SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 60, 18 October 1864, Page 2

SUPREME COURT— CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honor Justice Chapman.) Wednesday, 12th Octobee; 1864 The Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court for the district of Southland commenced this day, in the Court-house, Invercargiili before His Honor Mr. Justice. Chapman and juries of twelve. . At eleven o'clock precisely, His Honor took his seat on the Bench, and the Q-rand Jury was empannelled in the usual manner. The gentlemen i of the <3rau& Jury were as follows :— Messrs. John Francis Dundas, civil engineer, (foreman) ; Donald , M'Donald, Banker, Gerard G. Fitzgerald, John Morton, William Sinclair Trotter, Perciyal Oldham, W-S- Calder, Peter Dalrymple, William Miller, James _M... M'Clure, Henderson Law, George Perry, William Lawrence, Arthur ; 'Ernest "Vivian, James Francis Collins, William; "Wood, and Henry W. Whitton. ; His Honor then delivered his charge to the jury as follows: — Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury. — The calender at this Circuit is extremely light, and not merely, in point of the Dumber of cases to' be tried, but those cases for the most part are of a trifling nature. There are only, one or two I tliink which; will -give you any trouble ; and I rnay_congratulate the Province on tiie diminution of crime in.the district. At last sitting of this Court there were twenty-six cases 'on the calendar, the accumulation of six months, it this first quarter session there are only' nine -cases before you, while, dividing last caleiidar by two, there Would have been thirteen for a similar period. His Honor then touched upon the ' recent arrangements for quarterly sittings of the Supreme Court at Invercargill. In the proclamation which the registrar had just reacl, the dates for the holding of the Court at Invercargill are merely provisional. The twelfth day of the four quarterly months has been named as the day which . hasbeen considered would best meet the convenience of the judges and the public generally. A Bteainer leaves the province on the twenty-second day of each month, and it is hoped that, in ten days the business of the Circuit wul generally be got through. It is intended to hold Circuit Courts at Queenstown and the Dunstan ; but it has been found impossible to arrange this before next February, and. it is just possible that what arrangements may then be made may. cause an alteration of the time for' holding the Courts here. However, the convenience of the public will be studied, as before. His Honor then commented on the offences enumerated in the calendar, and remarked that there were only one or two which required notice. The first t^vo were those of conspiracy. It appeared that the Crown Prosecutor indicts the prisoners .(Salek and Silberberg) separately, although concernedin the same act. In order to constitute aconspiracy, it is necessary that twopersons be concerned. One could not of himself con spire, and the jury, if they found a conspiracy, must make both guilty ; if they find the charge proven against only one, then both must be acquitted. The fact of conspiracy, however, may be brought home to the satisfaction of a jury, even where all the persons implicated might not be present, and after defining the nature of conspiracies, His Honor leftitto thejury to find if there was sufficient evidence laid before them to warrant the accused being called upon to answer the charge. If so, it would be competent for them to find a bill ; or if a third party, not present, were found implicated, it may be competent to find a bill against either the one or the other of the accused. His Honor then briefly commented on the crime . of embezzlement, comparing it with larceny, and then informed the Grand Jury that they might now proceed with their duties. A Petty Jury being now empannelled, the first ca9e called was that of Patrick Rough, for embezzlement. EMBEZZZLEMENT. Patrick Rough was placed in the dock on a charge of embezzling the sum of £2± 15s. while employed as an officer in H.M.s Customs, on the 20th September, 1864. Mr. Macdonald, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. South appeared on behalf of the prisoner. The indictment having been read over, the accused pleaded " Guilty." Mr. South applied for a remand for the purpose of producing evidence as to the prisoner's character. His Honor remanded the case till Friday accordingly. ATTEMPT TO POISON. This was a charge against a man named Stephen Watson, made at the instance of his wife. The Crown Prosecutor, however, intimated that there was no case against the man, and he would ask that he be discharged. His Honor said he had read over the depositions of the witnesses, and vras satisfied there was no case against him. Watson was then brought up, and His Honor cautioned him on his conduct, remarking that his wife, if the threats were repeated, may apply to have him bound over to preserve the peace ; and also that if he came before the Court again, in a similar manner, he would be punished. The prisoner was then discharged. lAECENT. The Crown Prosecutor intimated that the case against Charle3 Daly, alias Peter Dempsey, for stealing an opossum rug, ' &c, on the 18th May last, could not be sustained. At the last sittings of the Cout the case was remanded for want of evidence of a material witness, but now, however, another witness had left the Province, and lie thought the case must necessarily fall to the ground. . His Honor concurred, and directed the jury to find the prisoner "not guilty," for want of evidence. The prisoner was then discharged. It being now one o'clock, the Court adjourned for half-an-hour. When the Court resumed, the next case called was that of HIG-HTVAT EOBBEEY, Against James M"Cann, who was charged with this offence from the person of one Charles JS'ewsome, on the 17th day of September, 1864. On the indictment bring read over to him, the prisoner pleaded " Guilty." His Honor the Judge then remanded the case till Friday, for sentence. • EMBEZZLEMENT Patrick Rough was again placed in the dock on • a second charge of embezzlement while in the employment of H. M. Customs. The prisoner pleaded " Guilty." He was directed to be removed, and brought up before the Court on Friday morning for sentence. ' HOUSE STEALING. Laurence Brown was then charged with stealing a bay mare, the property of Mr. James Gall, steward on the Seaward Downs Station, in the beginning of June last. To the indictmentthe prisoner pleaded " Guilty." He was remanded till Friday morning for sentence. - LAECENY. - The Grand Jury found no bill against Robert '.- Cross for this Offence, and he was accordingly brought up and discharged. The Court tuen, adjourned tFill Friday morning at ten o'clock. ; Friday, 14th Octobeb, 1864. ■ (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, and Juries of twelve.) The Judge took his seat on the Bench at ten o'clock precisely. EMBEZZLEMENT. Patrick Rough, who pleaded "guilty" on Wednesday last to embezzling monies, the pro- ' perty of Her Majesty, while employed in H. M. Customs, was brought up for sentence. 'Mr. South said he would call witnesses in support of his previous good character. ' Captain Elles deposed to the good moral ' character of the prisoner," and to his . previous • well-known integrity. .-.The prisoner niadeno defence, but relied on the - leniency of the Court. .' Bis Honor said he would deal as leniently as - He could, ■with the prisoner, but it was a crime ■which could not be overlooked, and the sentencej . while not being vindictive, must bo exemplary. The sentence of the Court' was that the prisoner

be confined and kept to hard labor, on the first indictment, for . the period of twelve calendar months ; and on the second indictment, for the period of six calendar months ; said sentences to be cumulative. BOBBEBY, WITH VIOLENCE. James M.Cann, who pleaded "guilty," on Wednesday, to the above crime, was brought up for sentence, ........ ....... ....'.,, : He was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. ■•.'.'■"■ " '■ -. SOESE-STEAIIWG. ~ -. Lawrence Brown, who also pleaded " guilty," on Wednesday, to the above crime, was brought up for sentence. .:■ . : ~\ i The judge, sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for'two years: conspiracy. ' ■' . Morris Salek and Joseph Silverberg were brought ; up, oh a charge of. having falsely and fraudulently, conspired to obtain goods from Messrs. Buttner and Hallenstein and others, and also of executing; a- fraudulent bill of sale over, the Royal Hotel. ' " The Crown Prosecutor, along with Mr. ' South, conducted the prosecution; . „ Mr. Button appeared on behalf of the prisoner Sijverberg. ; S&lek was not represented by counsel. Mi*. Macdonald opened the case for the Crown. Mr. South then called Hermann Buttner, who deposed :— I know both the accused. Salek was lastjin.lnyercargill on 18th June last. Till the very day he left, I had constant communication with him. I had regular dealings with him. In the beginning of June, from a report I heard. I went to him — — At this stage, Mr. Button objected to any evidence being given till some proof or evidence was adduced of the conspiracy between the defendants. , . His Honor concurred that some slight evidence of this nature was necessary. ' He ruled that some evidence of a concurrence on the part of the accused must be produced. Mr. South now called, Mr. J. S. Johnstone, Registrar of the Supreme Court, who produced certified copy of bill of sale, duly filed with him as Registrar, by M. Salek to J. Silverberg. The consideration mentioned therein was £600 duly passed between the parties. The deed is dated 6th June, 1864, and was tiled on the loth. Cross-examined. — Bills of sale requiring to be filed, should be so within thirty days of the date thereof. H. Buttner, recalled, further deposed — About the 6th, I saw Salek concerning the reports of his having iraudulently made away with his property. Mi«. Button contended, from cases quoted, that I the evidence of statements made by one party affected only himself, and did not inculpate his alleged co-conspmitor. He quoted from Roscoe's Nisi Prius, and other authorities. His Honor differed, and quoted later cases (Queen's Bench v. Blake), to the effect that the declarations of one party, as much as his acts, when they bear evidence of a common design, were admissible as against both the accused, although the declarations of one party if only affecting himself were not admissible. Mr. Button now contended that, the execution of the bill of sale was not of itself evidence of a conspiracy, and objected to Mr. Buttner's evidence. His Honor concurred that the deed of sale was not evidence of a conspiracy, as it of itself might have been perfectly, per se, an innocent act. H. Buttner, further examined, deposed : I had dealings with Silverberg and with Salek independent of each other. Mr. Button objected, and held such evidence I was inadmissible as not connected with the present I case. His Honor ruled that evidence directly bearing on the conspiracy must be adduced. Very slight evidence would be admitted. Mr. Buttner further deposed — I saw Salek himself when he came back from Melbourne. His Honor now suggested that some evidence should be produced of the fraudulent character of the bill of sale. Mr. Buttner deposed — I was perfectly convinced that Silverberg was not in a position to pay such a sum as £600, mentioned in the bill of sale as having been paid" Silverberg could not, a few weeks before, pay us £10 which he owed our firm. In the bill of sale I find the general stock in trade and goodwill of the Royal Hotel made over. Shortly afterwards Mendoza was selling, for Silverberg, goods at the Royal Hotel which had been got from us. These were not included in the bill of sale, and were delivered after the date of said deed. Mr. Button objected to this evidence as not being proof of Silverberg being a party to a fraudulent act, the bill o£ sale not being yet being made out a fraudulent deed. His Honor considered the evidence gave a coloring of fraud. The defendants were now found to be working together, and ruled the evidence as admissible. Mr. Buttner further deposed — Some goods were delivered on the 13th June. These goods were advertised for sale under the bill of sale. The sale was coimnenced — I think on the 23rd June. lam not positive as to the date. I was not there. I sent Mr. Banks, our clerk. He will swear to these goods being sold. Some discussion now took place as to the stock in trade, which, under the bill of sale, Silverberg got a right to after the execution of the deed, and His Honor believed there was sufficient evidence contained in the terms of the said bill of sale to warrant the case being gone on with. The deed, he said, had a " smack " of fraud about it. Mr. Button having asked if there was sufficient evidence adduced of fraud to allow the acts and declarations of the conspirators to be taken seperately, His Hoior ruled that there was. Mr. Button stated that if the bill of sale bore evidence of fraud, on the face of it, it was not the fault of the parties concerned, but of the solicitor who drew it up. The deed was drawn out in usual form by the solicitor. Mr. Buttner further deposed — The goods got were worth about £200, not less. I mentioned to Salek the report current about the bill oi sale. I think I spoke to him prior to the 6th. He denied ifc in toto. He was quite indignant at being charged with doing away with his property in any shape or form, and called his God to witness that the charge was false ; that he intended remaining here, and that he was doing well. I asked him if he had made over a bill of sale to Mendoza, and he called his God to witness that he had not — nor to any one else. He mentioned that Mendoza was his particular friend, who would, if he were ever in any difficulty, assist him. I asked him if he had entered into any arrangements with Mendoza, and he said he had not. Salek bought 500 very superior Havana cigars, worth £25 per 1000. These were sent to the Royal Hotel. I saw him almost every day between the 6th and 18th June. The last time I saw him was on the 18th June. On that day he made the same statements as before — that he was not going away. He then denied the bill of sale being executed, and was very indignant that I should ask so frequently about it. The goods sold to him were our own property. He said Henderson, Bonar, and Co. had circulated i a false report* about Mm, in. consequence of Ms < refusing to deal with theni. I Gross-examined.- — The £10 due to us by Silberberg was sued for in Queenstown; . Hallenstein, my partner, sued him. Our books showed that hs was owing us that sum. I know he could not pay, as we did not gel the money. I don't know of my own knowledge of these transactions. The lease of the Royal Hotel was deposited with us on 7th June last as security for bills to the amount of £384 17s. <td. The goods then sold to Salek were covered by this lease. We also held other security' in respect of property in Melbourne. All the goods then delivered were included in these bills. £384 17s. 4d. was all he owed us at that time. - Some of .these goods were delivered on the 13th. A previous bill of £110, endorsed by Mendoza, was included in the £384- ; ■ also another small bill of £60. Besides these sums there was a small open account of £8. The goods delivered in June were worth about £200. They were delivered on the'' 6th, 11th, 'and 13th. At this time the box of jewellery, which was deposited with us in security, was not opened. I Hid not kaow the value of the jewellery. I did not ,kaow

the value of the property in Melbourne. I had not had much intercourse with Silberberg. By Salek. — -I remember when you came to Invercargill. I don't know how much money you brought to Invercargill. I don't know how much you gave for the -Royal Hotel.- You have had , money transactions with our firm. I don't remember the particular transactions. I remember you- applying to us for £200 on loan. I don't know if I was present. I cannot recollect. I was averse to lending the money at all.' lam not sure if the interest was to be £20 for two and four montha. We are not in the habit of lending money at all. When we do, we wish to have as much security as possible. I don't know the 'value of the jewellery deposited with us. I have written to 'Melbourne and I find the property there is worth little or nothing. The lease of the Royal Hotel is ■vorth very little. It was put up for'sale by us, and we bought it for £71. There I was a sale of the furniture in the hotel at the time* I I did not think there -was any legitimate bid for the lease except our own. .We were obliged to ,buy the lease in. lam not aware if there is any Valuation at the end of the lease mentioned in the lease. I don't know what the deficiency would be of your debt after deducting the value of the securities. The £71 paid for the lease is placed to your credit. ■- • : v Walter Scott Reid, examined by Mr. Macdonald, deposed — I was in the month of June managing clerk to. Mr. Button. . I was attesting witness to the bill of sale produced. I saw Salek sign it on the day it bears date. Silberbers;, I think, was not present. No consideration passed at the time. I received - instructions regarding the bill of sale about the 28th. May from Salek in the presence of Silberberg. I _ did not see the consideration pass at any future time. Cross-examined. — It is not usual for considerations to pass at the time of the execution of such deeds. lam a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. W. D. Banks deposed. — I am book-keeper to Messrs Buttuer and Hallenstein. I know Salek and Silberberg. Salek has dealt with our firm for goods and cash. The books produced show that the transactions in question commenced in January. Mr. Button here gave notice that he did not intend to produce evidence to rebut that given by Mr. Buttner on this point. His Honor thought it unnecessary, and said it would be a mere waste of time to dwell longer on it. He also advised that the evidence should be kept more closely to connect Silberberg with Salek. Mr. Banks further deposed. — About the beginning of June, payment was asked of Salek of the dSß°on an open account. He said lie COuld not meet it. He could not pay the insurance on the hotel. We paid it for him. Silberberg, when I went to the hotel to see Salek, asked what my business was. He spoke in such a manner as convinced me that speaking to him was the same as speaking to Salek". I said I wished to see Salek. I last saw Salek on the 18th. After that date, I saw an advertisement of a sale of the good- will, stock-in-trade, &c, of the Royal Hotel, under a bill of sale. In consequence of this advertisement, I went on the day of sale to the place. Mendoza, an auctioneer of" this town, was selling. I asked Mm if he was selling under a bill of sale. Silberberg was there at the time. Mr. Mendoza said ho was selling under a bill of sale, and I pointed out some goods which were not included in it. Silverberg said to Mendoza, "Never mind : go on, go on." Mendoza did go on. Some jams which we had sold to Salek were immediately put up for sale. I then said " these goods were not in the place at the date of the bill of sale, and are not included in it." Silberberg again said, " never mind ; go on," and Mendoza proceeded. Shortly afterwards, the police came and took possession of the place, and stopped the sale. Sometime in August another auction sale was advertised by Mr. Mendoza at the Royal Hotel. It wa3 a sale of furniture. I. went to the sale. Silberberg used me > cry roughly. I tried to prevent the furniture being taken out of the place. He used all violence to prevent my interference aving any effect in detaining the goods in the place. Silberberg talked as if he bad advanced the money on the place, and set up a claim to it, and talked as having lost a great Ideal by the transaction. In company with a constable, I took a list of the goods on the 3th July, (Read list to the Court.) I have seen Salek since his return on the subject, of the prosecution. He wished to make some arrangement, and I told him that it was now in the hands of the Crown. Mr. Button objected to this evidence as inadmissible, not bearing on any common design. His Honor concurred that it was irrelevant. doss-examined. — Salek said Silberberg was willing to take his promise for the money, and offered to settle with his creditors. Mr. Weldon had put a constable in the hotel on the day of the last sale. None of the goods then sold were ours. There was a proposition made on condition that all the goods were to be sold, and to await the I result of the trial. All the goods we claim are now in the hands of the police, awaiting the result of the trial. I asked Mr. Weldon if we could sell the goods under a distress warrant. We wished to try the question, so that an interpleader might be put in. His Honor considered those questions irrelevant. By Mr. South. — We took these proceedings at the request of Mr. Thomson, the landlord of the hotel, through his agent, Mr. Murray. By Salek. — I remember calling at the Royal Hotel, and seeing you. Mr 3. Salek was present. This was about the time when you were remanded from the Resident Magistrate's Court. You said if you gave up the whole of the property you did not think the creditors should prosecute. I told you that any proposition in the matter must come through a solicitor. You said you had no money to pay away to lawyers. I said you had better plead guilty, and in that case the creditors would deal with you as leniently as possible. You said to me you had nothing to do with Mendoza in the matter. I know Robertson, the auctioneer. I was clerk at one time to him. I remember talking to him. He said he thought he could, arrange between you and your creditors. I saw the document Mr. Robertson then had in his hands. It set forth that you and Silberberg agreed to give up possession of the property. 1 worded the document. I got no instructions about it. Salek and Silberberg would not sign it. They wished the creditors to sign it first. We had certain collateral security in hand before you got the last goods. You were sued on one of the bills. I considered we had not sufficient security. We only proceeded on one of the bills. We considered "it would have been throwing away money to have taken action on any more of them. Francis Bruce deposed — I am employed in the Bank of New Zealand. I have had dealings with . Salek. I knew Silberberg on the Lakes, in January last. I don't know what his circumstances were then. By Mr. Button. — Silberberg has had money in the bank since then. By Mr. South.- — I don't know at what time. 1 could not say whether it was in April, May, June, or July. • . . . By tlie Court.— The amount was £100, or thereabouts. I don't recollect exactly, the amount. I paid no particular attention to the account. William Geisow, merchant, deposed.— l know defendant Salek. I don't know Silberberg. I have §old Salek goods. I did not get paid for them. . . ■-.- ; ■ . . ;■ .. •..,.•■; ■ ■ . ._ .■..:.■•::.....-', . ;. Mr. Button said such evidence had no connection with the case. - ■ ' ~ Examination continued.— When Salek returned I saw him one day, and he. said, " Couldn't you speak with Mr. Whitton and Mr. Buttner that the case might drop." ' I asked him how he expected me to do such a thing, after having swindled me in such a manner. He said/" We (meaning Silberberg and him) wished to give over all the effects to our creditors. We only want sufficient to take us to Melbourne,'and that there would be 203. in the pound to every one." His Honor considered this evidence entirely foreign to the case. Henry Manders, of Queenstown —f I am a mining agent and lately a newspaper -proprietor there. f knew" Silberberg there. He left about the end of April. ,He said, to me ha was going to

Riverton, I saw him the morning he left. I had some conversation mth him. He left some accounts to collect, and some orders to pay. ; His circumstances ■were very indifferent on the Lake. He told roe had made some money by gambling at that time. When he was leaving I was owing him 16s. on a board account. I paid him 20d., and he said he had no money. About a month ago he said he was coming up to pay all his debts, and that he had plenty of money. By Mr. Button— l signed a document to the effect that Silberberg had the best restaurant - business In Queenstown, and that he had had a considerable amount of money when he left. I signed it on the faith of the other signatures. Mine is the Bth on the list. It is a mistake. I was aware that he had no'money at the time. Re-examined— Silberberg asked me to draw out i the testimonial. I am sorry now that I did so, and that I ever signed it. It is the first mistake ever I! made in my professional career. Joseph Churches, of Queenstown, deposed to holding an overdue acceptance of Silberberg' s. I have seen him in Invercargill. I saw him on tha 20th June last at the Royal Hotel. The amount of the bill was £12 10s. He said he could not meet the bill. He gave me his watch and chain insecurity. I have them on the Lake now. The bill came due in January. On presentation, the answer of the Bank was " not sufficient funds." By Mr. Button. — On the 20th June, he told mo he held a bill of sale. It was a gold watch he. gave. Silberberg has been dealing with me since the bill fell due, and I have got money .on .these: transactions. , . James Robertson Eenwick, clerk to J; S. Morison, merchant, deposed — I know defendant Salek. He left on the 18th June last.- I saw him: on the Bluff Eoad on that day walking about as if wait- ; ing for something. ' Mr. Button said this evidence had no bearing! on a common design. Mr. Macdonald said it would show with what; intention the goods had been got. His Honor said there had been plenty of evidence given against Salek already. Mr. Buttner recalled, deposed that when the actions were brought in the Resident Magistrate's Court, he spoke to Salek as he left the Court. : Salek called me on one side, and said, " can't you get me out of this scrape in some shape or form ; I know I have done wrong, but I have a wife and family." I replied, " I don't see that anything could be done unless through his solicitor." He said Silberberg had got his claim of £600, and Mr. Mendoza was threatening. He said, " I have been pursuaded to this course, and have put my hand to the document, and signed it. I did not know what I was doing, and I was thinking of nry wife and family." This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Button was proceeding to address the jury, •when His Honor interrupted him,' saying he had some doubts as to its being a case to send to a jury. The evidence against Silverberg was very slight. It was adduced that he had received a bill of sale over the Royal Hotel, but that bill of sale is pritna facie no evidence of a fraudulent intent on his part. Tho only other point in this view of the case was whether he (Silverberg) was possessed oi such a sum as £600, the amount of the consideration said to have passed between the defendants. It has been attempted to be proved that Silberberg was not able to meet a bill of £12 10s. on the 20th June, but the simple fact of his having paid this £600 a fortnight previously might sufficiently account for his being short of money then. Mr. South admitted that the evidence against Silberberg was weak. The evidence^ "of, Churches, of Queenstown, however, must be' looked to as important, in showing that for a considerable period Silberberg waa not able to meet a bill of £12 10s. He thought this was a circumstance which forced itself irresistibly on one's mind. His Honor further remarked that he had not the slightest doubt of the guilt of Salek, and lie thought no one else could come to any other conclusion. He would allow the counsel for the defence to address the jury. Mr. Button now addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant Silberberg, at considerable length. His Honor then summed up, and advised the jury that, in a charge of conspiracy, they must be convinced of more than one party being concerned in it,. Of Salek's guilt he thought no one could entertain any doubt ; but it was not sufficient to presume a conspiracy, because one person had acted in such a manner as to defraud gothers. There must necessarily be connected a co-con-spirator, and he thought there was no evidence to implicate Silberberg in this case. There was, he might say, some grounds for the case being sent to a jury, but he would leave it to them to decide it. They could not, from a mere suspicion of guilt, convict the parties. The bill of sale ho thought, prima facie, an innocent document, and they would require to be satisfied that the consideration said to have passed between tho parties, viz. £600, was or was not a " sham." The evidence of Silberberg's indigence has been slight ; and af terrecoun ting serial im the particulars elicited, and enumerating the actions of Silberberg, after tho execution of the bill of sale, His Honor said his connection with the affair was narrowed into two points, thus : If the consideration passed was a sham, all his subsequent actions must be. viewed as unjustifiable, but if on the other hand, the consideration passed was genuine, (and they were bound to accept the prima facie evidence, on that head, of the document itself) then all his (Silverberg's) actions after its execution were perfectly justifiable. If the jury were content to dismiss from their minds all presumption of Silverberg' s guilt, then the case against Salek must necessarily fall to the ground, as, as he had before stated, to constitute a conspiracy, there must be two or more parties concerned. One person of himself could not conspire, and whatever they might think of Salek's guilt, they must acquit him as well as the other. He then left the case in the hands of the jury. The jury then retired at half-past four o'clock, and returned after an absence of half an hour, with a verdict of " not guilty." The Court then adjourned.