SUPREME COURT.—WESTLAND DISTRICT.

West Coast Times, Issue 255, 17 July 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— WESTLAND DISTRICT.

(Before his Honor Mb Justice Guksson.) Monday, Jtjly IG. The second criminal sittings of the Supreme Court (Westland district) commenced to-day, and although a drizzling rain fell throughout the morning, a large crowd assembled, anxious to witness the opening ceremonies. By ten o'clock the approaches to the Court House were thronged by a large concourse of people, who, when admittance was granted them, quickly filled the lower part of the hall, so that in a very few minutes not a foot of available space was unoccupied. A strong body of police under Inspector Broham were in attendance, and their smart military appearance was quite in keeping with the scene, and indicative of the power of the law and the existence of crime only to be suppressed by strong-handed justice. Ready to enter upon their duties if called upon, the citizens summoned upon the Grand Jury were in attendance at an early hour, whilst at the barristers' table a very strong bar assembled in full wig and gown costume. The following gentlemen represented the legal profession on this occasion: — Messrs Duncan (Crown Prosecutor), South, O'Loughlin, Rees, Oakes, Harvey, Campbell, Button, and Tyler. Precisely at eleven o'clock His Honor entered and took his seat amidst the usual demonstration of respect from the Bar and Grand Jury. Amidst the most profound silence the crier made the usual proclamation, after which the names of those elected to serve on the Grand Jury were called over by the Associate, The following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury : — Messrs Mark Sprot (Foreman), J. R. Anderson, Aldrich, Baitlett, T. L. Bright, ! Bonar, M. Cassius. J. Connel, T. Clarke, J. Craig, W. Fisher, J. Hall, E. Price, Iloughton, A. Mowatt, J. Millar, J. C. Millard, W. McKay, S. Pizzey, J. Spence, B. Taggart, R. Ecclesfield. Upon resuming their seats His Honor addressed them in the following charge. Mr Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the Westland District — It gives me pleasure to be able to congratulate you on the improvements that have been made within the last six months in this town, and the principal approach to it by land. The number of buildings is much larger than it was, and there is a marked improvement in their style and character, so that the place begins to assume the appearance of a city, rather than of a canvas town. I was surprised, moreover, at the expedition, and comparative ease and security with which the journey from Christchnrch was accomplished. I cannot speak with so much satisfaction of the progress that has been made with the new gaol. I find that it is in a very unfinished state, and that the old log huts, which were so universally condemned six months ago, are still used as a prison for debtors as well as criminals. Gentlemen, when I was here in January last I expressed my conviction that the machinery provided for the administration of -justice for this district would be found wholly insufficient, more especially as regards matters in bankruptcy. Experience has fully justified my conviction. The operation of the Bankrupt Acts in this district has been especially unsatisfactory ; advantage ha 3 been taken of the distance of the residence of the Judge from the locality where debtors and property were situate. The distance between the residence of the Judge and that of the Registrar for the district, has also been a source of embarrassment, expense, and delay ; and the result has been, I fear, to open a door for fraud and perjury, while creditors dSrive little or no benefit from the estates that are administered by the Court. I am aware that it is easier to point out the mischief than to suggest a remecty ; of this, however, I am convinced, that no administration of the bankrupt law can be satisfactory which is not uniform throughout the colony ; and that if it is to be administered by the Judges, rules and forms for its administration ought to be framed by them in conference, after careful deliberation. Gentlemen, the calendar

is heavy, comprising manslaughter, burglary, robbery rapt', stabbing, forgery, aggravated and common assaults, riot, obtaining property by false pretences, horse-stealing, embezzlement, larceny, and escape. You are aware that manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice ; but homicide does not necessarily amount to either murder or manslaughter. It may be justifiable homicide, as for example, when the proper officer executes a criminal in conformity with his sentence, or it may be excusable, as when a man upon a sudden encounter kills another in defence of himself, his wife, child, parent, or servant, or even in defence of his property, if the person lfilled be attempting to break open his house with intent to rob or commit some other forcible and atrocious crime. In the case to come before you^ gentlemen, you will ha^e to consider whether there is satisfactory evide nce prima facie. First, that the deceased was killed by the prisoner. Secondly, if you should be satisfied that he was, as I think you probably will ; whether the facts' appearing from the evidence adduced by the Crown bear out the prisoner's statement that he acted only in self-defence, supposing it should be proved that the homicide was committed by the prisoner while repelling a violent attack upon and breaking of his house by the deceased and several others, the attack being made in the dead of night after deceased had been quietly removed from the house, and after threats by him and his party that they would pull it down. I will read you an extract from a book of author ity on this subject. "If B. enter into the house, and A. having first requested him to depart gently lay his hands upon him to turn him out, and then B turns upon him and assaults him, and A then kills him it will be se defendendo (self-defence), supposing that he was not able by any other means to avoid the assault, or retain his lawful possessiou. And so it will be if B enter upon A and assault him firbt, though not intending to kill him but only as trespasser to gain the possession ; for in such case if A thereupon kill B it will be only se defendendo (selfdefence) and not manslaughter." Gentlemen, a riot is a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three or more person assembled of their own authority, with an intent to assist each other in tne execution of some enterprise of a private nature, and actually executing the law in a violent manner to the terror of the people. In order to find a true bill you must have satisfactory evidence of the presence of the defendant in the crowd, of the fact of

ere unlawful assembly under circumstances calculated to inspire terror, and with intent to do a particular act of a private nature, or confined to a particular district, but it need not be an act of its self unlawful. You must also bo satisfied of the actual execution of ths act intended, for if it were only designed, and not carried into effect, it would not amount to a riot but only to what in law is termed a rout. It is not necessary, in order to constiiute a riot that personal violence should have been committed. If sufficient force be used to terrify a s'ngle person itis sufficient. There are several cases in the calendar of persons accused of obtaining property under false pretences ; in order to justify you in bringing true bills in such cases you must have satisfactory evidence that the defendant in each case fraudulently represented as an existing fact ; and that it was by means of such false representation that the owner was induced to part with his property. It is not necessary that the false pretence should be in words. The false representation may be made in acts as, for example, by giving in payment of the goods obtained, a cheqne of the defendant upon a banker with whom he never had au account. In the embezzlement cases you must have satisfactory evidence that the defendants were clerks or servants in the

employment of their masters, and that they received the money by virtue of such employment, and that they embezzled it. In such cases the difficult part of the proof usually is that the acts of the defendant amounted to embezzlement. Itis not sufficient to show mere nonpayment, a refusal by defendant to account for the money, or accounting for it falsely, or falsely denying that he has received it will amount to embezzlement; but if there be no time fixed for accounting, no concealment or denial of having received the money, his merely not accounting will not amount to embezzlement unless the omission to account be under circumstances from which you can find fraud. The one other observation with which I think it necessary to trouble you is one which has a bearing upon one of the charges which, is to come under your notice, I wish you to bear in mmd that any alteration of a genuine instrument in a material part, whereby a new operation is given to it, with intent to defraud, amounts to forgery. ' Gentlemen, if you will now be so good as to retire to your room the bills will be sent to you with all convenient despatch.

The bills against -the several prisoners having been presented to the Grand Jury they retired, and after a short absence the foreman entered, stating that the jury had found a true bill against, John Ridley. This enabled his Honor to proceed with the business of the Court. EMBEZZLEMENT. John Ridlej', aged 25 years, was then placed in the dock, and charged with having embezzled certain monies, the property of his employer John Charles Brooke.

Prisoner pleaded guilty, when his Honor, after a few remarks, wherein he commented upon the youth of the prisoner, at the same time expressing a hope that the check placed upon him by the punishment now inflicted would act as a warning and render him more guarded in his actions for the future, sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor, the same to be computed from the 16th day of July instant. " LAKCESY. Margaret Ashton, charged with lai'ceny was now brought up aud formally dis^charged ; the Crown Prosecutor not being in a position to proceed with the case in consequence of the absence from the colony of a material witness. True bills having in the meantime been found by the Grand Jury against William Dutton Green, Henry Moore, John Hunter and James Kelley. His Honor proce2ded to try these prisoners. ALTERING CHEQUES. William Dntton Green, aged 16 years, was then charged with altering certain cheques upon the Bank of New South Wales for the payment of certain monies, with intent to defraud the said Bank The piisoner pleaded Guilty, and handed in for his Honor's inspection testimonials as to character. He stated that he had been drinking, aud that it was under the influence of the liquor that the crime was committed. His Honor addressed the prisoner on the hainousness of the offence. He, however, would take into consider .- tion the youth of the prisoner, and the fact of his having been already imprisoned for three months, and would not pass a heavy sentence. He then sentenced prisoner to be imprisoned for 18 months with hard labor from 16th July inst. LARCENY. Henry Moore and Louisa O'Brien were then charged with this offence, and respectively pleaded JSTot Guilty. The following jury were sworn : — A. Scott (foreman), John Dixon, W. Kingswell, John Chiffings, James Gray, Andrew Collins, G. B. Gibson, Thomas Betts, T. Cowlishaw, F. Mader, — Mace..

The Crown Prosecutor said that from the indictment he now read it would appear that the prisoners were charged with larceny. On the 3rd April, aMrsWise, accompanied by the prisoners, left Hokitika for Greymouth, having in her possession a box full of articles of clothing, &c. From the evidence he should adduce, it would be proved that the prisoners emptied the box and appropriated the article?, and handed the box to one Rochford. Mr Duncan said that although it might not be proved that the prisoners had stolen all the articles, yet if it was found they had stolen any one or more of them, that would be sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the prisoners guilty. He then called

William Henry James, who stated — He was Inspector of Police at Greymouth. Remembered the Bth April last, when he arrested the male prisoner at the Camp Hotel, Greymouth. Searched him, and took him to the station, when ho found the watch and guard which he now produced, a penknife, and L 3 3s 6d cash. Mr Duncan said there was no money mentioned in the indictment.

Examination of witness continued— 'There was also a receipt. The prisoner requested him to allow him (the prisoner) to go to the Empire Hotel, where he had left some things. He gavo him, permission, sending a policeman with him. * When he returnod ho brought a largo bag, a calico tent, and two ulnnkots, which he said were his property. Tho watch, he said the prosecutrix, Mrs Wise, gave him.

The bag contained 7 forks, 6 knives, 2 gimlets, 2 pairs of scissors, 1 brush, 4 towels, a piece of flannel, 4 shirt 9, 2 nightdressti, 2 petticoats, 2 skirts and jackets, 1 waistcoat, 1 cotton bag, 1 chemise, 1 nightcap, 1 collar, 2 child's jackets, and 1 handkerchief. (Witness produced these articles.) Cross-examined by prisoner Moore— l did not put the two blankets in your bag. They were strapped to the tent. I found two blankets. lam not positive whether there was one double, or two single. I think there were two single ones. I cannot swear that they were stolen property. I cannot swear that Mrs Wise gave you the watch. You made the remark when you were arrested that Mrs Wise gave you the watch because you had promised to marry her. Richard Dwyef stated that in April last he was stationed at Greymonth. Had been ordered to search for the female prisoner. He arrested her and searched her on the outside, and found the purse which he now produced. He cautioned the prisoner, and then asked where 6he had slept the previous night. She pointed out to him a bed in the room on which she was sitting. In that bed found several articles of wearing apparel, which he produced, viz., 1 woollen jacket, 1 cashmere shawl, 1 cotton jacket, 1 coat, 1 pinafore, 2 chemises, 1 tie, 2 yards of ribbon, 1 pair of drawers, 1 cotton jacket. The landlady of the house called him back, aud stated, in the presence of the prisoner, Louisa O'Brien, that she had made her a present of the three books now produced. There is also a piece of flannel. He then arrested the female prisoner. Susau Wise sworn —said she remembered the 3rd April last. She was then residing in Weld street, Hokitika. She knows the prisoner, Henry Moore, and had done so for three weeks before' he stole the box. She left Hokitika on Easter Monday, for Greymouth ; prisoner, Moore, accompanied her. She went by steamer. Witness paid the passage of the female prisoner at her own request. They^ arrived at Greymouth towards the evening. Witness had left_her box of clothing in her possession when"" she left Hokitika. When she reached Greymouth she did not see her box. She missed her box towards ten o'clock at night. Prisoners were not present when she missed it. She could not state as to all that she had in her box ; she could mention some articles. She had 12 yards of coburg cloth, 9 yards of flannel, cut in three pieces (flannel produced and identified), 4 unmade chemises, and 12 yards calico sheeting ; the sheeting produced is witness's. She had also 20 yards of various ribbons (witness here identified the two pieces produced). There were several neck-ties, two or three petticoats, some jumpers, and also some children's clothing (articles, including tent and blankets and watch-chain, produced in Court and identified by the witness). She could not swear to bank receipt, as witness could not read ; it was like what was in her box. The three books produced were hers. She never gave any one permission to take any of these things. The same night she landed she saw the prisoner O'Brien, with her scarf on, and she remarked, "That's my scarf ! " O'Brien replied that she took it out of witness's box, and then went out. Witness said no more*

By prisoner Moore — Previous to. my knowing you I had only known O'Brien by sight. We stopped at the same place. I gave you L 27 because you eaid you would take care of it, for me. I gave it to you to take care of for me, not to marry me. I was down in the state-room of the tug boat withy the chief engineer ;so were you. I had a dispute with the engineer about some money. I asked you to come up_to my house and see the place. I did not ask you to marry me. I lived with you for some time as your wife. You said that you would not get married there — that we would go to Greymouth. I did not tell you that the prisoner O'Brien was an intimate friend of mine. I did not ask you to go with me to start a shanty on the new rush without a license. I did not buy the tumblers found in my box for the purpose of setting up shop. I did not ask O'Brien to act as barmaid. I gave you the money to ' keep for me. I drew a part of it from you to buy the tent. We were together when I bought the tent. He selected it. I told him to pay for it out of my money. I can swear that it was my money that paid for the tent. You had none I did not authorise you to put your name on the box. I did not give you my things to take care of for me on the passage from Hokitika to the Grey. You paid for the freight down to the Grey. I did not. I told you to pay the money for our passages. I swear you stole the watch from me. I did not authorise you to take it. I did not give it to you to get regulated for your use. I did not give it to you as a true-love token for you to be true to me. I did not ask you to marry me ; but you wished me to marry you for fear some one should steal me away from you.

Cross-examined by prisoner O'Brien— l did not ask you to go to Greymouth as a barmaid. You told me you were going down there to marry a black man. [This witness created considerable merriment in Court bj r the manner in which she answered the different questions.]

Thomas Henry, Rochford, sworn, said that he kept a restaurant at the Grey, and knew both the prisoners. He remembered the 3rd April last. He saw prisoners at his house that day. They had nothing in their possession when they first came. Moore came, and asked witness whether he could get respectable lodgings for himself and wife; and after inspecting the roonn he engaged a room for himself and wife. He went out, and returned with a box and a bag. Prisoner O'Brien was with him. They took tea, and they afterwards went out. They returned and slept there that night ; and on the next morning Moore went out, saying he was going to the bank for some money, and that he would engage the room for a week on his return. He paid witness L 3 for the lodgingß in advance, lie said he was going to the rush on the Grey. On Wednesday, he opened the box, and put the contents in the bag. The female prisoner held the bag open. They then went out together, leaving the box, and in half an hour returned and aiked witness' cook to take the bag down to the steamer. He (witness) did not want them to leave tho box ; but on their doing so he asked Moore to give him a receipt or authority to keep it. Could not recognise the articles taken out of the box. Could not say what they took out, except it was cloth. The bag produced is the one Moore put the things into which he took out of the box. Cross-examined by Moore— When you

came to my house you asked me for lodgings for you and your wife. I swear on my oath that you took the property out of the box. It was not the female prisoner. I swear positively that you took away a sailor's bag and a small bag. Gilbert King sworn— said that he was agent for the Bank of New South Wales at Greymouth, and remembered Tuesday, 3rd April last. He saw the prisoners on that day in the Bank at Greymouth. They had a deposit receipt in their possession. It was handed to witness by the female prisoner. Moore acknowledged writing the name on it. Witness asked the female prisoner if her name was Susan Wise, and she said yes. When O'Brien gave witness' the note he said he could not give her the money ; it would have to be paid in Hokitika. He opened a present book for her to write her name in. She said she could not write. Witness then asked her who ' had written her name on the book, when Moore said he did. Witness sent the note to Hokitika for collection, and it was returned to him. He then took it to Inspector James. By Moore— To the best of my belief you are the person who presented the receipt. When Inspector James brought you to" the Bank I did not identify you at first, but when another hat was put upon your head I was sure. I did not see you sign the name Susan Wise on the back of the paper. This closed the case for the Crown. Neither of the prisoners called any witnesses, and Moore said nothing. The prisoner O'Brien stated that she went down with Mrs Wise as servant, and that her things were placed with Mrs Wise's, so that they became mixed. It was a wet day on which they went to the Grey, and her shawl being wet she placed that of prosecutrix, which was lying on the outside of the box, over her shoulders \ the prosecutrix having told her to Wear it. His Honor then proceeded to sum up the evidence, pointing out to the jury thai ' it was not necessary to prove that all the articles alleged to have been stolen were stolen, but that it would be sufficient to prove the stealing of some only. He then explained to the jury the law as to accessories, and briefly laid before them the facts of the case. He wished them particularly to take into consideration the fact of the watch having been found in Moore's possession, for which he could not account;, also, the fact of the bank receipt being received from prisoners, and the prisoners taking the goods from the box and placing them in the bag. It was for the jury to to decide as to the guilt of the prisoners. The jury having retired, after an ab-. sence of about three minutes, brought in a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. His Honor then sentenced the prisoners — Moore to 12 calendar months' imprisonment with hard labor, and O'Brien to 6 calendar months' imprisonment with hard labor. Elizabeth Hardisson was then placed in the dock, and discharged, the Grand Jury not having found a bill against her. HOUSEBHEAKIKG. John Hunter, aged 30, and James M'Vie,. were charged with having, on the 20th April, 186G, stolen and carried away certain articles of the value of L9O, the property of one James Cattle, from the dwel-. ling house of the said James Cattle, situate at Greymouth, to which charge both prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. The following jury were sworn :—Thomas Betts (foreman), John Mehan, Thomas Cowlishaw, Ulrick Mader, George Paterson, John Stevens, Osceola Powell, William Kingwell, Joseph Anderson, Hugh Cassidy, Henry Mace, John Davies.

The Crown Prosecutor briefly stated the case to the jury, saying that the indictment was laid under 7 and 8 Geo. 4, c 16, which enacted, that if any person should take or carry away property to the amount of L 5, such person should, if convicted, be deemed guilty of felony.

Constantine Ward deposed that he was a constable, stationed at Greymouth. He remembered the night of the 28th April. From information received he arrested the prisoner Hunter. He cautioned him iv the usual way. He searched him, and found 5s on him. It was about 12 o'clock on the night of the 28th April v.hen he arrested him. Hunter said to witness

when he was searching him that he had no money except the 5s witness found on him, and on that morning he (Hunter) got Ll from a man named Harry Pearce. Hunter said nothing else.

By prisoner Hunter — You were at the' Golden Age when I arrested you. You were brought in before that by Constable M'Cormick to the station.

William Henry James sworn, said that he was Inspector of Police, at Greymouth. On the night of the 20th April last he arrested prisoner M'Vie at Cobdeu. He cautioned him in the usual way, and told him the charge. Prisoner said he had been drinking the night previous, and had no recollection of being at Cattle's.- On searching him witness found a chamois leather bag. It answers the description of one lost by Mr Cattle, the description of which Cattle gave to witness. Witness received some money from Mi" Ogilvie, the landlord or proprietor of the Cosmopolitan Hotel. There were two L 5 notes and three LI notes, which he (witness) produced. James Cattle sworn — said that he was a puulican, and resided at Greymoutb, and kept the Golden Age Hotel. He remembered the 28th April last. He knew the prisoners by sight. He saw them that day. It was about tea time — six o'clock. Hunter was in the bar, and M'Vie was in the parlor. Witness was in the bar. The parlor was adjoining the bar. Mrs Anderson called witness to come in to tea several times. He went in, and Mrs Anderson left the table two or three minutes after. This was in the dining-^ room. A few minutes afterwards a man came in and called for drinks, and tendered witness a half-sovereign. He had not sufficient change, so he went to the cash-box and found it gone. Witness saw his cash-box before tea. He had it on the counter, changing a L 5 note. He went into the bedroom to get it. He saw the prisoner Hunter standing in front of the bar when he changed it. M'Vie was inside the bar. When witness changed the L 5 note he took it back into his bedroom. He put it in on his table. The bedroom is at the back of the bar. The diningroom is next to the bar. There is a flap on the counter in the bar. When he went out of the bar to go to his tea this flap wag down. There was no one in charge of th« tar when he left it. He left it thus for two or three minutes. No one can see from outside the counter into the bedroom. Witness could not say whether the flap was up or down when he returned from

missing the cash-box. He was absent about ten from the time he left the "bar until he returned. Hunter and M'Vie had both gone. He had 1,75 or LBO in notes, besides silver and three or four sovereigns ; also two rings and some trinkets belonging to a watch. There was no watch. There were also four or five gold nuggets, and several papers. There was ,av«hamois leather bag, containing about one ounce and a half of gold. He could not swear to the bag. The one produced was very like it. It might be the bag, but he could not say. He could not tell how the bag was fastened. There were two L2O notes, two LlO, and three or four L 5 notes in the cash-box when stolen. He could not . identify any of the notes, and could not say what Bank the L 5 notes were on. . Jane Anderson, sworn, said— Last April she was housekeeper at the Golden Age, at Greymouth. She remembered the 28th April. She knew the prisoners Hunter and M'Vie ; saw them that evening at the Golden Age. Hunter, was in the bar, M'Vie had just got up from tea as witness sat down. He came into the bar. Recollected when Cattle went to tea that night, she was taking tea at the time, and remained two or three minutes after he entered and then left to come into the bar. There was no one in the bar then. It was about two or three minutes from the time she saw Hunter and M'Vie there to the time witness returned and found them gone. There is a flap to the counter ; witness found this lifted back against the wall. Shortly after .this the cash box was missed. Witness last saw the cash box about 4 o'clock that afternoon. She opened the cash box in the bar and changed a five pound note and put the cash box back. She saw money iv the box — a cumber of notes. As near as witness could guebs, there was property to the value of near or about LIOO in the box : there were several bank notes, a black thick chamois leather bag, something like the bag produced. Could not say it was the one produced. She noticed that the bag was very dirty. Witness had several times put notes and silver in the box, one pound notes, five pound notes, ten pound notes, and sovereigns. She thought the five pound note produced was one which she placd in the box. The note had the corners turned down. Witness turned them down. ■ It had two corners turned down. The marks were put there by witness herself, she had had it in her possession since the 14th February ; she believed it to be her note ; it resembled it in the manner in which it was turned down. There was no other mark on the note by which witness could identify it. M'Vie paid witness for a bed, breakfast, and four drinks. This was on Saturday. She considered that the bed was for the night before. He did not sleep there on Saturday night. Between 10 and 11 o'clock on Saturday morning Hunter asked witness to lend him five shillings. She saw him about 11 o'clock at night on the Saturday with half-a- sovereign. Hunter had tea that night at the hotel as well as M'Vie. Witness never saw the prisoner Hunter again until he told her he had been in custody. She saw M'Vie the nextsday (Sunday). Tne bag in the cashbox contained some fine gold. She had lent Hunter L 3 on it about a fortnight before. It was late on Saturday night and he said he could not sell it that night, It was bis bag that was in the box. Hunter was a little altered in dress for the better when witness saw him at 11 o'clock to what he was when she saw him at tea.

By Hunter — It was on the Saturday the cash-box was missed I asked you for the five shillings. It was between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning. The corners of the note are turned in ; that is how I can identify it. I never noticed other bank notes with the corners turned in. I never took notice, so I cannot say, I do not know the number of the note. I had no particular reason for keeping the note so long except that it was my own money. I did not keep it mixed with the money in the cash-box until the day before it was stolen. The reason I had for putting the L 5 note In was that LlO was coming to me, so I took a L2O note out and put two L 5 notes in. The LlO was due to me for wages.

By Foreman of Jury — Had no particular reason for marking the note like that. William Ogilvie deposed — He was a publican at Greymouth. He knew the prisoners at the bar by sight. He remembered the 28th April last. Hunter was in his house (the Cosmopolitan) between seven and eight o'clock. M'Vie was not with. him. Hunter was there drinking. He paid for the drink himself. He gave witness aLI note at this time. He also gave him two L 5 notes and four single ones for safe keeping. Witness rolled tbem up in a piece of paper, and put Hunter's name on it, and also the amount. Witness ! retained the Ll4 till about , half-past ten in the evening, when prisoner came back and wanted L] , which witness gave him out of his (Hunter's) own money. M'Vie was not with him then. He did not see M'Vie with Hunter that night at all. When witness, gave Hunter the pound he remained till near closing time, when he .was called out, and witness saw no more .of him till Monday. After giving him the Ll note, witness rolled the remainder up, as he did before. He gave them to Inspector James. The note produced is one of the L 5 notes. Witness could not recollent whether he saw the prisoners together that day, and he could not say whether M'Vie was in his house that night. By Hunter — I have taken care of money for you once or twice before this. I held between LSO and L6O a fortnight or three weeks before this. You used to get it from me a pound or two at a time. It might have been a week before I paid you some L2O of your own money. I had no reason to think you were hard up. I can identify the note, for it never left my hands till Inspector James got it. He took

the number of it, and I put my initials on

the back. I do not think I could have ' identified the note amongst a number oi

others if my initials had not been on it.

By M'Vie— When I met you on Sunday morning, I asked you if you had seen your mate (meaning Hunter.) You said, " I have just heard where he is.'' I then said, "If you are not implicated, you had better go and see what you can do for him." You then answered, " I know nothing about it." I then made the remark, " You had better go and see what you can do for him.' r By the Bench — I told him the police were looking for him, for Inspector James had only left me half an hour. Re-examined by Mr Duncan — I do not

know whether M'Vie went to the Camp or not. He went that way. Charles Haffield stated he was a draper at Greymouth. He remembered the 28th of April last. He saw the prisoner Hunter on that evening about 7 or 8 o'clock. Hunter purchased goods to the amount of Ll 15s from witness. He gave witness a LlO note. Witness gave him one L 5 note, three Ll notes, and two half crowns change.

Cross-examined by Hunter — You were in the habit of dealing with me before this. It was about a month before this that you had been in the habit of dealing with me. You left some clothes with me when you bought the goods. I recollect your buying; a pair of trousers and a black silk handkerchief about three weeks before this. I caunot recognise the notes I gave you. When you bought the clothes some three weeks before you seemed to have plenty of money. I remember you showing me a little gold. I cannot say how much there might be in the bag — I am no judge. I should think there was about 2£oz. of gold. You said it was from the Little Grey river. It was nuggetty. Re-exammed by Crown Prosecutor — The gold was in a chamois leather bag when he showed it to me. The bag produced is very much like it. By the Bench — I looked at the bag with care. The bag produced is very similar, but I cannot swear to it. This closed the case for the Crown. Neither of the prisoners called any witnesses for the defence.

His Honor then proceeded to sum up the evidence pointing out to the jury the principal facts of the case. He wished to impress upon them that one of the prisoners was convicted of stealing only apart of the articles mentioned in the indictment, and the other was convicted of being a participator or accessory. It would warrant them in convicting both prisoners. He pointed out to the jury that the most important part of the evidence as regards M'Vie was the fact of Hunter having in his possession the bag containing nuggetty gold which was shewn to Mr Haffield, and that a bag containing nuggetty gold was left with Mrs Anderson by Hunter, and was afterwards stolen. This, and the fact of M'Vie being in the company of the prisoner Hunter, was the principal evidence against M'Vie. His Honor then went carefully through the evidence, pointing to the jury the principal features ol the case and begging them to give the case their most earnest attention. It would be for them to determine whether or not the facts of the case were such as to warrant them in convicting either of the prisoners ; and if there was any- doubt in their minds to give the prisoners the benefit of such doubt. The jury then retired, but shortly afterwards returned into Court wishing to know if Mrs Anderson had previously to the arrest of the prisoners, spoken of the note having been marked. To this Mr James replied in the negative. After an absence of some time the jury brought in a verdict of Guilty against Hunter, Not' Guilty with respect to M'Vie, who was discharged. His Honor then sentenced Hunter to be imprisoned for 12 calendar months' with hard labor, to be computed from the 16th July instant.

The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock :bis morning.