Supreme Court.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 14, Issue 738, 25 November 1869, Page 2

Supreme Court.

[Before bis Honor Mr Justice Johnston.]

FRIDAY, NOV. 19, 1869

HO USE-STEALING. Henry Williams was placed in the dock, charged with having, on the 2nd May, stolen a bay gelding ofihe goods and chattels of C. R English, The jury was the same as in the preceding case, and when they hail taken their seats, his Honor discharged the waiting jurors with the thanks of the Queen and the Colony, and congratulated them that their labors had been so shout.

William Goodwin was called, ami at tlie reqae.-t of the prisoner, all the other witnesses were ordered to leave the Court. Witness deposed : lam a publican, residing at Waipiikurau. jl had in my charge a bay gelding, | with a white star on the forehead, I tips off both ears, and branded D on near shoulder, Ii belonged to Dr. English. I saw it on the 30th April about 5 p.ra., and next saw it on the 19th May, ontside the court, in charge of Trooper ITniton, A. C. Prisoner ha< been at my home. I first saw him there on the 29th April, with Dureen. At night he left, but came back next morning, and stayed all day and night. He went away on the Ist May; lie got two glasses in the bar, and I saw no more of him until I saw him in custody on the 13th, Pie and Dureen came with horses, which they left in my paddock, in charge of my man. Prom my own knowledge I cannot tell whether they took the horses away with them or not.

W. Hutton deposed: I am a trooper in the Armed Constabulary. I remember having seen prisoner twice—once at Waipukuran, and once at Taraiti, in the Forty-mile Bush, about 45 miles b ora Waipukurau, inland. When I saw him at Taraiti he had a bay horse with cropped ears, branded D on, I think, the near shoulder. I believe it had also a star on forehead. We made an exchange of horses, I giving him my gray troop horse for the bay. The bay was sore-footed and unshod, and he said he wanted a fresh horse with shoes. I made the exchange because I considered the bay a more efficient horse for the service. I valued the horse at £7 or £B. He wrote the document now produced in my presence. [The document, which was read by his Honor, was a memorandum of the exchange, correctly describing tire horses, and signed with prisoner’s name.] The horses in the troop are the private property of the men. I had seen the prisoner at Waipukuran some time before, and had drunk with him. He stayed at Taraiti all night, and in the morning went on. He said he was going to Wanganui. I paid for

his night's lodging I was stationed as orderly at the accommodation house at which lie stayed. Some days afterwards I received a tele gram from Waipukurau, in consequence of which, on seeing the prisoner at Taraiti on the 12th, I immediately apprehended him. He had another gray horse then--not the one I had given him in exchange for the bay. lie said he had sold mine on the West Coast. I took him to Waipukurau, and gave him in charge to the police, at well as the bay horse I had got from him. By the prisoner : You remained nearly a day and night in the Bush on your way to Wanganui. Yon arrived about 12, and stayed till 9 or 10. I remember asking you if you thought I would be allowed to leave my post and go to Napier for my pay; but I did not say I was going to Waipukurau in a few days. I have no recollection of you saying that you would come back in a few days. When I arrested you, you said, "lam no trooper; it is a

shame to arrest me." I did not afterwards offer you parole. There was a shepherd with rue in the bush ; he was intoxicated. I did leave you in his charge when I was taking you to Waipukurau, but that was because 1 had lost the road, and went to the top of a hill to find it. You were in my sight all the time. It was a dark-sh night with ruin. The shepherd was sick when I left you in his charge. Pie had been taken suddenly ill. I cooeed because I .(.old you T would do so if I found thej road. You came quietly with me. I do not remember asking you to, hold my horse, which w T as carrying my arms, oiit>ide a public-house: door while I went inside. i

John Carroll deposed : I live at .Dillon's, Patangata. I know the prisoner. I first saw him at Castle Point, and afterwards came with him to Napier. About 12 months ago he joined the troop in Napier, after which I saw him every day. After a good while he left the troop. I afterwards saw him at Waipukurau ; 1 don't know at what time, but it was rather more than a week before [ was examined in ihe Court:

it was on a Thursday. The prisoner cm me to Mr Purvis Russell's, where I was living, and stayed all night On Saturday I went to Waipukuruu, and as I was going hack I met the prisoner coming from the direction of Russell's. He turned hack and went toward* (Goodwin's. He had a gva\ horse. He stayed at Goodwin's till 10 or 1 I o'clock, and then asked me to wait for him until he went to get a horse. We were then pretty close to Goodwin's standing at the door. I told him I would. He went up the road towards Russell's, and after [ had waited about an hour he came back. He brought back with him a hay gelding with a white star on the forehead and white ears. He took the saddle and bridle oft the gray horse and put it on the bay. We went up to Russell's, and he gave me the gray horse in exchange for one I had gi ,- en him when he was in the ti'oop. I put the horse in Russell's paddock. He said he was going to Napier, and rode away in that direction. No further conversation took place after he came back with the horse. I afterwards saw the same bay horse in the possession of ITutton.

By the prisoner : 1 knew the horse again by his cropped ears and the star on his forehead. Yon and J never changed Xour reason in going to Russell's was to see me. Russell's place is two miles from Waipukuiau. I know Thomas Dureen. I met you between Russell's and Waipukuran, and turned back with you. You told me you were going to Napier, and T went with you on your way as far as Russell's! irate. No one told me what to say in Court. I have spoken to people i on the subject. W. Goodwin, recalled :- My horse' was not shod when I lost him.

John Palmer deposed : I saw the prisoner at Waipukurau on the 14th May. He had then two horses, one black and the other gray. By the prisoner : I apprehended Carroll on the charge of stealing the horse. My reason was that you had been seen in his company. The gray horse was found on Russell's run.

Carroll said you had given it to him. Tt was not in good condition, but was girth-galled, and seemed quite knocked up as if it had been ridden a good deal. This closed the case for the prosecution.

The prisoner, in defence, said he could pro\e Carroll's evidence was false. He could prove that Carroll rode t.'iat same gray horse to get a horse for Dureen. He would prove that he had exchanged horses with Carroll on a former occasion, and that Cairoil had given him the bay for the grey horse; for he would bring a w r itnes-< who had heard them bargaining about the exchange.

T. Dureen was then called, and deposed : 1 am a prisoner, undergoing a sentence for horse stealing. I ha>e known Carroll five or six years. His Honor : Have these men had opportunities of seeing each other in prison ? Mr Miller: E\ ery day, your Honor. The jail arrangements do not permit of my keeping them separate.

His Honor : It is not your fault, but the fault of the system. The Napier jail, like many others in the Colony, must be a regular school for ciime.

Witness continued, in answer to questions by prisoner : Carroll was apprehended once for horse-stealing, but was not tried. I remember Carroll exchanging horses once with [yon at Castle Point. [The questions [were put and answered so rapidly, and in ,«o conversational a manner, that it was a matter of great difficulty to understand several which followed.] I can swear that you never instructed me as to what I. was to «ay in this case.

John Carrol], recalled : I can swear that I did not give the bay horse to prisoner. I never had any tiling to do with it, and did not know to whom it belonged. I was not aware that he had stolen it. I was apprehended by Palmer because I had been seen in prisoner's company, but no proceedings were taken against me.

By the prisoner (through his Honor) : I remember exchanging horses with you at Castle Point. IV. Goodwin, recalled by the desire of prisoner : Dureen and Carroll came to mv house in company on the night of tile 30th.

The prisoner continued his de fence: Carroll's evidence did not agree with what he had given at the former investigation. He (prisoner) had a copy of the deposition, which he would read to the jury.

His Honor could not allow this The documents were the property of the Court. If there wete discrepancies in the two accounts, prisoner should have elicited it in cross-exam-ination. He would, however, assist him in his defence by recalling the witness and comparing the statemen ts

John Carroll, iccalled, was examined as to the evidence given at the first inquiry, which was read to him The points of difference were that he had at first estimated the time of the prisoner's absence in quest of the horse at half-an-hour, and described the animal as appearing to be a dark horse, with a short tail, His Honor saw no material difference in the two statements.

The prisoner continued : A. man could not swear to a horse he had only seen in the dark, especially if he did not see it again for three weeks. Fie considered Dureen's evidence quite as respectable as Carroll's. There was no proof that he had been tutored; only that opportunities for doing so had occurred, i He had sworn that he had heard (Carroll bargaining to exchange the bay horse for the gray. Carroll had J sworn I hat he rode from Goodwin's 10 Mr Furvis Russell's gate on his way to Napier, which any one who 'had been there must know could not (be true. He wished them to notice 'his own conduct. Would any man of sense believe he had given Carroll the grav horse for nothing? Did he act afterwards as if he had stolen the horse 1 ? If he had done so lie would have avoided the public-house in the Forty-mile Bush. When he exchanged horses with Hutton, would he have acted openly as he did ?

Would lie have returned so soon to the same part of the country ? He .concluded by denouncing the witness Carroll, and comparing him unfavorably with Dureen, and charging the jury, if they had any doubt, to give him the benefit, as they had better let a hundred guilty men escape than convict one innocent man.

His Honor, in summing up, warned the jury not to allow their selves to be drawn away from the evidence by the ingenious defence of the prisoner. En the closing remarks of his defence he had somewhat usurped the position of Judge, but the jury must be fully aware that if, •with the whole of the evidence before them, they could see a substantial or reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner, they were bound ;o give him the benefit of that doubt. The jury at once returned a ver-

dict of "Guilty." The prisoner : I have not had a fair trial, your Honor. His Honor said that the prisoner had not only had a fair trial, but unusual indulgences had been granted him. He had been assisted in every

way, witnesses had been recalled and questioned at his request, and lie had been convicted entirely by the force of evidence. His Honor then put the usual question : " Have yon anything to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon upon you ?" Prisoner: Yes, your Honor; I don't know that ir affects the case, but the witness Goodwin was not sworn.

His Honor doubted this statement, and Mr Goodwin being recalled and examined, informed the Court that he had been duly sworn.

His Honoi : You are too clever. Have you anything else to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon you ?

Prisoner: Yes, your Honor; there has been no evidence as to the ownership of the horse.

His Honor said this was not necessary, as the horse was legally in the possession of Mr Goodwin at the time. Prisoner: But the hor-o is described in the indictment as i lie property of Charles Robert English. There has been no proof of this.

On reference to the indictment it was found to be as described by the prisoner.

His Honor said the prisoner was evidently an old hand, and he should not be surprised if Dureen was one of his victims. The legal point he had raised was entitled to consider jation ; but was not a proper motion J for arrest of judgment. With the low cunning which had characterised the conduct of the prisoner throughput the trial, he had carefully kept this facs dark until the very last moment. If the point had been raised during the progress of the case the Court could have amended the indictment, but it was now too late to remedy the error. If this course had been taken by counsel for the defence, he would have administered a severe reproof for such unbecoming conduct. It would be a scandal to justice if such a criminal as the prisoner were to escape through a legal Haw of this kind, but he was of opinion that the point raised was not sustainable in arrest of judgment. From the conduct of the prisoner in court, he had a vet y strong impression I hat he was no stranger to a Court of justice. The sentence of the Court upon him was penal servitude for ten years. The prisoner said that he did not understand all that had passed; but be believed that some very strong point had turned up in his favor, and that if he had a good lawyer, lie might prove that the conviction was

wrong. His Tlonoi said that he should be a traitor to the ends of justice if he allowed any such point as this to al ter the case. The question would hereafter have due consideration, and if it should turn out that it was a proper motion for arrest of judgment, such a course would be adopted as justice would require. The prisoner was then removed, and the Court rose, his Honor discharging the jury with the thanks of the Queen and the Colony. j

MONDAY, NOV. 23, 1569. Hi> Honor took his seat at 10.30 a.m. PILCHER V. GJFFORD. This was a suit before a minor jury to recover unpaid balance of £172, for work done. Mr Lee for plaintiff; Mr Stedman for defendant

The following are the names of the jury—lN". Jacobs (foreman), C. Tuely, B, Baker, S Jew. George Pilcher deposed: lam a farmer residing at West Olive. In November last year, 1 went to a paddock of defendant in his company, ,to see if his grass was fit for seed. We entered into an agreement at his house that I should cut the grass and finish making the hay, at the rate of £3 per acre for the first 35 acres, and £2 per acre for the The paddock was 68-£ acres in extent,! which makes my claim £172, of which altogether I have received.

£IOB. The grass was not all fit to cut, but defendant insisted upon having it all clone. Altogether I made ten stacks. When the job was done, the paddock wa* measured by Mr Scott, and Mr G-ifford was satisfied with the measurement. Next dav 1

went for the money, but he said he had no cheques nor stamps, and told me to come at 6 p.m. the next. day. I went, but he was not at home; I waited till 8, but he did not come. He did not make any objection to

he work till we had nearly done the stacking of the hay. Cross-examined by Mr Stedman : He objected when I was about four days from the end of my job, because rhe stacks v ere not all the same size; 1 am sure he never objected to the way the work was done. He did not objected because the -\tacks were not thatched as I had nothing

to do with the thatching. He objected because Mr Parker refused to take 100 tons which he had agreed for. He told Mr Gilford that if he cut such stuff he would not take it. There was a rank stinking weed in it which prevented the cattle from eating the hay. The floods after-, wards rose five feet up the stacks,

and spoiled the hay. Through this weed being in the hay the water got in, us this weed will not pre.-,* down like hay. If the hay had been pure, the stacks would not have taken much harm from the floods. Nathaniel Pilcher deposed : I am son of last witness; and have worked for my father since I was a child. 1 was with him when he took (he job of Mr Gilford. We made no delay with the work. Father and I were both mowing, and we had live others working for us. We mowed about four acres a day. Rain and high winds hindered the *vork. Joel Massey deposed : I am a set tier, residing at Olive, and have been used to farm labor all my life. I know Mr Gilford's paddock, and remember looking it over with him, to see how many acres were fit to cut. This was last year not long before

Christmas, and there were then be-

tween sixty and seventy acres ready. [ saw it when Pilcher began the job;

it was then quite right for cutting; and if it had been delayed the seed would have been lost. I often

passed the paddock, and saw them hard at work, There was some very bad burr in parts of the paddock, hut theie was a gieat deal of very good rve-grass.

By Mr Steel man : T saw them at work three or four times. They had very good weather all through except lor wind ; it was sometimes .so windy that it was dangerous to sharpen a scythe. They could not have had better weather. Pilcher had a large party, and was getting on at a fair rate. . Labor was very scarce, and the wage:? were about 14s a day. I should have considered two months an '• owdacious " time to take over the job. Jacob Taylor deposed : lam the man that built the stacks for Gilford. They were the first stacks I ever built. I saw Gifiord when they were done, lie said they were some-

thing like stacks. His Honor asked if by thai expression defendant' intended to speak approvingly or disparagingly. Witness: He was comparing them' with three stacks built by Pilcher near the house, which were called "The Three Graces." (Laughter.) j

| His Honor: Why were they called " The Three Graces" ? "Were they badly built? Witness : I don't know. His Honor : Was it because they were considered three dis graces % Witness : I don't know. T was in Pilcher's employment when 1 built the stacks John. Blackraore was called, but refused to be sworn until his expenses had been paid. This matter having been settled, he was again placed in the witness box, and, being sworn, : deposed : I am a laborer, and know Gilford's paddock. I was working there some twelve months ago with Jacob Taylor in building stacks. Gifford said we were doing very well, and if w e continued to do like it he would be satisfied. John Chambers deposed : I live at Te Mata. I know Mr Gilford, I remember looking at four hay-stacks on his ground, near Mr Cuff's house, on Mr Pilcher's behalf. They were last year's hay. The stacks were badly built; I never saw worse. By Mr Stedman : The hay was much damaged through being overHried. This closed the plaintiff's case, and

Mr Stedman at once applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that plaintiff had entirely failed to prove his case. His Honor did not grant the application, and the following witnesses were examined for the defence

Richard Plantagenet. Gifford deposed : 1 am a fanner, residing at Waitangi. I know Pilcher as a farmer, and on the 30th November last vear entered into an agreement

with him by which he undertook the 'haymaking in a paddock of mine. This was my first experience as a farmer, and I was guided by his advice as to the time to cut the grass. When he had been at work two or three days, the troop of cavalry to which I belong was ordered to Poverty Bay, and I was absent from home about ten days. When T came back I pointed out to plain tiff that hay which had been cuo before I left was still lying on the ground, and was bleached quite white. I was con-

stantly complaining to him that he jhaci not enough hands, and that the grass-seed wap being lost. He said, j" Never mind right." At Christmas time he got J drunk and stayed away four da} s. lie left part of a stack, which had 'been built to a height of some four feet, as flat as a iable, and during his absence rain fell upon it and soaked it. When he came back he j went on with the stack, putting good !hay on the damp foundation. When I came to use that stack I found a black mark a foot thick where he had left the hay, and the whole stack was musty and materially damaged by the fermentation of the damp hay underneath. I could not sell that hay. There were three stacks by the house Avhich were of a most extraordinary shape, and altered their form every da v.

His Honor: Were these "The Three Graces"? Witness : Yes; people used to

come from town to see them. (Laughter.) One of them sank from about 12 feet to something like I\.

His Honor : What was the cause of this phenomenon 1 Witness : The hay not having been properly pressed. Mr Parker had arranged to take 100 tons at £3

per ton, but refused to take the hay when he saw it, and it was so bad that I could not attempt to oblige him to do so. Altogether I reckon I lost about .£4OO by the transaction ; and consider that I paid plaintiff a great deal too much for the work he did. The money was nearly all paid in advances for wages while the work was in progress. I did pay some .£2O in orders after the work was done : but I paid one of these because the man who brought it was poor, and the other was in the possession of the storekeeper, who teased me till I paid him. I told Pilcher that this was why I paid them. Bv Mr Lee : The flood was never

within 30 yards of the stack which I mentioned as having a black mark through it. Some of the hay was destroyed by Hoods after it was thrashed, but I never thought of blaming Pilcher for that. I left the manner of doing the work entirely to Pilcher's discretion, because

I considered lie knew bettei than I did. I remember him calling on me for his money perhaps a dozen times, but such a conversation as he has described never took place. John Bennet deposed : I am a farmer residing at Puketapu. Ire member the haymaking in GitTord's paddock. It was begun too late, and the bay was not properly, made. I have seen it, and consider it quite spoiled by bad stacking. The weather was boisterous during the haymaking, but otherwise favorable. Two other witnesses —T. Watt, oi Waitangi, and G. Clifton, of Napier, —both describing themselves as practical men, gave evidence precisely similar in effect. One of them described one of the haystacks as " a heap of manure." The jury found a verdict for defendant on all the points, the following being a copy of the issue-sheet with the answers annexed : 1. Did the plaintiff thoroughly and securely make the hay in the defendant's pleas mentioned, and perform the work in the pleadings mentioned in a proper and workmanlike manner, so as to entitle him to the full benefit of the agreement in the said pleadings mentioned ?—No. 2. Did the defendant approve the said work ? No. 3. Has the plaintiff received from the defendant the monies in the pleas mentioned or any of them P —Yes. 4. If any, what sum is the plaintiff entitled to receive from the defendant ?—Nothing.

The Court then sat in Bankruptcy

BE HENRY SHAW. Mr Lee applied for bankrupt's discharge. Mr Wilson opposed on behalf of Messrs. Routledge, Kennedy & Co., and applied for the protection of the Court to be refused. The bankrupt did not appear in person, and his Honor expressed himself snr prised at his impudence in asking for his discharge under these circumstances. Ordered to stand over, that the absence of bankrupt might be accounted for.

RE ALEXANDER STEELE. Mr Cuff applied for the discharge of the bankrupt, which was granted without opposition. RE JOHN SIMS. Mr Cuff applied for the bankrupt's discharge, to which no opposition was offered. Bankrupt, on being examined, attributed his failure to depression in trade consequent on native disturbances, and to credit dealings with Maori chiefs. Discharge granted.

TUESDAY, NOV. 23, 1869. His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. IIEGINA V. PATtKER. This case was tried before the fol lowing special jury —W. F. Hargraves, T. Richardson, T. F. Poole, J. A. Smith, J. H. Vautier, E. Pulford, C. S. Wiahart, H. C. Robjohns, A. Fountain, D. Belharry, T. K. Newton, J. W. Go wing. Mr J, G. Kinross applied for ex emption on the ground that as certain of the monies embezzled had been paid by him, he was in a manner interested. His Honor granted the exemption, but remarked that there was no inconsistency in the position. This was an action on a bond of ,£SOO, in which the defendant, jointly and severally with Mr G. Cooper, became surety for the good conduct of R. J. Curtis', formerly clerk and ware-house-keeper, in the Custom-House, Napier, and who was some time since convicted of embezzlement. The execution of the bond was admitted by the defence, who pleaded that the specific defalcations alleged had not been proved, that Mr Curtis had been suspended, and again reinstated, which exonerated them from the bond, and that plaintiff had neglected to exercise necessary supervision over Mr Curtis' actions.

A great part of the day was taken up in proving the various defalcations, a vast number of books and papers being, produced in Court, and the following witnesses examined—John Stuart, S. Begg, J. Topping, C. Thomas, E. Sutton, F. Sutton, C. S. Wishart, H. Ford, Gully, W. Routledge, E. Catchpool, and J. M. Tabuteau. Altogether fourteen cases of embezzlement were deposed to, the sums varying from £26 2s 6d %o <£s 4s 6d, and amounting in the aggregate to ,£203 15s lid.

For the defence, in support of the plea of negligence, Mr Catchpool was closely cross-examined by Mr Lee; and Mr H. Knight, of the CustomHouse was examined, ,

Mr Catcbpool, in answer to questions by Mr Lee, deposed: When Curtis was suspended, the fact was not notified to the sureties. He was suspended for a fortnight on account of drunkenness, but came in a few days quite sober, and requested to be allowed to resume his duties without payment for the remainder of the fortnight, which request was granted. I do not remember ever getting the locker to do Curtis's work. It was not a custom of mine to go away to dinner and not return. I have done so, when I have had Treasury business. I have occasionally received duties from the merchant's in I 0 U's and settled up afterwards. I never lost but <£6 by this practice, and that I paid myself. I have no recollection of bonded goods ever having been sent to a free store.

Herbert Thomas Horsley Knight, in answer to questions by Mr Lee, deposed : I have been in the CustomHouse five years, and hold the posi tion of locker. While Curtis was in the office I have had occasion to perform his dnties as chief clerk. Curtis was an habitual drunkard; I was aware ol this before I went to the Custom House. I have more than once heard Mr Catcbpool tell him he was in an un* fit state to receive money, and that be had better go home. I remember Curtis being suspended in April 1867. In 1865 he was away from the 24th July to the 7th September, drinking. I believe he had the delirium tremens. There was an appearance book in the office; but it was not made up daily—only once a month. Some time before Curtis was suspended, Harris and I found him lying drunk on some bags in a store, with the keys of the bonded stores lying at a distance from him. I did not report the circumstance to the Collector —it was not my duty; Harris was my senior. Mr Catchpool once threatened me with suspension if I did not do Curtis's work. I said I had enough work of my own to do, and that if he kept sober he could du his as I did mine. Some bonded goods were once sent to Mr Sutton's. Mr Sutton had them in his free store, and when I went to put them in his bonded store he would not allow me to do so. I made an official report of the fact to the Collector, but I do not think he took any notice.

Mr Wilson then made a few remarks on the case, and Mr Lee made a long address for the defence. He laid great stress upon the want of a check upon the chief clerk, and of the careless and indiscriminate manner in which the books and monies were kept—all of those employed in the office having access to them—andcau tioned the jury against finding that any particular sum mentioned in the evidence had been embezzled by Curtis unless there was direct evidence that it had passed through his hands. His Honor summed up at considerable length. He alluded to the great negligence displayed in the way the Custom-House business had formerly been conducted; and for this he did not blame the Collector, but rather the Government, which so often expected a single officer to undertake far more than he could possibly do. He instanced the Deputy Registrars in some parts of the Colony, who, he observed, if they had as many eyes as Argus, and as many hands as Briareus, would find it physically impossible to accomplish the work required of them. He fully explained to the jury the position of the case, after which they retired.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The following is the issuesheet as returned by the foreman, Mr Wishart: — 1. What amount did It. J. Curtis, iti the pleadings mentioned, receive by virtue of his oliice of clerk and warehouse-keeper, which he did not pay or account for ?—£7B 13s lid. 2. How much of these sums was received before his suspension, and how much after ?—Before, £27 9d; after, £sl 13s 2d. 3. After the said 11. J. Curtis was suspended was he continued in his employment without any notice to the defendant, or consent from him ? Yes.

4. Did the Collector of Customs neglect to supervise and check the official acts of t he said It. J. Curtis ?—Yes. i 5. Did the Collector of Customs continue to employ the said E. J. Curtis after he had become to his knowledge an habitual drunkard ?—Yes. 6. Did the Collector of Customs frequently give the said It. J. Curtis leave of absence from his duties when incapable from drunkenness of attending to his duties ?—Yes. 7. Did the Collector of Customs by his conduct enable the said 11. J. Curtis to convert the said monies to his own use?—Multifarious duties, apart from the office of Collector of Customs, pre-| vented him from exercising a proper supervision, j

WEDNESDAY, NOV. 24, 1899. IN BANCO. In the case of Regina v. Parker, judgment was entered to the full penalty of the bond and costs. Mr Wilson, on behalf of Mr Weston, applied for an injunction to restrain his partner, Mr Buchanan, from deal ing with the joint property, the partnership being about to be dissolved. Mr Cuff appeared to oppose the application, which was refused.

Mr Lee moved for an order of the Court in the case Parker v. Kawatini to be rescinded, as a settlement had been effected between the parties. Mr Wilson, solicitor for the native, objected, as his client had acted entirely without him in the matter. He should, however, not be sorry to get rid of the case, as Kawatini was a stupid and drunken savage, and had acted entirely against his own interests in the ca*e. —Application granted ; order to be rescinded, and discontinuance to be entered on payment of Mr Wilson's costs.

Iu the case of Henry Shaw, bankrupt, postponed from Monday, the protection of the Court was withdrawn on the motion of Mr Wilson. This closed the business, and the Court rose.