SUPREME COURT.—WESTLAND DISTRICT.

West Coast Times, Issue 257, 19 July 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— WES TLAND DISTRICT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, July 18, 1806.

(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gresson.) The Court was re-opened to-day by hi* Honor Mr Justice (jresson, who took his si at at 10 o'clock. The attendance was not so numerous as upon the two previous days. JORY DE MEDIETATB LIXGUJE. Mr South would beg his Honor's pardon for interrupting the business of the Court, but he wished to state that he was retained for the defence in two cases in which the accused were foreigners, and they wished to be tried by a mixed jury. The cases he alluded to were those of Antonio Thomas, •charged with stealing n watch, and Henry Hansen, charged with stealing from a store. He was aware that the proper time to mention the fact was, in each case, upon the arraignment of the prisoner, but thinking it would save the Sheriff some difficulty, he considered it better to do so at the present time, as by so doing the Sheriff would have an opportunity of summoning the necessary jurymen. His Honor said he would attend to the matter in the morning. LARCENT FROM THE PERSON. James M'Veigh, aged 33, was arraigned on a charge of this kind, for that he did, on the 2nd of May, 1866, feloniously take, steal, and carry away, from the person of one Robert Owen, certain articles, the property of the h-aid Robert Owen. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. William Henry Lash (foreman), Joseph Anderson, Andrew Cumming, 'Thomas Buxton, George Baillie Gibson, William Young, John Robert Hudson, John Stevens, Jumes Gray, John Hackett, Andrew Lindsay Edgar, and Robert Cole. The Crown Prosecutor said that the indictment was laid under the stat. 7, Wm. IV, and 1 Vie. c. 57 s. 5. The particulars of the case were as follow : — The prisoner and Owen had been drinking in the Hokitika Hotel, on the night of the 2nd May last, when Owen got stupidly drunk, and found himself next* morning minus his money and the other articles which were the subject of the indictment. He saw prisoner at the Hokitika Hotel next morning who told him he (prisoner) had a miner's license belonging to prosecutor, but denied having any other property belonging to him. A search was made in the prisoner's tent, when the articles stolen were found. He called Robert Owen, who deposed — 'I hat in May last he was a miner tit Waimea. He remembered the 2nd May ; he was at the bank in Hokitika on that day. Got a deposit receipt there. (Receipt produced and identified.) He knows the prisoner by sight but had no previous knowledge of him before the 3rd May. He first saw prisoner on that day at about 8 o'clock. Witness last saw the deposit receipt produced on the evening" of the 2nd May. He did not miss it until the morning of the 3rd. To his knowledge he did not see the prisoner on the 2nd of May. lie would have remembered if he had. Before 8 o'clock on the morning of the 3rd witness missed his pocketbook, a purse, a miner's right, and agold bag. In the bag was the purse and a deposit receipt. He also missed a pipe and case, _awl — sonw — money, _ fAvti^*"* r^^^""^" and identified by witness.) Witness last saw the articles before misxing them on the evening of the 2nd May. lie had them in his pocket. He recollects seeing the prisoner on the morning of the 3rd, and had some conversation with him Witness called in at the Hukitika Hotel to get a nobbier. While he was there prisoner came in, and said he had a miner's right belonging to witness. Witness asked prisoner if lie had anything cl?e belonging to him, and prisoner said " No." He (prisoner) said witness had given it to him the night before. To the best of witness' knowledge, he had not given it to him, nor any of the articles. Witness then gave information to the police, and Sergeant Dyer and Constable M'llroy went with him to the prisoner's tent. They found him lying drunk at home. They found the deposit receipt and the purse. *At that time they found nothing else. They subsequently bad a second search in his tent. They then found a pocket-book. They did not see the bag then. Witness had not known the prisoner before. Cross-examined by prisoner — I do not recollect seeing you on the 2nd May. I have a slight recollection of being in M- tody's Hotel on the night of the'"2nd May. Ido not recollect you drinking with me on that night. I recollect seeing you on the morning 'of the 3rd May. You spoke to me first. You said. "Hollo! old fellow ; I've got a license belonging tp you." I asked you repeatedly if you had a-ytbino else belonging to me, but you said " No." I did not know you when you told me you ha i been drinldng with me. I might have given you those things on the night of the 2nd. I had no knowledge of you before. Francis Hudson sworn, said that ho remembered the 2nd May last. He was then barman at the Hokitika Hotel. He knows the pris ncr and last witness by sight. He saw them that night in the bar of the Hokitika Hotel, between 6 and 7 o'clock. Owen was very tipsy. Prisoner was sober. They had some spirits together in the bar. They remained there about half an hour, and left together. Before leaving, witness asked Owen ,i he had not better go to bed. He also told Owen that he would take charge of his money. Owen said, " Yes, he would rather go to bed." Prisoner then caught Owen by the collar, sayinsr, "No you won't ; you'll go to Mrs Power's, the Dunedin Hotel." They then went out. It was about 7 o'clock. The prisoner returned that night between 9 and 10 o'clock. He came alone. He drank and played cards. He ( was spending money very freely. He changed half a bovereign, and at the same timedropped a paper under the bar. Witness picked it up and looker} at it, and asked prisoner what it \v;is. He said it vras a miner's right or business license. He did not say to whom it belonged. The one produced is the one. Witness saw Owen next morning. Prisoner was in the bar before Owen. He was drinking and spending money very freely. While he was there Owen came in. Owen came to the end of the bar, and witness asked him if he had not better have stopped. He said, yes. He said he had aLst a deposit receipt for LIOO, also a miner's right. Witness, in the prisoner's bearing told Owen that prisoner had them in his possession. Owen asked witness if he had a room which the prisoner and he might go in. Witness pointed to a room

but they did not go in. When he tolrl <o\ven that prisoner had his property he faid something — witness could not hear what. Owen said that if prisoner would give him all the small change that he had in h s possession the night before, and woull give him up the other things, he would say nothing. Prisoner said, "So help my God I have nothing but the miner's right.' 1 He gave the miner's right to Owen. Cross-examined by prisoner — You spent about Ll 5s in the bar, on the night of the 2 id. On the morning of the 3rd you bpi-nt about 15s.

l>ichard Dyer deposed — that he was Sergeant of Police at Hokitika, and remembered the morning of the 3rd May last. From information he received be on that day went to the prisoner's tent, in company with Constable M'llroy and prosecutor. They searched the tent and found the purse produced between the bottom- board and the side of the tent. Among the blankets they found the pipecase, and at the head of the bed, on a hoard, with another board on top, they found the deposit receipt. Prisoner was in the tent at the time. Witness was not satisfied, so he directed a constable t > search again.

Felix M'llroy sworn— said that he was a Constable of the Police 3tationed at Greymouth. Last May he was at Hokitika. Remembered the morning of the 3rd May last. On the morning of that day he, with Dyer, searched the prisoner's tent. After Dyer's search witness searched again, and found a pocket-book between the lining of the tent. This closed the case for the Crown.

Prisoner proceeded to address the jury, saying, if it had been his intention to rob the prosecutor, he would not have, made any mention as to the miner's right.

He called no witnesses,

The foreman of the Grand Jury here entered the Court, and asked his Honor to allow the Grand Jury to peruse the depositions in the case of James Reynolds, charged with larcenj' of greenstone, but his Honor said it ought not to he done. His Honor addressed the jury, saying that, if they believed the evidence of the prosecutor, Sergeant Dyer, and the others, they would have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to the guilt of the prisoner. They must remember that thp statement of the prisoner as to the manner in which he received the articles was entirely uu corroborated. His Honor proceeded to review the evidence, and told the jury that if thoj 7 came to the conclusion that the prisoner had stolen only some of the articles, they would he bound to bring in a verdict of guilty He pointed out to the jury the difference between the statement of the prosecutor and that of the prisoner, and said it would be for them to decide as to the credibility of either; but if they had any doubt they were bound to give the prisoner the benefit. He closed his remarks by telling the jury that if stolen property be traced to a person shortly after a robbery, he is in law presumed to be the thief, unless he give a satisfactory account as to how he received it.

The jury, without retiring, brought in a verdict of guilty.

His Honor stated that the circumstances of the case were rather aggravated. He said that there were a class of persons on these goldfields who live by robbery and cheating, and taking advantage of persons _uMc&-fu^a»««*oiv when in "a drunken state ; and stated his determination to do the best in his power to put down such a practice. He then sentenced prisoner to twelve months imprisonment with hard labor. OBTAINING MONET BT MEANS OF A WORTH-

LESS CHEQUE.

James Robertson, a colored man, aged 29 years, was charged with having on the 29th May last, fraudulently obtained the sum of L 5 from one Margaret Anderson, by means of a worthless cheque on the Brink of New Zealand. Prisoner pleaded " Guilty," and, after a few remarks by his Honor, as to the crime, was sentenced to nine calendar months' imprisonment with hard labor, the sentence to be computed from the 1 6th day of July instant.

FRAUD AS A BAILEE.

Antouio Ilanspecker was charged with having, on the 13th day of January, 1866, feloniously converted to his own iise, while the same were in his possession, certain papers the -property of one Joseph Bade. To this charge the prisoner pleaded " Not guilty."

The following jury were sworn : — John Payne (foreman), John Stevens, W. H. Lash, Henry Moore, William Glynn, Thomas Betts, Thomas Cowlishaw. Archibald Scott, William Melody, John Meehan, William York, Andrew Collins.

The Crown Prosecutor said the indictment was laid under the sth clause of the Fraudulent Trustees Act, 1860. He then briefly stated the facts of the case to the jury, by which it appeared that one Joseph Bade, residing at Greymouth, had delivered to the prisoner a letter, containing a L 5 note, to deliver to his (Bade's) wife, which prisoner promised to do. He, however, had never delivered the letter or money, and had failed to account for it, so the presumption was he had stolen it, hence this charge. Joseph Bade deposed— That about the 13th July last, he was cook at the Asht n Hotel, Greymouth. He knew the prisoner. He was there then. He said he was going' to Hokitika. Witness said, " I've got a little bit of a note I'll give you for my wife," who is at Hokitika. Prisoner said, •' All right, I'll do that." Witness put a L 5 note in the" back of the letter in prisoner's presence, and sealed it before prisoner's eyes. Witness addressed it to Mrs Eliza Bade, Lord Nelson Hotel, Hokitika. Witness then. gave it to prisoner. He and prisoner had been acquainted some time. Prisoner knew the Lord Nelson Hotel in Hokitika. The prisoner had iw ver given the letter or the contents back to witness, and had never accounted for them.

By the prisoner— You were at the Grey the whole day on which I gave you the letter. I put the L 5 note in the letter before your eyes. The memorandum produced is in my handwriting, (Memorandum produced, by which it appeared that the witness had sent Lll to his wife.) By the Bench — I gave this memorandum to the prisoner. I gave him two letters. In the first there was no money. When he came back, he told me that my wife wanted money, and I thought I would trust him.

His Honor said he had grave doubts as to whether prisoner could understand the English language sufficiently. He asked the prisoner the question, when he commenced to make a rambling statement. The Court was delayed by the prisoner's ignorance of the language.

By the prisoner— You did not ask me if there was any money in the letter. By the Bench— He asked me no quest;ons.

Eliza Bade sworn, said— That she was the wife of the last witness, Joseph Bade. She remembered the 13th January, and was then living at the Lord Nelson Hotel, Hokitika. She knew the prisoner, and saw him about the 15th of January. She saw him at the Lord Nelson Hotel, and had some conversation with him. He said he was after coining from the Grey. He informed witness that her husband bad sent him down to let her know that he wished her to go up. Prisoner wanted to get a little money from witness. Prisoner gave witness' no letter, or any money or other thing. Prisoner said that he had found some money, and had given her husband LlO to give to her. It would come in a letter by Rowley's coach, which w^s expected that evening, or the mxt morning. Witness got a letter from her husband. Prisoner asked witness to let him have L 2. That was on Sunday evening. Witness is quite sure that tue prisoner gave her no letter, nor the L 5. Cross-examined by the prisoner — You never gave me a letter from my husbind. [ never saw the memorandum produced till now. I never sat on the top of a bed and read a letter you gave me. I never got a letter from you. I was not in a bedroom ; I was in the bar.

Charles O'Donnell deposed that he was a Sergeant of Police stationed at Rosstown. From information he received last January he arrested the prisoner about twenty-fire miles south of Hokitika. Witness told him that he was charged with larceny as a bailee, and that he had a warrant for his arrest. Witness cautioned prisoner. Prisoner did not seem to understand the charge, so he (witness) explained to him that he was charged with converting to his • \vn use some money received by him from one Joseph Bade, to take to Mrs Bade. On the way up he said he had been at Teremakau on his journey up from the Grey, and he was obliged to spend the money. He did not seem to speak English very well. Cross-examined by prisoner — You had a keg containing liquor with you. I asked you if you knew Eliza Bade. Cross-examined by the Bench — I told prisoner distinctly the charge on which he is now tried.

This cosed the case for the Crown.

Prisoner was understood to say that the prosecutor had given him a letter and that he had given it to Mrs Bade. He had received no money from Mr Bade.'

The Grand Jury here entered the Court, and the foreman reported that they had found true bills against John Ben tick Blune, on a charge oMarceny as a bailee ; William Tait, alias Charles Manders, charged with embezzlement ; Joseph Jackson, obtaining money under false pretences ; Samuel Cox, assault ; Emilie Huskisson, obtaining goods by false pretences ; and Arthur Charlea Liardet, charged' with assault. They found no true bill against James Reynolds, charged with larceny. The foreman, Mr Sprot, informed his Honor that it was the intention of the Grand Jury to proceed to the two gaols during the' afternoon, for the purpose of inspecting them. The Grand Jury having retired, His Honnr addressed tho jury upon the case, explaining to them the nature of the offence and the law in relation thereto. He told them under the old law, before this act was passed, if a carrier had goods given to him to take any where, although he converted those goods to his own uae, yet if he did not break bulk, that is break open the parcel, he could not be convicted. It was to meet cases of this kind that the statute was passed. If they believed that the prosecutor had delivered the letter containing the money to the prisoner and he had undertaken to deliver the same to Mrs Bade anil had then converted the same to his own use they would bring in a verdict of guilty, if not they would acquit him. His Honor remarked that it was for them to decide as to the guilt of the prisoner, and concluded his remarks by pointing out that if any doubt existed in the matter they would give the prisoner the benefit of such doubt.

The jury without retiring brought in a verdict of Guilty. There being another charge against the prisoner he was remanded.

The Court was adjourned till twenty minutes to two p.m.

OBTAINING MONEY OX TALSE PRETENCES.

Antonio Hanspecker was charged with having on the 15th day of January, 1866, obtained from one Eliza Bade, two tevera! sums of money bymeaus of false representation that he had lent one Joseph Bade, her husband, the sum of LlO.

The following were the pry :—: — Ulriek Maeler (foreman), John Dixon, John Chiffings, Thomas Betts, John Stevens, Cornelius John Payne, John Robert Hud-son, James Thomas Buxton, Peter Gunn, William Young, and John Lightfoot. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the indictment was laid under the statute 7 and 8 Geo. 4. c 23. He intended to prove that on the 15th day of January last the prisoner went to the Lord Nelson Hotel, at which one Eliza Bade was, and told her that he had lent her husband LlO, which he would receive, and upon the strength of that obtained two sums of money from her. i

Eliza Bade deposed — that she was the wife of Joseph Bade, and she knew the prisoner. She remembered the 15th day of January last. She was then at the Lord Nelson Hotel. She saw the prisoner at that time at the Lord Nelson. He told me he was after coming from the Grey ; that he was after seeing my husband, who wanted to know how soon I would be ready to go up to him. He said no more then ; but afterwards, on the same day, he said he found some money at the Grey, and that he had made a present of LlO to witness' husband for her, and that ihe was to have it down in a letter by Rowley's coach, He said that witness 1 husband was with him at the time, and that the money he found was about Ll5O, and her husband being with him at the time he gave him ten pounds for witness. Witness, asked him why he did not bring it himself. He told jher that through parties being stuck-up on the road, and money tukeu from them, he was frightened. He asked witness if she could lend him some money, about L 2, and that be was going to the Bank on Monday morning to draw some money, and that be would then return it. That was Sunday. Witness told him she could not let him have any money till next day She went to the bank next day to cash n

cheque, and prisoner went with her, and when she got the money she lent him L 2 Witness then returned home. In about a quarter of an hour he returned, and asked witness if she would let him have L 2 more. At this stage of the proceedings his Honor pointed out to Mr Duncan what he considered a fatal variance. By the evidence of Mrs Bade it was elicited that the prisoner had said he had made a gift of the LlO, and not lent it, as would appear by the indictment. Plis Honor told the jury that they would be forced to acquit the prisoner, pointing out to them that under the present indictment it would appear that the prisoner had stated he lent the money to Joseph Bade, whereas by the evidence of Mrs Bade the money was a gift. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty accordingly. Prisoner was then brought up to receive his sentence for the offence of which he, was found guilty in the •previous part of the day, viz., larceny as a bailee, when his Honor stated that, having been already in prison for the space of five months, he would only sentence him to two calendar months' imprisonment with hard labor.

HOBBEEY UNDER ABMS.

Robert Stone was charged with having on the 22nd day of April, 1866, with two other persons to the jurors unknown, committed a robbery under arms from the premises, and in and upon the person of one Henry Hammett. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and was defended by Mr Button. The following jury were sworn : — Henry Mace (foreman), John Davidson, Andrew Cumming, Robert Cole, Solomon Michael Solomon, Thomas Coivlishaw, 'Michael Donoghue, Archibald Scott, Robert Frith, William Henry Lash, John Hackett, and George Baillie Gibson.

William Melody was challenged by the Crown .

The Crown Prosecutor then addressed the jury, informing them that the charge was laid under the statute 7 William 4 and 1 Vie, c. 87, s. 3. He briefly stated the circumstances of the case, which, went to prove that on the 22nd of Apiil the prisoner, with two other men, went to the store of one Heury Hammett, at the Black Ball, and after tying up the proprietor and several others, proceeded to rob the premises ; that the prisoner was one of the men who committed the robbery, and he it was who threatened to blow the prosecutor's brains out; in fact, he was the leader of the gang. He called Henry Hammett, who deposed — that he was a storeman at the Black Ball, River Grey. He remembered the 22nd April last. He was inside the store door. There was no other person with him in the store, but Mr Twaddle and a miner were out at the end of the house. Witness could not tell the miner's name, but thought it was John Kuger. (Mr Button here applied that all witnesses should be ordered out of Court.) It was on a Sunday. It was about three or half- past three in the afternoon when witness heard the dog bark. He looked out, and the first thing he saw was a double-barrelled gun presented to his head by prisoner. He was then ordered to go inside, into his sleeping-room. Prisoner was not alone then. There were two other men close behind him, one of whom had a singlebarrelled gun and the other a revolver. All the men were masked. One had a piece of flannel, and the others had pieces of striped cotton shirt on their faces. They could se«. Prisoner had large eyehoVes on his mask. The eye-holes on the prisoner's mask went above his eyebrows and down almost to the point of his nose. Witness could not see how far the mask reached down ; it was inside prisoner's jumper. When prisoner ordered witness into the room, he (witness) did not go. He stood for about two minutes. Prisoner pushed witness two or three times towards the room with the double-barrelled gun. Witness still resisted, when prisoner took the gun down from his shoulder, and put bis hand on witness' shoulder. Witness then put his hands to prisoner'sPcollar, and asKed'him what he wanted. As soon as witness did this, the man who had the revolver pointed it at his (witness') head, and swore if he did not let go he would blow his brains out. Witness then let go. The man with the revolver was the first who threatened to blow his brains out. Witness then went into the room. As he was going in Mr Twaddle rushed at the man with a revolver, when the man who had the double-barrelled gun knocked him back into the sleeping-room, by a blow from the muzzle of the gun, which cut his lip. When witness got into the outer . room he found Mr Twaddle and John (the lr.iner) there. After the three got into the room prisoner gave the double-bar-relled gun to another of the men with him, and that man stood at the door as a sentry, with the gun pointed towards witness, while prisoner ransacked the store. The sleeping- room is a different building to the store. It is eeparate from it. Witness ' heard noises in the sitting-room and ! the store. Prisoner remained inside about two or three minutes, and then came out. He had something in his band, but witness could not tell what it was. Prisoner went round the house, and witness then heard him breaking something. Mr Twaddle then made the remark — "He's breaking my gun." Prisoner then went into the store again, and stopped, it might be; two or three minutes. He came out with his hands before his chest, as if he were carrying something. He went towards the gate, and shortly afterwards re- ! turned, and took the double-barrelled gun from the man who had it, and ordered him to tie them (meaning witneis and companions) up. He then stood sentry. Before tying them up, the man searched the inner room. Watching his chance, witness took out his purse and put it in the blankets of the bunk close beside him. Prisoner saw the blankets move, and when the man came out, prisoner pointed the gun to the blankets. The man shook the blankets and found the purse. It was a mere canvas bag. He took L 5 12i 6d out of it. Witness saw the man who took the money give it to the prisoner. The man went outside, and found some flax, with which he proceeded to tie Twaddle and John up ; but he afterwards went into the store and got some new straps and buckles, and fastened them and witness up. When he had fastened them up, he asked witness if h« would have anything to drink. Witness &aid he would have a drop of water, as he was thirsty. They gave him some. They also asked Mr Twaddle, and he had some. John refused, and they asked him to have some brandy, but he refused. Prisoner and the other men went outside towards the river. He told the men to go up the track towards the river. At that time,

witness could see from the inner room, and noticed them going as the prisoner directed them. They then left, and some minutes after they had gone, witness and the others released themselves. They noticed a boat boming down, and Mr Twaddle ran anil balled the boat, and they proceeded to the" police office and gave information. lie had seen the prisoner twice before this ; once, three or four days before, at witness' fire-place, and also about a fortnight before. This was the first time he had seen the prisoner. It was near the store. When witness first saw prisoner he was with three Other men, and the next time with only One man. The double-barrelled gun was full cock, and was loaded. It was a Colt's five-barrelled revolver, and witness saw the charges in the chamber.

Cross-examined by Mr Button— l do not know what the prisoner came to the store for, the first time. He did not come into the store. I had no conversation with him. I do not think I spoke to him. I was standing near the fire-place. I knew one of the three men with him. The prisoner Vas not the man I knew. He was a perfect stranger to me. The man I knew came into the store. One of the four men came into the store and asked for provi* sions on trust, saying they were going to work. Whilt witness was attending on this man the other three men came up. The day before, one of these men came and asked if I would give them trust. The other three came with him. It was the same man who had asked me to give him provisions on trust, that came into the Btore. He got flour, bacon, and tea. I do not know whether the men came into the house with him or not. On the second occasion I saw the prisoner, I saw him as I was going up the track. Prisoner was with the man who came into my store. I passed the time of day with them, and walked on. On my return within a quarter of an hour, I met them again under similar circumstances. I was never in prisoner's company before. I had seen the prisoner's mate before, and I knew the prisoner and the other man were mates. I knew the other man, as we worked together on 'old ground in the gully. The next time I saw prisoner was at the robbery. I knew the prisoner then by his eyes. They were sunk very deep, and he had a cast in his right eye. And when he held the gun up I noticed that he had but three fingers and a thumb on his right hand. I was not sure whether his fingers' were off or only crippled. The little finger was missing. I had full ten minutes to see him, but I could not during that time see his little finger. I cannot swear whether he had a finger at all. It was by his eyes that I knew prisoner ; also by hia fingers. The man that stood over me had only three fingers that I could see. I never told anyone that the man -who stood over me had bright sparkling eyes. On no occasion whatever Ido not know the meaning of bright sparkling eyes, my name is Henry Hammett (Mr Button here wished the witness' depositions as read before the magistrate to be read ; by which it appeared he had sworn that the prisoner had " very sparkling eyes.") Witness here said it was a mistake — he had never said anything of the kind ; what he said was, that prisoner had peculiar eyes.

By Mr Button — The depositions were read over to me. I was near enough to the man to recognise him by the eyes alone. Moonlight Gully i 3 about five miles beyond Black Ball, on the Grey River; Black Ball is about seventeen miles above Cobden. Two of the men who robbed the store went up the creek, but the prisoner went another way. He told the men to go up the creek and he would join them. Witness pulled in the direction of the Twelve-mile ; the other men went up the river.

Edward Twaddle, sworn, said he waa storekeeper at the Black Ball, River Grey. He remembered Sunday, 22nd April last ; he was behind his store at about 3 o'clock ; Hammett and Kuger were there. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon three men came up to the store, and when he went to see who it was, he saw they were masked and armed. One of them had a double-bar-relled gun and a Colt's revolver, another had a single -tarrelled gun, the third had a revolver. When witness got up_to the store they all presented arms at him. Witness took hold of the double-barrelled gun which the man had, and he then gave witness a blow in the mouth with the muzzle of the gun. The man then told him if witness did not go back from the store they would blow his brains out. He was then pushed back into the house. After he was pushed into the room, one of. the men locked the door, and the other went into the store and took some gold. He came out again and came towards where witness was and told one of the men to hind them up. They stole nothing from the room that witness and the others were put in. Before they were bound up the man who did it took some money off Kuger and some from Hammett. He put it into his pocket to the best of witness' recollection. After the man had b mud witness and the others ;up they went away. He was not sure but he believed the prisoner was one of the men. He believed him to be the very same man who gave him the blow on the face with the double-barrelled gun. The same time witness received the blow both barrells were at full-cock, there were caps on the nipples. When the prisoners left they 1 tpok with them a powder flask, a pound of candles, and a piece of bacon. The candles were Price's sperm, aud the bacon was Sinclair's bacon. (Candles and bacon produced) They took from 3to 4 lbs or 5 lbs. The bacou produced is of the same' kind and quality as that stolen, he believe it to be Sinclair's bacon. He believe the candles to be of the same quality as those stolen.

By Mr Button — I had never to my knowledge seen the prisoner before. The man I saw at the store had a piece of stuff all over his face. Prisoner is of the same height as the person who struck me. Hii hair too was dark sandy. * He had small feet, broad shoulders, and broad cheekbones. It is mostly Sinclair's bacon I have got. It is the best quality, generally the diggers ask for the first quality bacon. I know as a fact that generally they will not have anything but the best bacon, they usually ask for it. I lost Ilb of candles. There are many other candles of the same kind on the West Coast. I lost 31 ozs 4 dwts of gold in a chamois leather bag, 32 sovereigns, 12 half-sovereings, LlO in silver, 19 single notes, (Union Bank of Australasia), L 2 in 5s pieces, L 4 in half-crowns, L 3 in shillings, Ll in sixpences, besides 19s lOd in the till, Ilb candles, 1 powder-flask, 1 shot belt, and 4 or 5 lbs. bacon, and in addition L 5 12b

from Mr Hammett, and L 7 Is from {he other man.

John Kuge* deposed that he wad a miner at the Black Ball, Grey River. Remembers 22nd April last. It was Sunday. At three o'clock on that day witness was at the Black Ball store. He was at the back pf the stord when he saw three men coming within, five, or six yards from the store. The wore masks on their fiw. They had two, guns— one double- bjiniled and one ingle-barrelled— and two revolversbesides. They drove witness into a place next to the store which is called the sleeping room. When they had got witness and the other men in there, they kept them there and presented their arms towards them. When witness saw them coming up to the back of the store they presented arms at him. One went in the* store while the other two watched them. He took all the money out of the store. When he came out of the stoi c another man came in and rifled their pockets. They took away L 7 Is from witness, and some money from Hammett. He (witness) saw the man take some money from a blanket. When he rifled their pockets the man put the money i<» his bo3om and carried it away. He cronot swear to the prisoner. He could not form any opinion as to whether the prisoner was one of the men or not. Witness took no notice ; he was too much agitated. Prisoner is about the same build as the man. Tbey were not tall men. Prisoner is very much like one of the men who bailed them up at the store.

By Mr Button — All the men were covered, so I could not see much of any of them except the height. I took notice of that. There are a great many men between five feet three inches and five feet six inches. My height is five feet eight inches. I mean, when I say I took notice, that none of the men were very tall and none very short. That is all the notice I took.

William Norris Franklin deposed— That he is Sergeant of Police at the TwelveMile. He recollected Sunday, the 22nd April last. He met witness Hammett that day at the Twelve-Mile landing. It is four miles by the river from his store. It was as near as witness could remember about a quarter to five. From information he received from Hammett, he started down the river with Constable Graham for Cobden, on the Canterbury side. They crossed the river at Greymouth. As near as witness could remember, it was about halfpdst twelve or a quarter to one on Sunday night or Monday morning. From information he received, he stationed a constable at the lock-up, which is the key to Cobden, as no one can come there without passing. Before he arrived at Greymouth, he observed two lights alongside the river, as if on the track, and carried by parties who were moving fast. It was about three miles up the river above Cobden, on the Canterbury side.' After witness saw the lights he came down the river and crossed to Cobden, and it was then he placed Graham at the key. Witness ran away to get assistance to. arrest the parties coming down. Just as he reached the road, Graham was endeavoring to stop three men as they came into Cobden from the track. "Witness seized the first of the three men, and he proved to be the prisoner. Graham struggled with the other two, and he fell down a steep hank. As it was very dark at the time, they got away. Witness took ! prisoner to the lock-up and searched him, and told him what he was arrested for. He found nothing on prisoner's person but a small piece of candle (produced) in his trousers pocket, He had, when arrested, a white swag, which he carried on the top of his head. Witness searched it, but found nothing particular in his swag. After the charge had been told to the prisoner, witness made an observation — " We saw you beautifully coming down the river." Prisoner denied having been up the river ; at the same time his boots and trousers were covered with fresh mud. Witness locked him up, and went away to look for the others, but failed to find them. He returned to where he had arrested the prisoner, and on searching there, found another swag, and a billy with a piece of bacon in it and a candle which had been slightly burnt. [Bacon and candle produced.] The bacon and candle produced are the same which he found. Wituess did not succeed in arresting the other two. He had seen the right hand of the prisoner. There is a peculiarity in the little finger ; it is bent inwards.

By Mr Button — The prisoner has got a kind of little finger. It is meant for one. I did not deny he had a little finger. I meant that his little finger is bent a little at the joint. It depends upon the position the man was in whether you could tefl if he had a finger or not. Mr Button rose and addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the prisoner. He wished the jury, especially as the charge was one of a very serious nature, to give the case their most grave consideration. That a robbery had been committed, and that under most aggravated circurastancps, he could not, after hearing the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, deny. But that the prisoner was one of the m#n who committed that robbery was a different matter. In proof of this he submitted there was not the slightest evidence. *It was a fact of which, no doubt, the jury were well aware, that when a party is interested in a particular matter, his judgment is warped in a certain manner. There might be no intention whatever on the part of a witness to perjure himself, or to act in ' any manner unconscientiously; but still, agitated as a man must be under circumstances

similar to those mentioned by the witnesses in this case, he would be apt to come to a sudden conclusion — an erroneous one, may be — that he would otherwise not arrive at. If a man were arrested in each case of robbery committed in the district, there would almost invariably be some circumstances that might operate aa circumstantial evidence and which would in some manner connect the person with the (irime. The learned gentleman then went carefully through the evidence for the prosecution, commenting strongly upon the descrepancies in Hammett's evidence. He said no doubt they would agree with him that the whole case rested principally on the prisoner's identity. Now what was there in the evidence* to connect the prisoner in any manner with the crime with which he was charged or, to shew that he was the man whom Hammett had stated

had held the gun over him ? How could he swear positively to the man? The reason resigned by him was- that he " knew the prisoner by the color of his eyes. He said he took particular notice of the prisoner's eyes, and observed a cast in the right eye, He (Mr Button) would ask

the jury to look at the prisoner and see whether there was any foundation for Hamniett's statement as to there being a cast in prisoner's eye 1 . Hammett said he had seen the prisoner but twice before, and that he had not taken any particular notice of him. How could he take such particular notice of the color of prisoners eyes, his face was covered with a mask. Again he said in his evidence he had full ten minutes' view of the prisoner ; if so, surely in that time he could have observed whether he had lost his little finger or not\ "The learned gentleman then brought under the observation of the jury a discrepancy in part of Hammett's evidence given before them, and that given by him in the Police Court — when asked there whether he had ever said that the prisoner had sparkling eyes, he denied most positively ever making such a statement — but it would be observed by the depositions taken before the Magistrate, that he had done so ; although, as be himself confesses, he was asked the question by the Magistrate several times. He now saj's lie does not know theuneaning of the expression — "Sparkling Eyes." It would be for the jury to decide a 9 to the weight which they might attach to the evidence of this witness who, he thought, had , gone rather too far in his statements. Mr Button then proceeded to review the evidence of the other witnesses, and said that the evidence of none of them went in any manner to prove that the prisoner was connected with the robbery. Surely Twaddell aud Kuger had as good opportunities of identifying the prisoner as Hammett 5 yet the furthest they went was in asserting that the prisoner resembled one of the men in height. Indeed, Kuger had said that the only notice he took of the men was that none were very tall or very short. Were they to convict the prisoner on this evidence? Surely not. As to the constables they must have arrived at the conclusion, the moment they saw the light, that the men who carried them were the men who committed the robbery. How were they to know this ? Is it surprising, that when attacked as they were by the police, that the men ran ? What more probable than that these men believed the police themselves robbers, and so made off. What was there found on the person of the prisoner when arrested. Nothing more than a piece of candle and a bit of bacon. Was there anything astonishing in this? It ! was well known to the jury that in a country like this a candle is of the greatest benefit to a man in the bush. And as to the bacon every miner on the diggings used it. Well, what was found in the other swag ? Nothing that could be identified as stolen property. A billy, a piece of bacon, and a candle. Surely if these men had been concerned in the robbery they would have had some of the stolen articles with them, especially the gold and silver. One would suppose that the prisoner, the leader, as the jury had been led to believe, of the party — he who gave all orders, and who directed the tying up of Hammett and his companions, and who was, in fact, the j Captain Thunderbolt of the gang — would 1 have had a share of the booty. Was it not strange that, instead of getting a good share of the profits he should only have received a little piece of candle and a bit of bacon. The learned gentleman than went on to say that to his mind the oath of the witness was binding on the jury. They were bound to bring in a verdict according to the evidence, so that where a witness could not swear positively to a fact a jury could not convict. He concluded a long and able address by saying that it was for the jury to weigh the , evidence, and form their own opinion as to the credibility of the witnesses ; and if they considered the offence proved as against the prisoner, to bring in a verdict of guilty ;if not, to acquit him. If, however, they had any doubt on the subject, they were bound to give him the benefit of ! the doubt.

The learned gentleman called no witnesses. 4

His Honor addressed the jury, telling them they had heard a most able address from the learned counsel for the defence. He concurred with Mr Button, that the whole case turned wholly on the identity of the prisoner ; and he also concurred with him when he stated that the case mainly rested on the evidence of Hammett. As the case turned more upon the identity of the prisoner, he did not think it necessary to read over any of the evidence, except as regarded the question of identity of the prisoner. His Honor proceeded at some length to read to the jury the evidence of Hamraet, as to the way in which the men were dressed, and as to their subsequent proceedings. He dwelt strongly on the evidence of Hammett, upon whose testimony he said the case mainly rested. He dwelt upon his statement that the prisoner had a cast in his eye ; also that, although he looked at the prisoner for the space of ten minutes, yet he could not tell whether he had a little finger or not. Again, he said Hammett denied having ever said that the prisoner had sparkling eyes. It hnd, however, been proved that he did make such a statement. Here was a discrepancy, and it was for the jury to say how much this detracted from the value of his evidence. It appeared that the prisoner has some defect in his little finger, aud as regarded the evidence as to this fact it would be for j them to say what weight they would atI tach to it.

His Honor then read to them Twaddle's evidence as to the identity of the prisoner, which he said was very vague ; and also remarked that Kuger's evidence was still more slight. He pointed out to the jury that after swearing to the circumstances, Kuger went on to say that he could not identify the prisoner, but he was about the height of the man ; but his evidence went no further. Unless they considered the evidence of these men unreliable, it was their duty to bring in a verdict of guilty ; if not, he was entitled to an acquittal.

The jury then retired, and after an absence of a few minutes, returned with a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was then remanded till tomorrow on another charge. The Grand Jury during the day, found true bills in the following cases, viz. : — John Bentick Blame, larceny by a bailee ; William Tate, alias Charles Manders, embezzlement; Joseph Jackson, obtaining money upder fales pretences; Samuel Cox, assault ; Emile Huskisson, obtaining money by false pretences ; Arthur Charles Liardet, assault, and John Lockyer, larceny. At the conclusion of Stone't case at six o'clock, the Court adjournod till 10 o'clock this morning.