SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 19, 14 July 1864, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

it

: : Tuesday, 13n!&frt^l8f^^% v (Before His Honor 1 ]^/;j;ußtace JRhapman)^.His Honor took his seat on. .the; Bench punctually at ten o'clock..- : : ; :; ' •;,-': --."K: _t r WITS TKTEKtI ■ ;*' ' John Clark was placed in ; the' docky'^on charge . of wounding,, -with? intent; the 'person of Patrick Finnigan,_on,the, 21th 4a7»of,,May,laajfc.. There were two counts in. the r indictment— the first being for maliciously wounding^ with intent to maim; and the 'second, for wounding the prosecutor, Patrick Finnigan, on- 4 tha day aboTe-mea-tioned. * ■'■'■" = tv^ The prisoner pleaded : ? Not Guilty." Mr. Macdpnald, Crown Prosecutor, opened the case for the prosecution, 'and in charging the jury said if the charge of felonious- intent were not brought home to the prisoner^ the. evidence which would be adduced would clearly substantiate the misdemeanour of unlawful wounding,- whether with intent orj not. Hethen called Patrick Kniiigan, who deposed,- lam a board- i"jf ing house keeper. , The prisoner resided ia my <._ house on the OTenmg.bf the dftyin.queation/ There -^ was a disturbance on the bc'casibn, r and^l asked prisoner to go to,bed. ■■ "When in the scuffle I felt myself wounded on the ' side. I became uit»« conscious after having: *V»ung s 'ottt^£to_j[ny; infi . that I mTOi^d^pS <^w > '^ l? } S S"f ,. '"' in consequence of the .hjjuriesxnflicte^d-bn me. twelve moritHsT I b^eve^Eei«;w]ftira^£S'«iinlpng £n(my> house! that; evening. ' iN^^-feien drinking. I dpn't^knpV-ifjiiieT 61 ' ; .ww ' dancing? I was not drunt ttt f the s tinw? I don't tKnk you told me that you hM'paM. myr.wife youwbiß. I <3ia: iiotTHave'^6ttidown^ t}& floa*o tiw throat. I did not'e^ea-faife in your hand.: ->. ifccAxtit Knnigan' 'deposed^^th^afefah^w4s.ffie^srof fche'hwt witness. ; " r '<<M-^^'theiDightfrof 24thanJ^^«* •I' saw prisoner ;taldrig:iai^'tiufe! J o^ii of hiiii^^ffei, and gtab^my 'KußbßSldfiiu^ithe iide;.?iii^fti|l&»* prisoner sat down, and said " I hWd/;doa^|fl|i,' f and a Serjeant ■ was , in and twk hioi^nto custody. ..,„. -.^.-™,...^',.,.u1.2*.;::1.* ICiJZ; By the Prisoner.— -i was sober on the eTening 3XaW.My,^^lsaladiM^ljN'a *ere drinking together, but there was no dancing. Ton paid me your "account onij&g^ Sabbath morning previous. 'I did not iil-ÜBe*my husband. y^Cy husband did notvill^nse^ne. I did not fcdw^ "billy" from off the fire, and .'"'cut my huebai^on lieTheadl !Il£aw!yofftake tißelknlfe 6&GtfisoTa! pocket and stab my husband. It was done ift ft second. I afterward Saw the knife in the doctoVf hands. (Being^.ehownvknife). is rery lilt* the knife/ 'There waa^bt 'much noise. My husband held you.by^iihe collar. John Purcell deposed thisit he was a constable. On[th^]eviening !M^y,"hfe {went to proi©cutor's house and found him lying on the bed. H© showed , me where^tie. was stabbed. -^ Clark \r&s in. the n'eit robm.f?"I t gbt'ClarFm ?!7 cusfedy|*aj^ him to the watch-house. I found the knife*-pro-duced r in !; hi^pbck'et. - "When 3?"ajipreliended^im, he said 'VI am the man you are looking for." : Tir. Jtyeck deposed! tprbi?i^vC^dy^on^stti May lait to prosecutor. I was called in profeasionally. ./jFound- .him suffering Aonti jiipunckired wound in. the nght side. Ie yrta Sbout*an inch deep, . Itwa»BuchawQundaa mightshaye been cjpwed by tlie fc^e' ? produce^3e^^scaHed in about five o'clock in &c mor^^gof^e 25th. The wound was infuctei%Wder : tne r e^ia l fib^SKdd^in * ivery dangerous part. ' -.;-'., r* ; ! This was the oa^SrTthei Crown. ; : The^witneß9,-i-Pafenck^PinEagan,iwaß recalled. — I iwok'the'pMspner^y'tKe cbilar &"*the^<iuffle, in orderjto put hjtoi^ pnf^of;^e y hojiße.v By His Honor.— l haye 1 been 'drinking "a.liiUs this morning. —-•— — The prisoner addressed ,|bie jnry, stating that if any -wound were irinicted^it had occurred quite accidentally. ...-He had been ffiUdng his pipe at the time, and a knife was in his hand, but he vat quite junconscious, of any .mjuryhelSig mfliicled on the prosecutor. '* * - ----ii • T His Honor summed up,*? andt'said >it would be for the jury to say whether in the scuffle the prisoner stabbed intentionally: the prosecutor, or whether it occurred t thrbugh"^a ? drunKen. row betweeri^th'e partiea accidentally^^Thare^could b« no doubt, however, that alwdund was inflicted, but according to; tho evidence of the doctor it wm not of a very grave nature.?;; ■:!•( 'iul-'io pin^sz j , sPhe jury} without retiring,' iretumed -p verdict ;of-^gujlty;;of unlawfully wounding," »c» ■ 'cVmpamed < ;it"witK a^Btroiag recommendation to^ho leniency of the Court, on accoSof SftEeTj^eat « provocation received. K v) 1 (I iX A*^ Hia Honor, in^consideration o£ the recommei^atiori of^.the. jury,' aaid^he Swould pasa what h« considered a very mild ■sentence^ and accordingly sentenced the priapnertb be confined in a gaol for the period of six c^Lendar • nionthß, " ; r: witn'"h»rd labori , ' ; , ! *'V U -! iV> \"- ri '-\ '■■■'^ ) %-' .'■■■' -■ ,' : - : \ ( ; '•; • " " (X •-" •^-:v:'-'' : j*.Marcuß Gunn was arraigned on the charge of perjury, c6mmitted : in, the Eesident fMagwtrate'a Court, on the 28th /day of^January; last, ieforft , Mr. S. Mi South appeared for &c prisoner, and Id*. I Button,^^iri injunction with^the Crown Exose*. cuter,cbnducted the prbeecutioni -< } - ; / ;' ■ The prisoners pleaded "Hot iQvSHv.'Mii'.u /&■ i : ; iSR B^toit^penedJthe witli'a'fow'TemaTto ' oh the nature of the^fcmrw >> afj*pi?rjurj^ H« remarked also that it was the first caeo of perjury

•whiciPhW been^ried in ; ttfe'Pr6vince; s and' dweh 1 also on the gi-ave nature ;of the consequences o\ the offence with which the prisoner is charged CWisei then 'sketched' the, principal features oi the case,. After: ■whicliihS [proceeded to -call; the Witnesses ad follows ;— -,j . '. M&tthdw- Price, Resident: Magistrate, f who de: p'dse'd:-^— l faave' autjiorify "id try ciyil cases td tUj aiflSiiiif "Of £*ioU 1 Rite", in trying Melt cased, authority- -id administer baths. I tried ■ a.,: .case bettfe*fi*(lunnYand;M'KenzTe and D. IkWlobie. Tha prisoner was one of the. defendants. BLe sworn on th© Evangelists td" ; " speak the truth; the wllolo ; £ruth7 and 'nothing but the truth." The action then was.-to recover the price of .bread supplied, and it became a material point of evidence to itioH ai'to prisoner being in; partnership- with ihe other defendant, M'Kenzie. I will read "the Evidence I 'noted 'down 1 at the time, ■•'■which states that the prisoner said he. was not a partner in tho ifttfe* in§i -WKetoi&. " "He did not know of bread tiaing delivered at the , Bsf e.an'd was never present when bread was deHvefed ; and also, that he was not aware of twelve loaves being sent by the plaintiff, 'M'Robie, to the store. ■ • ! By Mr. South.— The verdict in this action was for the plaintiff. The evidence. of the plaintiff showed 'that ie (M'JtobieJl had .seen Gunn at TariouV 1 times f at the store. * <■ • :'.■> .» ' > John Hare, clerk to the Bench, produced the record *of the Court on the 28th January, 1864. The case^was, that of M'Robie v. Gunn and M'Kenzie, for : £6, for goods' sold and delivered. ThY Resident Magistrate invariably' administered the oaths to witnesses. "I have done so, but in preserico'of the magistrate always. / 'TD. M'Robie' deposed to being a baker" in EskBtreet,' Invercargill.- I know the defendant, Marcuß'Gunn.* Ikriow Alexander M'Kenzie ; he is a contractor. I Bupplied the firm of Gunn and M'Kenne with bread. I made the contract with Gunn. I want to the store with bread. I saw M'Kenxie. Gunn was not there. Stopped till he came. M'Kenzie, in his presence «id hearing, pointed out Gunn to me as his partner. Gunn did not deny it, or make any remark. I then made an arrangement to supply them with bread. I arranged with Gunn himself, but both Tferepresent. ■' This took place in Gunn and M'Kenzie's store, or tent. After this bargain, I gave" bread to Gunn personally, and to the store. On one occasion, I gave bread to him .When he was on horseback. This was in September or October last; I don't know the number 1 of loaves then delivered to him. Cross-examined. — I only know it was Gunn and MlKenaie's store by serving bread at it. It wa3 both a store and tent. The word "store" was above the door. I was first told to go to the store •with. bread by a man named Reid. He was in Gunn'' i *and M'Kenzie's employment, and was ■working on the contracts on the roads, winch were taken by them. He told me a number of men, irorking there found it inconvenient to come to town.for their bread, and asked me to bring some ' Hip to them. I took it to the store. Gunn did hot interfere. ; I knew there was a co-partnery existing betwixt Gunn and M'Kenzie for the contracts on the roods. When the latter pointed out to me his partner Gunn, I assumed the partnership applied to the store aB well as the contracts. I have delivered*bread to M'Kenzie when Gunn was absent, and also in the presence of one Henry Smith. ' Alex. M'Kenzie deposed as follows: — I was in partnership with the prisoner at the bar in October as road contractors. We had a store in connection with the work. We found .this necessary to supply the' workmen with provisions, including bread. The store was opened after the contract was begun. Gunn said it would it would be necessary to open a store, and asked me about it. I offered no ; objection. Tho partnership existed to the end of December, 1863. We got our bread from D. M'Robie. When wo made the bargain for his supplying us, he came to the Btore, and waited till Gunn came in, when I told M'Robie he (Gunn) was my partner. This was in ' Gunn's hearing. • Cross-examined. — I first had business connection ~ with the prisoner in April, 1863. The agreement shown me was made out on 7th May. It was signed by both of us. It contains no mention of ~ ; a store. The store was opened in July, and the • bread was supplied in September and October. '. The partnership way dissolved by Gunn in Decem- . ber, 1863. Gunn and I, in ttrrn, superintended the contracts. He was there when I was not. It was not arranged that I was to attend to the* Btore, and Gunn to the contracts. I have had disputes with Gunn as to the partnership mdneyß. He has taken proceedings against me in the Supreme Court. I paid about dß3ooint6 the concern. In the deed, the sum of £215 is mentioned, which I paid to Grunn, in - -cheque and money, as my share. I have paid in all above £500. He has paid me nothing of the £300 I lent bim for works at Mokomoko. lam not indebted to Gunn in the sum of £455 ; but he owes me more than this sum. Under an order of the Court, I placed the books of the store into court. Henry Smith deposed to having dealings at the store. On going to settle my account, I saw Gunn; M'Kenzie was in town at the time. Gunn did not take payment, as he said his partner kept the books. . Cross-examined. — The agreement between the baker and Gunn and M'Kenzie was made in my presence. Gunn was almost always on the works, and M'Kenzie in the store. There was frequent " shouting "in the store. I have got as much as a bucketful." r Mr. South.~And were you in a fit state then to recollect what took place ? Witness.— l was always sensible. : ' His Honor.— l suppose they do not trouble Her Majesty for a license up there ? (Laughter) . Witness.— 3STo, your Honor, it is a sly-grog •hop. .: (Loud laughter, which was immediately suppressed.) Thiß ended the case for the prosecution. Mr. S. M. South now addressed the jury for the prisoner, and said there could be nothing to support the charge of perjury. Even in the mere delivery of the bread, referred to, it had been seen that it had been passed from the prisoner into other hands. • The co-partnery in the store had also not been" proven. Mr. South then reverted to the evidence of M'Kenzie. M'Kenzie had sworn distinctly that there was no partnership as to the store, while Gunn as distinctly sworo to the contrary in the Magistrate's Court. He (Mr.. South) then said that he would call upon the officer of the court to produce a " silent •witness" in conflicting evidence to the.asseverations of M'Kenzie. It was an affidavit by Mr. Gunn in the Supreme Court, and would speak for itself; He was of opinion that the whole case of perjury had been got up after this. It was the -result of an animus which had arisen between the parties.. He then referred to the natiire ;of the evidence brought forward on behalf of the Crown. He : did not wish to speak disrespectfully of any " pewon, but he asked .what belief could be put in , the statement of a man who spoke of drinking by • the "bucketful." He was a mere drunken undertaker, and he would leave it to the jury as to what kind of 'evidence the Crown had brought forward,.. and what weight it should have. It ■was the only;.. absolute corroberative evidence adduced,' and Rafter 'all, it went for literally nothing. - • .., V. The affidavit by the prisoner was now produced, and Mr. J.' S.Johnston deposea' to, its being filed with him. as Itegietrar of the Supreme- Court. Mr. Button, objected to any document to which the was a party being ; produced in evidence. '.':/. -■ '.' , ' .. '.- ..',';' .„,.* '. : .'- HisrHonor ruled the eviienc^ as inadmissable. Mrl South^ then finished Ids address. . Mr. Button^ after^^ a.few wordß to the jury, left the case in their hands.' ■■ His Honor briefly Bummed up, after carefully recounting -all the evidence adduced. ■■ The jury' retired, and after ah absence of about an.hour, returned /with a verdict of Guilty on the second^sßigninent of the indictment, that tho ; prisoner had knowledge, of the bread being supplied . to. the> store. ,i .... . ; : ""''The prisoner" was; removed, to be brought up next day for sentence. • L/'-^r^:.: .--::•: -...?■-. xjjjoENY. _ i .-'■ i :^: IBeiijamjn : l)ane" v ' : was brought up and charged; •Witiiittie ßbove iofffence, bn the 24th February latt.

; ■■• conductedthe.casefpr the proser. cution. ; ;li , . :.u, , ..-, .'. -■- ■ " ; Tho p^isbner^ieaded ; "\Nofc Guilty."- V.;V;.:;; f ; Evidence was called as follows :-— v » I Samuel Potter, deposed to seemg.prisoner on the morning of 24th Februarys 'He' was in the act of • going out of the back door of my house with an i. opossum rug. I did not know the contents of the r'bg, I did ntft at the time know whoße property \, iivfiH. . It wits ifl ifiy custody; I asked the prisw'a^.d^iig there. : ,l£e hesitated*, for a' moment^ and afterwards said he wanted sofele i' ' " lollies." "When" arrested; he struggled- and was i . Very violent. He struck me twice. „ . ; By the Prisoner. — -When I came to you, you - said you wanted Bbine ' "lollies "in answer to my ;, enquiry as to what you were doing on the premises. ' ; Richard Richardson deposed to the oposium rug as-his. property. Ho left it in Pot- ; ; ter's, possession. He authorised, no one to call for it."" He did not know prisoner. Never saw'him, ] to i^y knowledge, till I saw %im in the Resident Magistrate's Court. ■..'-....■ ; ; : W. S. Farley, a constable, deposed that, from information he received, he arrested the prisoner in Potter's houße, on the 24th February, on the charge of larceny. Prisoner's? boots were off, and outside the door. ' The prisoner made a few remarks to the jury. His Honor then summed up very shortly, and said he had nothing to say on the case, and left it in the hands of the jury. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "Guilty." The Judge sentenced the prisoner to be confined in jail for the period of four calendar monthß, with hard labor. '"" " ■liASCEKT.- --■■■-■ • < Owen William JBvanß, for stealing money, on the 17 th day of May, from Charles Francis, was now placed in the dock. The prisoner pleaded " Fot Guilty." : The Crown Prosecutor opened the case for the prosecution, and said that the only difficulty would be in bringing forward proofs as to felonious intent. Mr. Charles Francis deposed that he was taken to the Police Office on a chargie of assault ; that he had £25 in notes in the Police Office on tho 27th day of May. I had my hand on the money in my pocket. I put the money, as I thought, more securely between my trousers and drawers. When I was searched in the Police Office, I was certain I had the money about me. The prisoner was clobo beside me. The £10 note produced is the one I lost. I know it from a piece of paper gummed by myself on the back of it. Cross-examined by Mr. Button, for the defence. — I believe it was likely that the notes would have fallen out from the place where I put them. John Win. Chapman, sergeant-major of thepolice, said he saw the prisoner on the 17th. On warrant at the instance of Messrs. Francis and Spurling I arrested him. I searched Francis and found on him 17s. in silver. On Williams I found a tobacco knife. Afterwards on the prisoner was found a roll of notes between his shirt and flannel. They consisted of one £10 note, and three £5 notes. I asked him in the presence of Francis where and how he got it. He said "from no one." He shortly afterwards stated that ho had got the money from a woman. I asked what woman ? He gave no answer. Francis Simpson gave corroborative evidence. M. Price, Esq., R.M., read a statement winch had been made before him at the Resident Magistrate's Court, which stated that he (the prisoner) had found the money on the floor when taking off his boots at the 'request of the police. He had put the money into his clothes, and had not had an opportunity of speaking to Mr. Francis on the subject. Mr. Button addressed the jury for the defence, and said that the prisoner had undoubtedly been the finder of the money. He was in possession of the money, but merely as finder, and not as the thief. He thought that all the evidence before the jury could not lead to the surmise that the prisoner had abstracted the money from the person of Mr. Francis. There could be no doubt whatever that the prisoner was only the bailee, who, as finder, came lawfully into its possession j but the evidence before being strong enough to convict him must lead to the proof of unlawful conversion. After dilating at some length on the merits of the case, and quoting many cases of a similar character, he contended that the verdict must be one of acquital. His Honor then summed up, after remarking that there was one peculiarity in the case which would require carefial consideration. He explained the evidence and the various arguments brought to bear by the counsel for ths Crown, and left the case in the hands of the jury. The jury, after an absence of ten minutes, returned with a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was then discharged. The Court then adjourned tUI the following morning at 10 o'clock.

Wednesday, 13th July, 1864. sentences. W. E. Duedney was brought up for sentence for the crime of uttering a forged cheque. His Honor toot into consideration the youth of the prisoner, and passed what he considered a "moat lenient sentence. Duedney was then sent to prison for the period of one year, with hard labor. Marcus G-unn was then brought up for perj ury. Mr. South called Mr. John Kingsland as witness to the previous good character of the prisoner. Mr. Mowatt and Mr. G-oodwillie also spoke to Gunn's respectability and previous probity. Mr. South said he could bring several other gentlemen in proof of prisoner's hitherto good | character, but lie would not trouble the Court further. His Honor then commented on the verdict of the jury, which he considered' was the only one which could have been given ; but in sentencing the prisoner, he said he would take into account the evidence which had been adduced as to his previous good character, and also his age. His Honor then sent him to prison for twelve calendar months. LAECENY. Benjamin Horsfall was placed in the dock, indicted with the theft of £70 from one William Eagle, on the second day of April, at Winton Bush. The prisoner pleaded Not G-uilty. Mr South conducted the case for the Crown. : W. Eagle, the prosecutor, deposed. — I am a aawyer. On 2nd April was at Winton Bush, in GHyn'B Accommodation House. The prisoner and my mate were present. I spoke to prisoner and had tea with him. He said. he. had no money when my mate asked if he would have tea. I had an account book and a pocket book. The latter contained six £10 notes, four or five £5 noto3, seven £1 notes, cheque for £20, signed by Mr. Homer, duplicates of two drafts sent to my wife, receipt for timber license, a note of hand for £8, a bill from Mr. Kogera. for upwards of £40. These were all in the pocket book. I paid for the tea, and left my books on the form beside me, and forgot all about them. I then went to my own tent to go to bed. I missed the books the same evening, and recollected at once where I left them. I ran back to G-lyn's at once, but they were gone. I next saw them at the Police Barracks, in the custody' of the police. I found a part of the money in the book. I can swear to the books. By His Honor.— l counted my money the day before I lost it. I kept it'underneath the bed in my tent. Just before I w.ent to G-lyn's I took it out and put it in my pocket. I did not then count the money. •,-•■.-,.■■■-•.■ Thomas Baker, lergeant of police, deposed to arresting the prisoner in a tent about 200 yards from Glynn's, about one .o'clock jn the morning. I took the pocket book and memorandum book. He said " Oh ! I meant to give him them in the .morning." I took him into custody. He said he had not' opened the pocket-book, jsi then examined it, and found £34 in, notes and some papers. ; By Bob Honor.-— There was nothing further found in the prisoner's tent. < r . - ... v , \ ■■"',' . Bobert Ca9tle gavio, some corroborative 'eyiderice: ' ' Tlie prisoner then addressed tne jury; for .'the;

defence, and remarked that he was drunk when he lifted the" money, but had*ho intention of stealing it;- .v : . • ■ -.... „: „,_.-• His Honor summed up briefly. The jury then retired, and returned, after an after an absence of forty minutes, with a verdict of "Guilty." V . ■- HIGHWAY ROBBERY, WITH VIOLENCE. John Murphy and John Flanagan were brought up, charged with the above crime on the 23rd day of January, on the person of Lewin Berriek. The prison-erg pleaded "Not Gruilty." Mr. Button' conducted the c«se for the Crown, and remarked that the present was the first case of garotting which had occurred iri the PVovin'ce, and he I hoped that the facts to be bfoiign't for-, ward in evidence would clearly substantiate the charge. He had not the slightest doubt but the jury would arrive at such a conclusion. After briefly sketching the features of the case, the learned counsel called evidence as follows ,• — Lewin Berriek deposed, lam a watchmaker, and reside in Tay-utreet. I remember tho night of 23rd January. I was going from my shop to my house in Clark's Lane between Tay-street and Esk-street. It was shortly before 10 o'clock. I carried the principal part of my stock home with me. I carried a general assortment of goods in a box. I identify the box produced as mine. The goods were worth nearly £400. I identify tho goods now produced. It was a moonlight night. When half-way betwixt my house and Tay-street, ,two men (the two prisoners) approached me from a building in the opposite direction. I had a good opportunity of observing them. They separated, and allowed me to pass between them, within arms' length of Flanagan, who then turned round and caught me by the throat from behind. Murphy came and assisted him. They tried to choke me, and attempted to take tho box. I held it so long as I was sensible. They threw me down on the ground, and still held on so long as 1 had the box. I soon regained consciousness, and found the box gone. I heard one of the prisoners running towards Tay-street. I got up aucl called out "murder," and "stop thief." Before I became insensible I tliink it was Flanagan who said ' ' Get his money." When I ran after them on getting up there was no one in the lane. The next thing I saw was Murphy in the hands of Sergeant Shury, and tho box also. I suffered a good deal from the violence used. I could not swallow anything for neai'ly two days afterwards. When the prisoners approached, one of them had in his hands what I considered to be a net. I identify tho article. It hung like an onion net, being wet with rain, and weighed down with a heavy stone. I know it by the spots on it. I am positively certain of tho identity of the prisoners. I picked Flanagan out of about a dozen other persons at the police office. I have not the least doubt about it. (Witness then made the following statement) : — On tho passage of tho prisoners to the Supreme Court they pass mv shop. I was standing at the door when they . were approaching. On their coming near, I withdrew into the shop. In doing so I heard the prisoner Murphy call out " Get your hammer and nails ready." I took this as a threat of intimidation. The prisoner then interrogated the witness as to the situation of the lane and house, and as to thr identification of the handkerchief, and called fothe witness' deposition in the Resident Magistrate's Court, which was done. Tho interrogation ■was continued at great length, during which witness stated ho had given a present to Sergeant Shury, through the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Weldon. Sergeant Shury deposed to hearing cries of "murder," in the direction of Clnrk's-lano. I was on duty in Tay-street at the time. I heard also the cry of "thieves." I then saw the prisoner Murphy running across the grating of Taystreet from Clark's-lano. He had what appeared to be a parcel, under his arm. When he got to the middle of the road, he placed it down. He was eight or ten paces from mo then. Ho then ran across mej in the direction of the theatre. I arrested him when he had got about a couple of paces. I took him to the part of tho road where he left the parcel, and found the box now produced. There was no one else there. I identify the box. I wrote my namo on it, and gave it into j the possession of the sergeant-major. It contained , jewellery when opened. A minute or two after I arrested the prisoner, Mr. Berriek came up and identified his box. I saw no one else running but the prisoner arrested. The prisoner again interrogated the witness at great length, during which he stated he had received two presents, one from Mr. Berrick, (through the Commissioner of Police), and the other from the Police Reward Fund. His Honor remarked that the Court was showing great indulgence in listening to the irrelevant questions of the prisoner Murphy. Wm. Garthwaite deposed to hearing cries of "murder," and "thief," at ten o'clock, on the night in question, when in his house. He went to the door, and saw Flanagan trying to get over a fence from the street into his place. Witness asked him what was being done, and prisoner said " one of them had ran up that way." I had a good view of his face. His Honor was again compelled to check the prisoner Murphy in his cross-exa'mhiation of the witnesses. '^ D. Thomson, in Carey and Gilles' employment, deposed to knowing the prisoners. Saw them on the 23rd January. I engaged Murphy first, and Flanagan afterwards. They were both working together on the 23rd. Thomas Crack, a carpenter, residing in Eskstreet, deposed to having charge of buildings in Clark'a-lane. On the 24th January, I picked up a handkerchief with a stone in it. I took it to the Serjeant of police. John W. Chapman, serjeant-major, deposed to receiving the box and jewellery from Serjeant Shury on the 23rd January. I secured it with cord and sealed it up. Thoma3 Crack gave me the handkerchief and stone on the 24th. J. B. Thompson, detective officer, deposed to seeing Flanagan on the 29th January. I arrested him on the railway works at Makarewa, on the charge of highway robbery. He said he was not Flanagan, but Dan. Connor. I said to bun that I knew him by the former name. When I got him to the lock-up he gave his name as John Flanagan. His Honor. — Did Mr. Berriek identify the prisoner ? Witness. — Yes. I showed him the prisoner amongst eight or nine more, and he pointed him out at once. This ended the case for the Crown. The prisoner called M. Price, R.M., for hi 3 defence. Mr. Price deposed to the accuracy of the depositions given before him in the court. The prisoner Murphy was going on to particularise the evidence, but was again checked. Mr. Frazer was also called by the prisoners in defence. His evidence was unimportant. The prisoner then made a long rambling address to the jury, in which he endeavoured to exculpate himself from the charges made against him, and to show that the evidence was conflicting, and proved nothing. The prisoner Flanagan did not address the jury. His Honor then summed up, and remarked that the evidence against the prisoners differs in degree ; according to the prosecutor's evidence, both were equally identified ; but on referring to the other evidence, it was somewhat different, and it would be for the jury to say how far both or either of tho prisoners were concerned in the robbery. There could be no doubt of Murphy's guilt as to the larceny ; and as to the attack, His Honor considered Berrick's evidence imshaken in the least. The only point which has given way, is in the matter of the handkerchief; but the evidence is not in any material way conflicting. He only altered it slightly ; but on the whole, this part of the evidence waß not- very important. If the evidence were strong enough without this regarding the handkerchief, it should be discarded altogether. He then very briefly ran over the remainder of the evidence, and left the case in tho hands of tho jury. ; The .jury then retired, and . returned, after an absence of half an , hour, with a verdict of " Q-uilty" against both prisoners.

Both prisoners were then each sentenced to penal servitude for five yettre, . SENTENCE. Benjamin Horsfall was then placed in the dock, and sentenced to gaol for six months, with hard labor. . XAECENY. James Davies was brought up on the charge of stealing ah opossum skin rug, from the New York Hotel, Esk-street. * The prisoner pleaded " Guilty." There was another charge in the indictment of stealing a saddlo from the Albion stables, the property of Mr. W. Lind, on the 28th June. The prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr. Macdonald conducted the case for tho Crotfrt. ""■■'■ The' evidence 1 adduced in the trial of this case was similar id tbafcglveU in the Police Court a few days ago. The prisoner then addressed the ji&y in his defence. His Honor afterwards summed up briefly, recapitulating the evidence adduced. The jury retired, and returned with a verdict of " Not Guilty." On the plea of " Guilty " to the theft of the opossum rug, the Jiidge sentenced the prisoner to gaol for four months with hard labor. lAECENY. Callaban Edward Crawford was indicted with the theft of several articles from Walter Smith, on the 4th day of April. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Button conducted the poseeution. Mr. Smith, baker, deposed to missing the goods stolen on 4th April. They were in a store in Yarrow-street. I had been living there. They were in a wooden box. Witness identified several articles as liis property, and had no doubt about them. Mr. Wotten, in Mr. Louis Rogers' employment, deposed to purchasiug from prisoner a suit of clothes and a lot of books. Detective officer J. B. Thompson, and Mr. Louis Rodgers were briefly examined. Michael O'Keefo deposed to apprehending the prisoner at Bluff Harbor, on board the Emily, schooner, and finding some of the articles now produced in his possession. * The prisoner addressed the jury at great length, during which the jury listened with great patience to his harangue. He created much amusement and sometimes laughter, which was immediately suppressed. His Honor briefly summed up, and sent the case to tho jury. . ■ The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." The Jury then sentenced the prisoner to gaol for twelve months, with hard labor. The Court adjourned till this morning, at 10 o'clock.