THE £3,300 ROBBERY.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 204, 20 November 1869, Page 5

THE £3,300 ROBBERY.

The case of John Henry Caton came before the Court of Appeal at Wellington on the 12th inst, and as it is of interest to many in Fthis district, as well as important, we give the following epitome from the Post :—At the Circuit Court held at Christchurch on the 11th and 12th of June last before Mr, Justice Gresson, Caton and a man named John Murphy were charged with conspiring to defraud William Wilson of a sum of money amounting to £3,300. Mr. Duncan prosecuted, and Mr. Travers with whom was Mr. Joynt, acted as counsel for Caton, and was assigned by the Judge as couusel for Murphy which Mr. Duncan admitted that he intended to offer as evidence, and it was therefore agreed that the circumstantial evidence which the Crown relied on to prove the conspiracy should be adduced in the first instance, and the statement objected to reserved until the other evidence had been concluded, which was accordingly done. It was contended by Mr Travers that upon a joint indictment against two persons for conspiracy, the confession of one defendadt is not admissable even against himself and that therefore the evidence of two material witnesses ought not to have been received. The Judge declined to exclude the evidence, but directed the jury that they could not take Murphy’s statement against Caton, or Caton’s against Murphy; but that they might receive the statement of each defendant against himself, and that if they acquitted one defen-

dant, they must acquit both, as one man could not be guilty of conspiracy. Doth were found guilty, and the J udge agreed to take bail for Caton’s appearance to receive sentence on the Ist of December, which, having failed to find, he remained in gaol. Murphy was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor, to be respited on his entering into security to appear and render himself in execution at the first sitting of the Circuit Court after the Court of Appeal. He, however, fulfilled his sentence, and was discharged before it was ascertained whether or not he was legally convicted. The question for the Court of Appeal was, whether the Judge ought to have excluded the statements of Murphy and Caton, or either of them ; or whether he was right in letting them go to the jury accompanied by the direction already mentioned. The Court of Appeal, as we men tioned yesterday, decided that Judge Gresson was right in admitting them and confirmed his decision.