SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XX, Issue 1166, 5 December 1863, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, December 3, 1863. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Gresson and a Common Jury, of which Mr. John Henwood was chosen foreman.) The Court resumed its sitting at 10 a.m. The first case was . that of Regina v. Edward Owen and William Davidson, who were charged with cattle-stealing. The Crown Prosecutor conducted the prosecution. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr. Duncan opened the case : It appeared that in the month of April last the prisoners had stolen two heifers and two cows, the property of James Baker. James Baker deposed as follows: I am a farmer at the Island of Kaiapoi; I know Mr. Coup's run, which is in the river-bed of the Waimakariri. I had some cattle, consisting of ten head, running there last April. The last time that I saw the cattle on the run was about the end of March. About the middle of April I missed four cattle, two heifers and two cows, from the run. [Witness described the animals in question.] The cattle, with the exception of one heifer, were branded JB on the rump. I saw one heifer early in the month of September, this was the one which was not branded. The animal returned to my run; she had then a brand of TC conjoined. lam certain that it was my property. I next saw another of my missing cows about a week later tethered in Mr. Chisnall's paddock; it bore my brand JB on the off rump; it had no other brand. I took it to my run. I have never seen, up to the present date, any more of the animals which I have lost. I identify the skin produced in court as the skin of the heifer which returned to my run and was killed by me. By the prisoner Owen: In the month of April, I do not remember having seen any persons employed in driving cattle on Mr. Coup's run. My cattle and those of Mr. Coup are in the habit of wandering from off the run from island to island. There were some stray cattle wandering about the locality. When I mustered my cattle, I did not round up any stray cattle amongst mine. I used only to cut out such beasts as I knew to be my own property. If I found any cattle off the run, I used to take back the others, after selecting mine. The prisoner Davidson declined to ask the witness any questions. By the Jury: It was at times impossible to cut out the cattle belonging to me from a mixed mob. I always endeavoured to send back cattle which had got mixed up with mine. , This happened often with cattle belonging to Mr. Templer. Robert Coup was next called, and corroborated the evidence of the last witness, with reference to the cattle belonging to the latter, which were on the run, and of which some were lost. He identified the cow which he had this day seen in Mr. Rule's stockyard as one belonging to Baker. He believed that the skin produced in Court was the skin of one of Baker's heifers. By the prisoner Owen: I believe that I first missed the cattle about the middle of March. About July, I saw another of them. The prisoner Davidson declined to ask the witness any questions. Thomas Cook: I saw the prisoners, both of whom are known to me, on the 25th April last at the Central Hotel, Christchurch. When I first saw the prisoner Davidson, I had some conversation with him about twenty two head of' cattle which he said were in Barnard's stockyard. The prisoner Owen was not present. Davidson said that some of them belonged to himself and some to Owen. He offered to sell them to me for £11 per head. We did not then agree as to the price. I afterwards met both the prisoners together at the same place, about an hour afterwards. The prisoner Davidson eventually offered to sell me the beasts at £10 10s per head. I finally purchased the cattle at £10 5s per head. The prisoners were both present, and took part in the transaction. They subsequently came to my house, and I gave them a bill for the payment of the cattle, they giving me the receipt now produced. (The receipt signed by both the prisoners was read.) I saw the cattle the" next day. One of the prisoners, I am not sure which, gave me a list of the brands on the cattle. Three of the cattle were unbranded. I afterwards sold two of them, sending the others to Mr. Chisnall's paddock, where I have since seen them; one was branded J B on the rump: my brand was put on some of the beasts; my brand is T over C conjoined. I identify the skin in the Court as having my brand on it; it is the skin of one of the beasts purchased by me from the prisoners. The cow in Mr. Rule's stockyard is branded J B, and is one of the cattle in question. In the course of the proceedings the Grand Jury found true bills against the following persons:—Felix M'Cann, for obtaining goods on false pretences; W. 11. Brighton, for larceny; Charles Enuerby, for cattle stealing; and Vernon Smith, on the second count of the indictment, viz,, shooting with intent. The Grand Jury having thrown out the bill against John Henry Caton and Thomas Greig, for cattle stealing, the prisoners were ordered to be discharged, there being no other charge against them. His Honor cautioned them as to their future conduct, as the crime of cattle stealing was now so rife in the province. By the prisoner Owen: I have already stated that I obtained the list of brands on the same day that the sale was effected. I cannot say from which of you I obtained it. The prisoner Davidson declined to ask the witness any questions. This was the case for the Crown. In defence, the prisoner Owen called Mark Sprot, who stated: I recollect the arrangements which were made by Messrs. Studholme and Innes with the prisoner Owen relative to the driving some cattle purchased from us. The number was to be about 1000 head, and they were to be driven from Christchurch to the station on the Selvvyn. The cattle were imported animals. I produce the agreement. The cattle were all purchased from one man, Mr. Bird. I remember being spoken to by the prisoner Davidson, who told me that he had sold some cattle belonging to Mr. Bird to Mr. Cook. He added that he had found the cattle on the Waimakariri, and that Mr. Cook had given him £10 5s per head. He handed me a portion of the proceeds on account of Mr. Bird, for whom my firm were acting as agents. The latter expressed himself as satisfied with the sum which was placed to his credit. By Mr. Duncan: I do not recollect whether tlie prisoner Davidson told ine how many cattle he hacl sold. I know that the full sum said to have been received from Mr. Cook was not paid to Mr. Bird; The understanding was that a person who found cattle was to sell them and keep a proportion of the proceeds as a recompense for their trouble. His Honor remarked that the practice was a very reprehensible and a very demoralising one. Thomas Henley was called by the prisoner Owen, and stated, that he remembered going to the Waimakariri with the prisoners for the purpose of bringing down some cattle. They found some beastia on the various islands in that river. After we had driven the cattle to the plains, I saw the prisoner Davidson consulting a list of brands. There was a mob of about forty, from which we cut out twentytwo, driving the rest back. We brought the twenty-two to Papanui, and left them in Medding's paddock. Before finding the cattle we met the stockman employed by Mr. Templer, who told the prisoner Owen that he had seen some stray cattle a little higher up-the river. In consequence of this information, we went on until we found the mob of forty of which I have already spoken.. By Mr. Duncan: The prisoner Davidson showed me the list of brands before we started. Davidson stated that the cattle of which he was in search were the property of Mr. Morrison, a cattle importer from Wellington, who, he said, had lost forty head of cattle. Within half a mile from the spot, we saw some other mobs of cattle, which we did not examine. Robert Ross: I am acquainted with Mr. Bird of Wellington. He has no particular brand: the cattle which I have seen imported by him bore a variety of brands. jLast summer I was called in to decide an arbitration between Messrs. Studholme and Innes and the prisoner Owen. The award was proved in Court yesterday to the effect that the prisoner was entitled to the possession of ten head of cattle lost by him whilst driving cattle for Messrs. Studholme and Innes from Christchurch to the Selwyn. By Mr. Duncan: The prisoner Owen was not informed of any brand by means of which he might know the ten head of cattle in question. Charles Hicks: I am a stock-driver. I saw, last April, some cattle in Medding's paddock at Papa.nui. I recognised one beast (a bullock) as the property of Mr. Bird. lam acquainted with most of the brands used by Mr. Bird to mark the cattle imported by him. I know the brand JB. I do not know Mr. Morrison.

By Mr. Duncan: I only recognised one bullock which I could swear to be Mr. Bird's property. The prisoner Davidson was with me; I pointed out the bullock to him immediately. As far as I recollect he remarked that he knew all the rest: the prisoner Owen was also present. From the appearance of the cattle I judged them to be imposed animals. They were low in condition and covered with scars which led me to suppose that they were not Canterbury fed cattle. I did not judge by the brands. I should say that at least two-thirds of them were imported catll«. I told the prisoner Davidson so. I do not recollect if he asked me whether the remainder belonged to Mr. Bird. Charles <Jllivier: Last year I was manager to Messrs. Studholme and Innes. I was ift that situation last June. I remember taking delivery of some mobs for those gentlemen in December or January last. The cattle were principally imported from Wellington. They were branded in various ways. I delivered a mob to the prisoners for the purpose of their being sent to Waimate. Ido not recollect if I furnished the prisoner Owen with a list of brands. Out of some of the mobs, some cattle were lost on their journey to Selwyn. By the request of the prisoner Owen, Thomas Cook was recalled, and stated in answer to him that since the delivery of the twenty-two head, he had never had any further transactions with him. This was the case for the defence. Owen addressed the Court, and stated that himself and his fellow prisoner labored under a great disadvantage in being arraigned together. It was almost impossible to dissever their different degrees of responsibility. They did not deny having sold 22 head of cattle to Mr. Cook, thinking that they were their own property. The animals might or might not have belonged to Baker. At this distance of time it was impossible for them to produce many witnesses, who were well acquainted with the brands. They had acted in the most open manner, and had done no more than many other persons, including the witnesses, had done. They (the prisoners) had not removed any cattle from the run; they had indeed driven some cattle (which they believed to be Wellington cattle) from some of the islands of the Waimakariri. They had been in no hurry, as had been alleged, in the manner in which the cattle had been disposed of, as the cattle had been openly placed in a public market place. He wished to show that if cattle broke away from the paddock, and were brought back, those so brought back might easily be confounded with other animals. He had especially selected Davidson and another person to collect the cattle, as they were so well qualified to judge what cattle had beeu imported from Wellington. The prisoner Davidson declined to make any statement. Mr. Duncan addressed the Jury for the Crown, expressing his regret that the duty of opposing the statement made by the prisoner Owen should have devolved upon him. (Mr. Duncan briefly reviewed the evidence, and dwelt upon the discrepancies existing between the defence set up by the prisoners and the facts which had been submitted to the Court.) He considered that the conduct of the prisoners established clearly that they were guilty of the charge which had been preferred against them. His Honor summed up the evidence, and read some part of it to the jury, commenting upon it as he proceeded. He remarked that there were two questions to which the jury would have to direct their attention —Ist, whether any of the cattle sold by the prisoners to Mr. Cook were the property of Baker; and, 2nd, whether the prisoners had taken, or, as the law expressed it, had converted the animals to their own use, with a felonious intention. In conclusion, his Honor informed the jury that it was competent for them to find separate verdicts with reference to the two prisoners. The jury, after retiring for about ten minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the laxity which exists in the province with regard to transactions connected with cattle. The Crown Prosecutor offered to forego the prosecution on the third count of the indictment, if the prisoners did not object that a cow which forms the subject of the accusation should be given up to the alleged owner. The prisoner Owen as the spokesman for himself and Davidson refused to accede to these terms; consequently the indictment will be preferred against them at 10 a.m. on Friday, to which hour the Court has adjourned. Sentence deferred. The trial occupied almost the whole day, and there was a numerous attendance of persons, who seemed to view the proceedings with much interest. During the course of the day Messrs. Caverhill and Mirehouse, who had been summonsed as witnesses, at the opening of the Court, but who did not appear when called upon, made affidavits to the effect that they were unavoidably detained owing to the flooded state of the rivers, and the illness of the former gentleman. The excuse was admitted by His Honor. Friday, December 4, 1863. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Oresson and a common jury, of which Mr. Giles Coates was chosen foreman.) The Court re-asspmbled at 10 a.tn. CATTLE-STEALING. Edward Owen and William Davidson were again placed at the bar charged with having stolen a cow and a calf, the property of Alexander Weir. Mr. Duncan appeared for the Crown. The prisoners, who were undefended, pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Duncan opeued the case for the prosecution, and stated that it was not his intention to call any witnesses against the prisoners, as he considered the ends of justice had been fully met by the proceedings which had already taken place. Under these circumstances, the jury, by the direction of the learned judge, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. On being asked'if they had any reasons to offer, why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon them with reference to the former charges, the prisoners declined to make any statement. His Honor, in passing sentence, observed that he was unable, after much consideration, to make any distinction between the respective guilt of the prisoners. They had been jointly convicted of a very serious crime, one for which, only a few years ago, their lives would have been forfeited. The severity of the law had been now somewhat modified. The jury had recommended the prisoners to the merciful consideration of the Court on account of the laxity of the prevalent customs with regard to transactions connected with dealings in cattle. In this view of the case he was disposed to concur. It was with much pain that he saw men of their education and rank in society placed in such a degrading position. He sympathised with them to a certain degree, and he still more deeply sympathised with their parents and friends, who he understood occupied highly respectable stations in England. The prisoners had been clearly convicted of a very heinous offence, and one which called for severe punishment; the law must be vindicated, and it was his duty to pass upon them such a sentence as he hoped would have the I effect of deterring others from following their evil example. He hoped that the mental suffering and anxiety which they must have undergone in consequence of these proceedings would have a salutary effect upon their minds, and that whilst in prison they would seriously reflect upon their past conduct, and determine to lead more upright lives for the future. The sentence upon them would be imprisonment on the first charge for twelve months, with hard labor, to be computed from the Ist December, 1863, and on the second count of the indictment to a further term of twelve months, also with hard labor; the latter sentence to take effect at the expiration of the previous one. KEEPING A DISORDERLY HOUSE. Owen Fitzpatrick, who was charged with the above offence, was ordered to be discharged from custody, the Grand Jury having thrown out the bill against him. OBTAINING GOODS .UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Felix McCann was charged with the above offence. Mr. Duncan appeared as the Crown Prosecutor. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr. Duncan opened the case. It appeared from his address that the prisoner had obtained possession of a horse, saddle and bridle, the property of John Scott Caverhill, and had afterwards converted the horse to his own use; the saddle and bridle had not been recovered. J. S. Caverhill stated: I am a station-master at Hawkswood; the prisoner came there on foot, representing that his horse had been knocked up, and that he was anxious to purchase another. I did not sell him a horse, but I lent him one to go to Motanau. He went away on my horse f a gelding), which was provided for him by a man in my employment, named C. King. He was to leave the horse at Motonau; the horse was saddled and bridled. I gave him ho permission to take the horse beyond Motanau. The distance from my station to that place is about 40 miles. The WekaPass is quite in another direction. I • have since seen the horse at Motanau. I have not recovered possession of the saddle and bridle. The prisoner had no authority from me to sell or dispose of the horse or of the saddle and bridle.

Philip John Mirehouse deposed that in August last he saw the prisoner at Mr. Caverhill's station at Havrkswood. (Witness corroborated the evidence of Mr. Caverhill with regard to the loan of the horse to the prisoner for the purpose of enabling him to go to Motanau. and directions given to him to leave the animal at the latter place.) Examination continued: I never saw the horse agaiA until the end of August, when I saw it at the Weka Pass. It was then in the possession of Mr. John Bowie. Having identified the animal, I took possession of it for Mr. Caverhill. The Weka Pass is not in the direction of Motanau. I could not get the saddle and bridle. John Bowie: I am a laborer residing at the Weka Pass. I know the prisoner, having seen him in . Auoiist last; he was then riding on a brown gelding, j have seen the horse to-day. There was a saddle j and bridle on the horse. The next day the prisoner stated that he wished to purchase a horse; he represented himself as a merchant. I offered him a horse, and we went and looked at one belonging to me. I wanted £20 for it. He agreed to buy it, but that having no money until bis return, he would leave his own horse with me, as security. I agreed to this arrangement, and he accordingly took possession of my horse, on which he put his own saddle and bridle, and then rode away, leaving the other horse with me. He did so by Avay of security for the value of my horse,, promising to return in a few days, and pay me for my horse. He never returned, and the next time .when I saw him was in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch. The witness Merehouse claimed the horse on behalf of Mr. Caverhill, and gave up the possession of it. [A memorandum written by the witness at the dictation of the prisoner, with reference to the sale of the horse, was put in and read.] Examination continued: I believe that we had a glass together. The score is not yet paid. Samuel Henry, the keepey of the Weka Pass Accommodation House in August last, confirmed the testimony of the previous witnesses with reference to the arrival of the prisoner there with the horse, and the subsequent restitution of the animal to Mr. Caverhill. Witness met the prisoner riding on Bowie's horse. By the prisoner: I was present at the sale of the horse to you. By your direction Mr. Caverhill's horse was left " on tether," It was to have two feeds of oats per day. I saw you the next time after this transaction at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchurch. By the Jury: The prisoner left no order for thehorse to be given up to Any one. This was the case for the CrOwn. The prisoner, on being asked if he had any defence to offer, entered into a long desultory statement of his antecedents. He recapitulated the facts deposed to by Mr. Caverhill with reference to the loan of the horse. He had no intention of defrauding, Mr. Caverhill of his horse ; he (prisoner) . had acted as he thought for the best; he had fully intended to have compensated Mr. Caverhill for his kindness in lending him the horse; he wrote to Mr. Caverhill, telling him where the horse was ; Mr. Caverhill had however denied the receipt of the letter. He (prisoner) had been arrested on another charge by mistake of a constable. This had caused a long detention, and had prevented him from communicating with Mr. Caverhill. (A letter from Mr. St. John Brannigan, the Commissioner of Police at Dunedin, ordering the immediate discharge of the prisoner, and apologising for the detention to which he had been subjected, was read. ... The prisoner continued his statement, and proved that his arrest for debt subsequent to the purchase of the horse from Bowie, had prevented him from returning the horse to Mr. Caverhill. His Honor summed up the evidence, explaining to the jury the nature of the statute under which the prisoner was indicted. It was evident that he had Converted the property of. another, person to his own use; it was for the jury to say with what intention he had done so. The jury, after retiring for a few minutes, returned a verdict of " Guilty." Sentence deferred. There was another charge against the same prisoner, viz., that of defrauding John Bowie of a horse. For this case, also Mr. Duncan appeared for the prosecution. The case, which hinged altogether upon the one just reported, possessed no feature of interest. The evidence was almost the same as that previously adduced, and the Judge having summed up the main facts of the case, the Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of " Guilty." The prisoner on being asked if he had any reason to allege why sentence should not be passed upon him, stated that he had no intention of acting with dishonesty in the matter, although he confessed that he might have shown some degree of rashness and indiscretion. His Honor remarked that he fully coincided m the propriety of the verdict. The prisoner had been convicted on the clearest possible evidence of a very serious offence. The sentence of the Court would be, on the first charge, imprisonment for eighteen months with hard labor, in the gaol at Lyttelton; and on the second charge, imprisonment for six months also with hard labor, the first sentence to be computed from the Ist December, 1863, and the latter to commence at the termination of the one just pronounced. LARCENY. Walter William Brighton was indicted for the above offence. The Crown Prosecutor conducted the prosecution. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded Not Guilty. * • i On being asked by his Honor if any professional gentleman had been engaged for him, he replied that a legal gentleman had promised to attend upon his behalf, but that he had not done so. He did not know his name. His Honor remarked that he was unwilling that the prisoner should be deprived of any legal assistance upon which he might have depended. Toppin, the warder of-the gaol, stated in answer to a question from the judge, that Mr. Harston had promised to appear for the prisoner if he could find the necessary remuneration. The case was then proceeded with. Mr. Duncan, having opened the case, called as his first witness, William H. Bickle, who stated: I am a sergeant in the police force stationed at Rangiora. From information received by me I went to Woodlands, and there I fonnd the prisoner. I was in plain clothes at the time. I told him that I was a constable. He confessed to me that he had left Rangiora. This conversation took place in a private room. I asked him what money he had brought from Mr. McFarlane's station; he replied £20 in a note or cheque, one £1 note, and some silver. He afterwards said that the £20 was in a note, which he had brought from Australia. I searched him, but found no money upon his person. He said, " I am the wrong party, if you will come with me to Kaiapoi, I will very soon produce the note, and give an account of the change out of it." He added that he had changed the note at the Northern Hotel, Kaiapoi. I went there but could find no traces of the money. Mr. White, the storekeeper, told me in prisoner's presence, that he had purchased goods in his shop to til© amount of &o, which he had paid for in £1 notes, The prisoner then told me that he could recollect nothing further about the £20 note. I told him that as he could not j give a good account of the note, it would be my duty to arrest him. He replied that having been intoxicated on the previous evening, he could not aocount for the note. I then arrested him. I afterwards obtained the £20 note produced, from a person named Thompson; it was in a bag with some buttons and thread. I produce the bag and its contents. Witness also produced a note which he had received from Thompson. The prisoner declined to ask the witness any questions. . , „ , , Henry Norfolk stated: I reside at Mr. McFarlane s station at White Rock. The prisoner was a fellowservant of mine. He was shearing there, t " ac j saved up £35. It was in one £20 note of the of New Zealand, Ko. 61, and three £5 notes. I do not know the numbers of the last named notes, kept my money in a pocket book which in a pocket of my monkey jacket which was kept m my bedroom upstairs. I wore my jacket on one occasion, and as the weather cleared up, I hung my jacket up in the wool shed either for one or two days. Previous to hanging up my jacket, I saw the money in the book which was in the jacket pocket. A few days afterwards I looked for my money, and found it gone. The prisoner was in the shed while the coat was hanging there. He went there alone. He often left the breakfast-table, and went there. My jacket was there at the time. I cannot say how long he was there. As soon as I missed the money I got a horse, went to Rangiora, and gave information to the police. I only mentioned the loss of my money to Mr. McFarlane's partner. By the Prisoner: The two men who left the station on the same day as that on which I lost my money left before I had done so. I do not know if you had any money when you were in the stabling, I cannot say if you bought a watch. I did not see you change any money to pay for one. By the Jury:, I had taken the number of the note, and had written it down in my pocket-book. I had told the police that I had had two £20 notes, one numbered 10 and the other 61. The three £6 notes which I have lost were the change of one of the £20

notes. I never told any one on the station that I was possessed of any money. By the Court: I swear that the note which I had changed had the letters A.F. next the number. The one now in Court has no such letters. William T. Baugh: I am a publican at Rangiora. The prisoner was at my house about two months ago. He told me that he was going to Mr. Ellice's station. He subsequently told me that he had got work at Mr. Moore's station at Glenmark. He wrote me from there. On the 15th November he borrowed 10s of me for the purpose of buying a pair of shears. He returned to my house on the 22nd November and told me that he had been shearing on Mr. McFarlane's station. He paid me the 10s which he owed me, and I saw him with three notes, one for £20. I do not know the value of the other notes, but I judged from the blue mark on the backs that they were £5 notes. He afterwards told me that they were £5. I remarked to him that he had done very •well. He immediately denied that one of the notes was for £20. .B y the prisoner: It was on the 15th Nov. that I lent you the 10s to buy the shears. C. Swinburne was the next witness, and stated that he was a publican at Rangiora. The prisoner came to on the 22nd November. I asked him to dine with me. He refused, saying that he was going to dine with some one else, but he afterwards stayed. He paid for his dinner and several glasses to which he. treated those persons who were in the house. He gave me a £5 note, and I gave him the change. Duncan M'Donald stated: I am the accountant of the Bank of New Zealand at Ghristchurch. The £20 notes of that bank are red, the £10 notes green, the £5 notes blue, and the £1 notes are gray. I believe that the notes of the Union Bank are all blue. Henry Hinge : lama publican at Woodend. On Sunday, the 22nd November, the prisoner purchased a bottle of brandy of me, and tendered a £20 note in payment; I could not change it, and he then offered me a£s note, which I changed. He then left. Anthill deposed that he was a labourer at Woodend. He saw the prisoner on a Sunday in November last. He came towards witness's house. The prisoner was on horseback. He came to his house. A man named Thompson came there also, and the prisoner expressed a wish that Thompson would go and shear at Mr. McFarlane's station. Witness offered to sell him his horse for £20. He agreed to purchase it, and said that he would come to fetch it on the Monday following. The prisoner went to the witness's stable. He was alone. He went there for the purpose of removing his horse. He was only a few minutes in the stable. He did not return to purchase witness's horse. Witness never saw him with any money. By the Prisoner: I never received any money from you. I never promised you to have my horse shod, before you purchased it. I swear positively I never bought a saddle or bridle of you. I never changed a£s note for you. I have never had anything from you but a glass of brandy. John Thompson was then called, and corroborated the testimony of the last witness, relative to the prisoner coming to his house, and offering to purchase the horse belonging to Anthill; the latter refused to sell the horse "on account of the day being the sabbath." The prisoner's horse was put into Anthill's stable. £20 was mentioned as the price of the horse, but witness saw no money pass. From information received from the police, he, and some others, went to Anthill's stable to look for £20, which was alleged to have been lost. After some search, he found the bag produced; it contained a £20 note, and some buttons; the note was a Bank of New Zealand one, No. 61. The note was near the manger, half concealed by the hay. They found the note on the Friday following the same day to which witness had alluded. Communicated the finding of the £20 to Sergeant Bickle. By the prisoner: I did not hear you offer Anthill £18 for the horse. I never saw a,ny money pass between yourself and Anthill. I did not hear you make any offer for a saddle or bridle. This was the case for the crown. The prisoner made along rambling statement, asserting that he had purchased Anthill's horse for £18, and had paid him by giving him £20, and receiving £2 as the change; he had also bought a saddle and bridle of A nthill for £4. His Honor, in summing up, remarked that there was no direct evidence to convict the prisoner of having stolen the money of the prosecutor Norfolk. The evidence was altogether circumstantial. It was for the jury to decide if the fact was clear to their minds that any portion of Norfolk's money had been traced to the possession of the prisoner. If they arrived at the conclusion that any part of such money had been proved to have been found upon the prisoner, the case would be greatly simplified, and they would have little or no difficulty in convicting him of the theft. But if, on the other hand, they found that this was not clearly established, they would be bound to extend to the prisoner the benefit of any doubt which might be entertained by them. His Honor then read over the evidence to the jury, and left the case to their consideration. After a consultation of a few minutes, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. His Honor after remarking that he fully recognised the justice of the verdict, _ addressed the prisoner on the henousness of the crime of which he had been convicted, and sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment in Lyttelton Gaol with hard labour, to be computed from the Ist December, 1863. The Court then adjourned until Tuesday at 10 a.m.