SUPREME COURT. Monday, 1st September 1845. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CHAPMAN.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 49, 13 September 1845, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Monday, Ist September 1845. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CHAPMAN.

The Queen on the prosecution of Robert Jenkins v. James Norton, Joseph Burnett, and William Fletcher. The Prosecution was conducted by Mr. Hanson ; the prisoners were undefended. The two first were privates in the 58th regiment, and the latter a private in the 96th regiment. They were indicted for having stolen, on or about the 14th day of July last, a Persian carpet, the property of Mr. Jenkins. Robert Jenkint stated that he had purchased a carpet at the sale of the wreck of the lyne, on the 14th July last ; that he left it in charge of a person named Eades, and two days after, when he went to fetch it away, he saw it at Mr. Richmond's farm, but he did not then recover it. He afterwards saw it in the evening at Barrett's Hotel in the possession of Mr. Suisted. He identified the carpet as his when it was produced in the Police Court ; it was then put in the salt water, and having obtained delivery ot it in the Police Court, he had had it ever since. William Eadet stated he had received a carpet in charge from Mr. Jenkins, at Sinclair's Head, on the 14th of July ; it was then considerably above high water mark. He missed it soon after 7 o'clock on the evening of Wednesday ; he saw it afterwards in the Police Court, and identified it : it was seen on Tuesday, and he did not voluntarily part with it. On cross-examination, he stated he did not see any of the prisoners there. John Cracknell stated he knew the prisoners by sight; he recollected the sale of the wreck of the Tyne : on Tuesday he saw all of the prisoners there; he saw a carpet there that evening, and also the following morning; he saw the same carpet in the Police Office. On Tuesday evening he saw it on the spot it was sold, and on Wednesday it was nearer the town. In the morning four soldiers were with it — Norton and Burnett were with it — they were rolling it up ; they said they were going to bring it to town. The evening before he saw Fletcher by the car pet; he was engaged with others dragging it along; the whole three were dragging it, and two others ; Fletcher said he had got a carpet that had just come ashore ; he wanted to take it to Jenkins, who had offered so much for it; he saw it put on a horse's back, and brought into town. Norton and Burnett were there at the time, but not Fletcher. — Cross-examined by Fletcher : It was a quarter past 9 on Tuesday evening. There was another carpet. T can swear to one from the other. Charlea Suitted — I saw the carpet produced at the Police Office on the 16th July last ; he saw it on the heights near Happy Valhy; it was lying on the ground, and there were some soldiers with it, four or five of the 58th regiment ; they wanted to sell it ; and he told them he would give them £5 for it ; he knew that it was Mr. Jenkin's carpet, and he said this to save it for Mr. Jenkins ; he knew Mr. Jenkins was behind ; he returned and told him o£it. Burgeu Sayer, chief constable, stated, that he knew all the prisoners, and had seen them at the Tap at Barrett's on the 15th July, but he

was not present when the carpet was brought there. This closed the case for the prosecution, and evidence was called for the defence. JohnFoote, private 96th regiment, sworn — He did not see Fletcher touching the carpet; that Fletcher was not absent from home any time on that occasion, and that* he did not recollect seeing Cracknel! there; that he returned to the barracks with him. David Smith, corporal 96th regt., sworn — That Fletcher cams to the barracks at half- past one with Foote. Mr. Hansjn addressed the Jury shortly upon the case — It was impossible to doubt that the carpet had been stolen ; and from the connection with which Norton and Burnett was found to have had with it, the jury could come to no other conclusion than that they were guilty. With regard to Fletcher, the evidence was certainly slight, and they would give him a verdict of acquital. After the Jury had been charged by the Judge, they retired for some time, and came into Court, returning a verdict of not guilty as to nil the prisoners. Peter Holes, the principal witness in this case, did not appear, and his recognizances was accordingly estreated. William M'Kenny, a private of the 58th was indicted for stealing two sheets, two shirts, and other articles, the property of Joseph Bishop. Mr. Holroyd conducted the prosecution. The evidencewas conclusive againstM'Kenny, who wcs found guilty, and sentenced to twelve month a imprisonment, and hard labour. Thomas Pitcher was indicted for stealing three copper fish-hooks, the property of Tomati Waka, an aboriginal native. Mr. Kemp was sworn interpreter, and from the evidence it appeared that the fish-hooks had been safe in the custody of the witness Tomati Waka, on the day before they were stolen from the pa Te-aro, on Friday the 29th August. He missed them on Saturday. Michael Quin was examined —He stated he knew the prisoner by sight j that lie had seen the fish-hooks before ; he had made them for the natives, and could speak positively to his own workmanship. He remembered the prisoner coming to his shop, and asking what the fish-hooks were, and if he would buy them : he declined to purchase ; the prisoner asked him what their wot th was; he said they might be worth Is. each. —On cross-examination, the witness said the prisoner had stated that he had got them from a respectable man whom he had known some time, on the Thursday before (the articles were stolen on Saturday), and that he wanted some money to buy some bread; that he did not want the hooks. On re examination, the witness stated he had asked the prisoner if the hooks had not been stolen. The evidence could not be carried farther; and the Jury, after the Judge had charged them, pointing out the presumption arising trom the recent possession of stolen property, having retired for about a quarter of an hour, returned to the Court, bringing a verdict of not guilty.