whether he should be prevented from giving evidence. [His Honor quoted Queen v. Payne, Law Reports, 1 Crown cases reserved.] Mr Duncan said that he should press the case as against Bramhall, because there was a case to go to the jury. His Honor said he did not deny that, but he thought that he had discretion in the matter. It would takesome time to look into the matter.

Mr Garrick suggested that it would be as well to conclude the cross-examination of the witness, and during the adjournment His Honor might look into the authorities.

Cross-examination continued—When Mr Pooley spoke to me after, I had locked Mr Donkin’s room; Pooley had a light in his room. Bramhall I don’t think had a light in his room. I was not sure then that Mr Donkin would not sleep in his room that night. Mr Eadcliffe told me that he believed Mr Donkin would not be back to sleep there that night. I locked the door because of the disorder of the room. That was the reason why I locked the door. This was after I got the light. lam sure Pooley had a light in his room. I did not think when I |saw Donkin’s room that evening that much damage had been done. I saw no indications of fire when I saw the room that night. I did not speak to Pooley because I did not want to. Pooley was not out of Mr Donkin’s room when I saw him. He was just going out of the door. I saw him coming out of No. 5. I cannot say that Pooley had a light. I did notice which of Pooley’s shoulders was nearest his room. I did not speak to Pooley nor to Bramhall. When Pooley was coming down stairs the next morning, I told him that some one had played the deuce with Mr Donkin’s room. I told Mr Radcliffe the same evening what I have told the Court. There was a great commotion in the house that night, and a number of people about. This closed the ease for the Crown. His Honor said it would be better to adjourn now and consider the point raised. There was a case in 1 Cox which seemed to put it that the application made by Mr G-ar-rick could be granted. On resuming at 1 p.m., Mr Garrick renewed Ins application for the discharge of Bramhall, on the ground of there being no evidence against him. [Authority quoted, Taylor on Evidence.] Mr Duncan contended that evidence had been led that the prisoner Bramhall had been in company with Pooley. His Honor denied this. All that the evidence disclosed was that Bramhall was in the passage at the time of Pooley coming out of Donkin’s room. Mr Duncan —The evidence of the barman was that Bramhall was one of the party. His Honor —What party ? Mr Duncan—The cricketers.

His Honor —There is no evidence of that at all. If you say this, all those who were at the dinner that night were associates of Pooley. Mr Duncan—l have led evidence to show that Bramhall was in company with Pooley at the time of the alleged offence. His Honor—Mr Duncan, will you show me where such a tiling as this is given in evidence ? Mr Duncan—The witness Ackerman says that the prisoner Bramhall was in company with Pooley that night.

His Honor—All that is alleged is that Bramhall was seen in the passage when Pooler came out of the room. Mr Duncan—Donkin’s evidence is that Bramhall came with the cricketers, and was connected with them.

His Honor —As taking money at the gates of a field. You might as well, Mr Duncan, say that I, who paid money to go into that field, was an associate of the cricketers. Mr Duncan —I have shown your Honor that Bramhall was in Pooley’s company at the time the alleged crime was committed. His Honor—But Mr Duncan, if you allege this, it might as well be said that because I meet a man in a passage coming out of a room in which a robbery lias been committed, that I must answer for the crime. I confess I don’t see the connection at all. If you had shown that Bramhall could not be in that passage except in coming out of No 5, then you woidd have established the connection or some suspicion. What you have to do, Mr Duncan, is to decide whether you will enter a nolle prosequi as regards Bramhall. If you decline to do so, it will be for me to decide whether there is a scintilla of evidence to go to the jury. Mr Duncan —I shall insist your Honor that the case should go to the jury. I have proved the connection between the prisoners. His Honor —I don’t think so. If there is a scintilla of evidence in the interests of justice I must allow the case to go to the jury. You, Mr Garrick, will have the advantage of this course. Mr Garrick —Will your Honor reserve the point that there is no evidence to go the jury winch I contend for.

His Honor —I can hardly do that. But. 1 will reserve the point whether it was properly sent to the jury or not.

Mr Garrick —I shall contend that there is not a scintilla of evidence to go to the jury that there was any complicity between the parties, and that therefore I am entitled to ask for BramhaU’s discharge, in order that I may call him as a witness. The whole evidence for the Crown is that Bramhall was met in the passage. I feel that lam placed in this position, that the only evidence which I can call is shut out by the action of the Crown Prosecutor.

Ilis Honor : There are two courses which I have to consider, hirst, whether there is any discretion given to the Judge to order the discharge of the prisoner when the Crown Prosetor declines to enter a nolle prosequi. The second is ■whether there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury. T feel that this is a very difficult point, and I think what I shall do is this. I don’t feci that, so far as I road the law, I am entitled to direct the jury to acquit the prisoner, although I doubt if there is evidence sufficient to commit Bramhall. Therefore, I think the safest, course will be for me to allow the case to go on, and in the case of a conviction, to reserve the point for the consideration of the full Court, 8

Mr Garrick proceed to call witness for the defence. Thomas Shardilow Sweet —I knew the prisoners. I was one of the Canterbury team against the English Eleven. There weresome business relations between Brnmball and myself. I was in his company about a quarterpast eight o’clock on the evening of the _Bth, at the Commercial Hotel. My business was to arrange with Bramhall as to the sale of the cards of match and the photos, of the cricketeers. I took Bramhall round to the office after a quarter past eight. We _ left there together about a quarter to nine and went to Hotel, arriving about nine o’clock. We stayed there about half an hour. From there we went to the theatre and remained there about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. I returned from there to the Commercial Hotel and remained there in BramhalTs company until twenty minutes to eleven. Pooley was" never in our company during the whole evening. Bramhall arranged to go back to Morton’s about some photos. I left Bramhall outside the bar near Mr Radcliffe’s office. One of the English Eleven, Armitage, is like Bramhall in features, but is taller. Greenwood, another of the Eleven, is like Pooley in stature, but not in face. _ I had seen no row between Pooley and Donkin, nor did I know anything about it until next day. Bramhall did not say a word about it to me.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan —Bramhall came here with the Eleven, and left with them. He acted for the English Eleven as gatekeeper. Bramhall had to account to Lillywhite, I believe, for the gate money. Lillywhite is the captain of the team and purser. James Hurst —I am hotelkeeper at the Rakaia Gorge Ferry. I saw the row between Pooley and Donkin on the evening of the 20th. I saw Bramhall with Mr Sweet about twenty-five minutes to eleven. After eleven o’clock I saw Bramhall in the passage downstairs. He was alone. I know Selby. He had something to do with the row. When Pooley assaulted Dokin, a man named Lakcman went to Donkin’s assistance. Selby said — “ Hold on, old chap, two or three can play at that game.” Another of the All-England Eleven (Ulyett) said—“ Yes, we are all well in it.” I put my arms round Ulyett and endeavored to get him away. When I got Ulyett away, Selby said —“ We’ll have it out of him before morning.” Bramhall was not there at all. Selby would easily be taken for Pooley in the kind of light there was there. David Ashby—l was one of the Canterbury team in the late match. I saw Pooley a few minutes before eleven o’clock on the evening of the 28th, in front of the Commercial Hotel going into the billiard room. Arthur Whitley —I reside in Christchurch. I remember the evening of the 28th February. I came down from the ground with Pooley, at the conclusion of the match. I next met Pooley at about half-past eight at the Commercial Hotel. It was about a quarter to nine when we left the hotel. I was with Pooley until half-past ten o’clock, when we came to the Commercial, I said to Pooley, “We shall have time to go up to Maples’, the Garrick Hotel.” He said he was tired, and would not go. I never saw Bramhall that evening. Selby is not unlike Pooley. I left Pooley in the billiard room bar.

By the Court —Pooley told me that ho was annoyed that the news should go to the old country. He seemed sorry for having hit Donkin. He said “If the foolish old man had shouted a bottle of champagne the matter would have been all right.” He did not use any threats against Donkin, on the contrary he appeared to be sorry. Hugh Cassidy—l am proprietor of the West Coast coach line. I drove the All England Eleven from Hokitika to Christchurch. On the way over on the Friday before the match an incident occurred with respect to a hat. We were detained at the Otira from Friday night to Sunday morning, owing to the bad weather. The hat now produced was worn by one of the cricketers named Greenwood. I believe lie wore the hat all the way over to Christchurch. It was burnt as it is now by drying at the fire after the rain. Greenwood might be taken for Bramhall, but he could not for Poolcy,

Charles Alexander, a billiard-marker at the Commercial Hotel, deposed to Poolcy being in the billiard-room about half-past ten p.m. on 28th Feb., with Whitley. They remained in the room until we closed. I remember Pooley leaving when we did close. Pooley sat in' front of me the whole evening from the time of His coming in with Mr Whitley until we closed.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan —During whole time ho was in the room I saw Pooley. This closed the case for the defence.

Mr Garrick proceeded to address the jury for the prisoners. Mr Duncan having replied, His Honor summed up. The jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty” in both cases.