SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1408, 3 June 1865, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday. June I. Tlie sittings of the Supreme Court, for the dispatch of criminal business, took place this day, .'it 11a.m.; his Honor Mr. Justice Gresson talcing his seat at that hour. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Grand j urv ; —Messrs. FitzGerald (foreman), Aynsley, Alport, Buckley, Buchanan, Blakiston, Clark, Deb'ourhel, lioulton, Field, Boys, Deane, Fuller, Byrne, J. Field, C. Davie, Burke, and Brown. The Grand .lury having been sworn, his Honor delivered the following ciiargi:. "Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, —There arc sixteen cases in the calendar, namely— three of forgery, one of maliciously killing- cattle, one of embezzlement, one of obtaining money by false pretences, and ten of larceny. "It doi'S not occur to me that any question of difli- I cultv is likely to arise; but if it should, I shall be liappv to assist you. " There is one very distressing case, which illustrates forcibly the want of a Reformatory, more especially for juvenile offenders and females. It is the case of a girl scarcely beyond the _ age of childhoo trained to the commission of crime by a most abandoned mother, who is not restrained by the presence of her own child from indulgence in her vicious propensities. For a girl so unfortunately circumstanced, a Kefor.-ra'.ory, humanly speaking,_ offers the only chance of rescue from utter destruction. " Under ordinary circumstances, I should feel bound to decline to commit a female of such tender years to the contamination of a gaol, in which no provision exists for the classification of prisoners; but in this case, if there should be a conviction, I must assume that the moral atmosphere of our gaol, even with all its deplorable deficiencies, is less pernicious than the societv of such a mother. -.Gentlemen. I will not detain you longer from your duliiS.' The Grand Jury retired to consider the bills sent in to them. Mr. Garrick applied to his Honor for an order to compel the attendance of twrt witnesses, the manager and teller of the Hank of !N"ew Zealand, at Ivaiapoi (who had declined to attend), in a case which he intense! to bring against John Theophillis Collins, for obtaining goods under false pretences. ilis Honor remarked that he was not aware that it was necessary to apply to the court for an order. At all evcn:s, it was the first time during his experience that such an application had been made. Mr. Garrick said that he believed that the course he was taking was the usual one. lie quoted a case from Arcbbold in support of bis view. His Honor said that he would have no objection to grant the order, but he thought that an ordinary sii!ip(vna would he sufficient. The order was made, and it was settled that the easj should be heard during the day. liO:ssE-STEALI>'G. James Bush pleaded guilty to this charge, and was sonU'iictd to one year's imprisonment in Lyttelton gaol, with hard labour. LARCENY. James Bush, the accused under the first charge, pic:;dod guilty to the indictment for stealing some ar'l'les of wearing apparel belonging to 'Ihomas Miildleton. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in Lyttelton gaol, with hard labour ; the sentence to take effect from the expiration of the former one. MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION" OF CATTLE.

John Curtis pleaded guilty to this charge. His Honor remarked that this was the second or third c::se of the same nature which had come before him. He had read over the depositions in the case very carefully, and was s itisfied that the prisoner had, in a moment of passion, killed the animal. Such offences, which were calculated to inflict a great injury upon the community, could not be passed over. The sentence upon the prisoner would be imprisonment for six months' iu Ly ttelton gaol, with hard labour, to be computed from the Ist instant. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Joseph Carey was charged with larceny. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The Crown Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the Crown. The prisoner was undefended. Mr. John Coe was chosen foreman of the jury. Mr. Duncan opened the caie, briefly stating the main features of it to the jury. John Shallow: I am the prosecutor in this case. Last May I was on the diggings at Hokitika. I was at the Trafalgar Hotel, on May 22. 1 was drunk at the time. I remember that I was in a room at the back of the bar—that is, when I awoke I found myself there. I have not the slightest recollection as"to the hour when I went there. I had a watch and chain on the morning of the day in question. The watch and chain produced are my property. I was awakened by the police, who asked me if I had missed anything. The constable who awakened me showed me the watch and chain. I identified them as belonging to me. When the constable ■ spoke to me, I looked and found that I had lost my-watch. I know the prisoner by sight. I have seen him on the diggings, but I do not recollect having seen him on the day mentioned.

George Watson : lam a carpenter. On May 22. I saw the prosecutor in a backroom of the Trafalgar Hotel, Hokitika. 1 was in the skittle-alley.. I could see into the room where the prosecutor was silting at a table. His head was reclining on the table. lie was asleep. I saw prisoner enler the room. The prisoner appeared to be drunk. He came to the skittle-alley : to do so he must have passed through the room were the prosecutor was. I saw the prisoner close to the prosecutor : the latter was asleep. The prisoner walked out of the room. He partially aroused the prosecutor. I followed liirn out because I suspected that he had robbed Shallow. He ran down Camp street, and I followed him. At the corner of one of the streets he fell. Before he could get up, I held him down, and called for the police. The prisoner said, II There's the watch, let me go." Ido not recollect if I mentioned the robbery to him. Some one came with a light, and picked up a watch and chain. I saw him do it. The watch and chain produced are the ones so found. The police took charge of the prisoner. I know the prosecutor. I had previously seen a watch and chain in his possession at the Trafalgar Hotel, some hours before the robbery took place. I saw them two or three hours before he lost them. Thomas Jackson: I am a publican, at Hokitika. On May 22 I saw the prisoner fall, and the last witness took hold of him. The latter accused the prisoner of having stolen a watch. I fetched a light, and found a watch and chain lying on the ground. I identify the watch produced as the one which I found. 1 his was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner, on being called on for his defence, stated that he was under the influence of liquor at the time, and had not the slightest recollection of anything which had taken place. It was the first time in which he had been placed in a similar position, and he hoped that his Honor would deal leniently with him. His Honor summed up,remarking that the case was a very simple one. The prisoner had pleaded intoxica(ion as an excuse, but he need not inform them that this was not a valid plea. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor remarked that the prisoner had been convicted of larceny, upon the clearest evidence. He had pleaded intoxication, but it had been proved that he whs perfectly conscious of what he was doing. He would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment, in Lyttelton gaol, with hard labour. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING. James Clark was charged with stealing about 22| lbs of tobacco, from the premises of James Cuddiford, on the Hokitika diggings. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded Guilty of having the tobacco in his possession, but not guilty of stealing it. His Honor ruled that a plea of Not Guilty should be recorded. fcir. Prince was chosen foreman of tho jury. Mr. .Duncan opened the case on behalf of the Crown.

James Cuddiford stated : I am the prosecutor in this case. On May 13th I was awakened by a man named Gardiner, who told me that the prisoner lia l stolen some goods from my premises. I went out and found the prisoner with a box under his arm. I identified the tobacco as my property. The prisoner struggled to get away, I produced a revolver, and after some resistance on his part, I and Gardiner took him to the Camp. The box of tobacco produced is my property. We gave him in charge of the police. He consented to go to the Police-camp with jib. He threw the tobacco on the ground. He afterwards went on for a few yards. The box contains TLX Its of tobacco. I am in partnership with a persoji named Bastings. The tobacco belongs jointly to «• lly the Prisoner: It was about twenty minutes to four a m. when I came up to you Gardiner had hol'l of you when I did so. I do not recollect any tall man having bold of you. You struggled to get away, and I threatened to blow your brains out. I

At a tnll the Servant of Police that I could not o.L »tac» M belnß my property. On no swear to tie i d swear to it. After ( ! CCiIS S SS lputa private mark on the - bo" Williout that mink I could not have identified t the tol L I knew the box from a peculiar tear in * tile label. I cannot swear that I hiive ever seen you I " e in mfswX'o the Court, the witness described the . tear in the label on the box, and bow it occurred Bv the Court: I do not think that a similar tear ill the label could take place, because I tore it in a • I>L Gardiner was called, and corroborated the evidence of the former witness as to the robbery of the tobacco, and the capture of the prisoner. This was the wise for tlie prosecution, . The prisoner made a statement to the efleet that lie ' was intoxicated at the time of the occurrence ; he ' remembered that some one had given him the tobacco Tlio man was drunk, and asked him.to carry the tobacco to his store. He admitted that he had the tobacco in his possession, but denied tlut he was aware that it was stolen. Ilis Honor summed up, remarking that the question for the jury to decide was this—Had the prisoner satisfactorily accounted for having the tobacco in his possession ? The prisoner was charged with having broken into the store of the prosecutor, and of having stolen therefrom a box of tobacco. Iho jury could acquit him of the heavier charge if the evidence was not satisfactory to them that lie had been guilty of it. If they were not clearly convinced of the guii tof the prisoner on the minor charge, they had the power of acquitting him altogether. His Honor read over the evidence, commenting upon as he proceeded. . The jurv, after retiring for about 25 minutes, returned a verdict of " Guilty of simple laiceny. His Honor remarked that the jury had taken a very merciful view of the case in acquitting him of the graver offence of breaking into the store, and only finding him guilty of having goods in Ins possession of which he could give no satisfactory account. He would be imprisoned in Lyttelton gaol for twelve months, with hard labour, computed from this da} - . LARCENY FROM TIIE PERSON. John Callaghan was charged with this offence. He was undefended. Mr. Duncan prosecuted. The prisoner, upon being called upon to plead, gave a military salute, and said, "Not guilty, your Honor, more than the child that's unborn." Mr. John Mills was foreman of the jury. Mr. Duncan stated the case to the jury. The first witness called was Robert Barrett, who deposed as follows I remember May 3; on that night I was at the Golden Fleece ; the prisoner was there ; he asked me to shout. I did so. I took a£i note out of my pocket-book for that purpose. I replaced the book in the breast pocket of my coat. I had £8 10s in my book. One note was a£s note; the rest were £1 notes, and 10s in silver. The prisoner was close to me ; he had hold of me at the time. He put one arm round my neck, h's other hand being near my breast. I missed my pocketbook when I felt for it, to put the change into it. I told the prisoner that he must excuse my calling him a thief, but that I suspected him of having stolen my book. He suggested that 1 might have dropped it. He went away to a little distance and returned, bringing my book in his hand ; he gave it to me ; I looked at it, and missed the £5 note. I said that I should go and fetch a policeman. Some persons stopped me as I was going out for that purpose. Some of them gave me a glass of drink ; Ido not know what .it was, but it made me foolish. Immediately on taking the drink I lost my senses. The note produced is like the one which I lost. I never gave the prisoner any authority either to take the note, or to keep it for me ; in fact, I never saw him before. Alfred Watkins, the waiter at the Golden Fleece at the time of the occurrence, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. Henry Leake was called, and corroborated the evidence of the witnesses previously examined. Thomas Martin deposed that lie was barman at the Devonshire Arms. On May 4th the prisoner changed a £5 note at that hotel. His Honor summed up the evidence, drawing the attention of the jury to the more salient point.® of it. Detective M'Elroy was called, and stated that on May 4th he arrested the prisoner (giving him the usual caution), on the charge of stealing a £5 note from Robert Barrett. He stated that he only had a £1 note in his possession ; he positively denied having changed a£s note.. He asserted that he had never had a £5 note since he left Auckland. The £5 note produced I got from Mrs. Hart, the landlady at the Devonshire Arms. I had previously ascertained that he had done so. The prisoner made a statement denying his guilt, and dwelling upon the fact that no one had seen him actually take the money, and also that the money had not been identified. Both himself and the prosecutor M ere intoxicated at the time ; the probability was, that Barrett had given a £5 note instead of a £1 note. As to changing the note, when he spoke to the detective, he did not know that he was an officer, and therefore did not think it necessary to account to him for any money which he might happen to have about him. He was an honest hardworking man—one whose character was perfectly unstained. He threw himself upon the mercy of

the court. His Honor : Not the mercy of the court; the jury are sworn to decide upon the evidence adduced, and give their verdict accordingly. The prisoner continued his statements. He again asserted his innocence, and added, that if the jury found him guilty, he was prepared to undergo his sentence.

The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor, after expressing his concurrence in the verdict, sentenced the prisoner to 12 months' imprisonment in Lyttelton Gaol, with hard labour, to be computed from this day. This was the last case heard, and the Court adjourned. Friday, June 2. The sitting of this Court was resumed this day, at 10 a.m. liis Honor Mr. Justice Gresson entered the hall at that hour. LARCENY. Elizabeth Adams was charged with having stolen a valuable gold watch and locket, and some other articles of jewelry, the property of Mrs. Coe, of Gloucester street, Christchurch, on March 8 last. Tlfe Crown Prosecutor appeared to support the prosecution. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded " Guilty." It transpired that this was the prisoner's third offence ; she had recently undergone a sentence of imprisonment at Invercargill, for forgery to a large The prisoner, who stated that her age was 20, was sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve months, in Christchurch gaol, with hard labour, the sentence to be computed from June 1, his Honor remarking that the prisoner, although a young woman, appeared to be a confirmed thief. He hoped that the sentence of imprisonment just passed would prove beneficial to her, by giving her an opportunity of reflecting upon her past life and of improving her future one. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Thomas Courtney English was charged with this offence. Mr. Duncan was present on behalf of the Crown. The prisoner, who stated that his age was 33, pleaded u Guilty." He stated that he bad been drinking heavily for some lime previously. The excitement of the goldfields, which bad just broken out, had influenced him to commit the offence. He hoped that the Court would deal leniently with him, as it was his first offence, and he undertook that it would prove a lesson to him for the rest of his life. liis Honor remarked that it was impossible for him to pass a light sentence upon the prisoner, who had confessed to the commission of a crime for which, in former years, his life would have been forfeited. Indeed, many a man had been executed for a similar offence. The sentence upon him would be imprisonment for 12 months, with hard labour, to be computed from June 1. PASSING A FAI.SE BANK-NOTE. Pietre Accrisse was charged with this offence. The Crown Prosecutor conducted the prosecution. Mr. C. Prince was foreman of the jury. The prisoner, who is a Frenchman, was undefended, and pleaded " Not guilty." Mr. Duncan having stated the case to the jury, called, as the first witness,

James Hargreaves, who deposed as follows : I am a butcher residing at ltokitika. I was in Bracken's billiard-room there at the latter end of last march ; there were about twenty or thirty persons there. Five of us were playing pool; the prisoner was ond of them. Money was deposited by the players. I saw four persons deposit a £1 note each ; the other placed down ss. The prisoner was one of those who put down a note. I was close to him. We were both leaning on the table at the time. The note the prisoner deposited was not a good one. I made a remark to him to that effect, that it appeared to me to lie u very strange looking one. He told me to say nothing. I promised him that I would not. One of the playerß had deposited a £1 on the table, but being objected to as too good a player, he

took it up again , the prisoner's note remained on the table! After the game, the marker, Charlie, took up the money niid put it into his pocket. The prisoner said that the nolo was a London Charter note. The note now produced is the one. I am certain ° f Tho note was handed to the jury for their incontinued : I left as soon ns the game was finished ; it might have occupied ten or fifteen minutes. The prisoner was playing all the time. In prisoner's presence, the murker said llmt some ono "hud stowed on to him a P'cee ( >f paper instead of a no*e, and said that he should like to know who had done it." He addressed the question to all the players. They all denied the ownership; the Fr nrrheln , ?roTeV; h Wheii I was appealed to in the affair by the marker, I refused to interfere; I wished to have nothing to do with the transaction. By the Jury : I swear that the note produced is the one passed by the prisoner. The note was laid upon the table half-folded. The only remark made with reference to the note was the one made by me ; the marker put the notes in his pocket without any comment. . . By the Court: The marks on the back of the note and its broad edge, attracted my attention, and caused me to make the remark. I never had the note in my hand, except at the Police Court at Hokitika A young man, named George, was accused oi being the owner of the note. I told Bracken that George was not the guilty party, but I refused to tell him who really was the owner of the note. Ido not believe that the prisoner knew that the note was a flash one ; I have known him for some time, and nerer knew him guilty of any dishonest action. When the marker complained about the bad note the prisoner persisted in saying that the note produced was not the note deposited by him. James Clark, the billiard-marker at Bracken's Hotel, corroborated the evidence of the last witness with reference to the game played, and the notes deposited upon it. He examined'the notes, and found that one note Avas a bad note. It was the first he opened. He corroborated the evidence of Hargreaves with reference to his asking the company about the ownership of the note and their denial of it. The prisoner positively asserted that he had not deposited the note in question on the table. The note produced is the one which witness received.

By the Court: I gave liirn a genuine note in exchange for the one which he was supposed to have deposited. By the Prisoner: You stated at the police office that you had paid me 2s 6d ; possibly you did, but I will not swear if you did or not. There was a good deal of agitation and excitement in my mind at the time. . By the Jury: I put the notes into my pocket without looking at them ; I always do so. I have been so many years a marker, that I have no suspicious feelings." I made a remark about the note before the game was finished. I cannot say who deposited the bad note. It was one of the players. I have always had a good opinion of the prisoner, whom I know to be a hard-working honest man. George was accused of-the affair ;heis a fast sort of a customer. There were several noisy and riotous persons in the room. This was the case for the prosecutor. The prisoner asserted his innocence; he was fortythree years old, and had never been summoned before any court. His Honour summed up, and the jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of " Not Guilty." His Honor addressed the prisoner, and told him that he trusted that the mental anxiety which he must have undergone would have the effect of rendering him very cautious as to his future conduct. The prisoner was discharged. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Eobert Smith and Robert Stuart were charged with forgery and uttering. Mr. Duncan conducted the prosecution. The prisoners pleaded "Not Guilty;" they were undefended. Mr. Prince was foreman of the jury. The Crown Prosecutor having opened the case, called as the first witness, James Clements, who stated: I am a sergeant in the armed police force. On April 19 last, I got the cheque produced from a man named Jeffries. I arrested Stuart on a charge of forgery, giving him the usual caution. He told me that he got the cheque produced from a man named Jeffries, an accommo-dation-house keeper at the Waitaki. The next day, I arrested the prisoner Smith. He said, that in company with vStuart, he had got a cheque cashed at the Warwick Hotel, Cashel street, Christchurch. He added that they had been drinking there together. James Jeffries: lam a general dealer in Cashel. street. On April 18 I was at Cook's public house, in Cashel street; it is known as the Warwick Hotel. Stuart and Smith were there. They tendered the barman a cheque for £19 18s. in payment for some drinks. I looked at the cheque, as the barman had not change enough to cash it. The name of William Jackson was signed to the cheque. The barman assured me that it was all right, as he knew a person of that name at the Waitaki. The prisoner Stuart stated that he had been working on the Waitaki,and got a cheque from "Big M'Lean," and had exchanged with William Jackson for one of his own. I refused to cash the cheque at first, but subsequently agreed to give them £18 for it. This was agreed to; both the prisoners were present. The prisoner Stuart was the one who spoke to me; Smith was standing at the bar. I gave them £15, all the money I had with me, promising to pay the balance on the following day. They had previously dealt with me to the value of about £6. They both had articles of me ; Smith had a coat worth 30s. Stuart endorsed the cheque with his mark; he gave me his name as Robert Meadows. I gave the cheque to a man named Davis, to pay it into the bank.

Farquhar Smith was called, and corroborated the evidence of the last witness with reference to the tendering and cashing of the cheque in question. He alao mentioned that Stuart gave the name of Kobert Meadows.

Robert Wilson Morrison : I am barman at the Caledonian Hotel, Colombo , street. On April 18th last the prisoners were at the hotel; it was in the afternoon, about 2 p.m. They asked me for a blank cheque of the Bank of New South Wales. I believe it was Smith who first spoke to me.' I gave a blank cheque on the Bank of New South Wales, and pens, ink, &c. They went into the front room, i hey closed the door behind them. I do not recollect if any one else was in the room. Five minutes afterwards, I entered the room; the prisoners were sitting one on each side of the table. The writing materials were on the table, and a filled-up cheque was lying before the prisoner Smith, who had a pen in his hand. He was examining the cheque as it lay upon the table. I quitted the room without making any remark. Stuart had the cheque folded up in his hand, when they both left the room; they had two drinks for which they promised to pay me the following day. The cheque produced is like the one I saw in Smith's, possession.

Bj the prisoner Smith : I was close to you when I saw the cheque lying on the table. I did not see you write it. I have frequently seen you at the hotel.

James Kirton : I am ledger-keeper at the Bank of New South Wales. On April 19 the cheque produced was presented to me at the bank; it was refused to be received, on the grounds that the drawer had no account there. We have never had an account in that name in the Bank.

William Jackson : I am an accommodation-house keeper at Waitaki. I have frequently seen the prisoner Stuart passing up and down near the Waitaki. The cheque produced is not signed by me. I never gave the prisoners any cheque. No other person named Jackson keeps an accommodation-house on the Wailaki. This was the case for the Crown. The prisoner Stuart admitted having cashed the cheque, hut denied that he had forged it. The prisoner Smith stated that he took Stuart to the public house where the transaction took place. Stuart gave him a coat as a present, and he (Smith) parted with him, and never saw him again until he saw him at the lock-up. His Honor summed up, reading over and commenting upon some portions of the evidence. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "Guilty" against both the prisoners. His Honor, after commenting upon the heinousness of their offence, sentenced them to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour, in Lyttelton Gaol. LARCENT AS A BAILEE. G. E. Baker was indicted for this offence. The Grown Prosecutor appeared for the Crown. Mr, Willcocks defended the prisoner, who pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr. Duncan stated the case to the jury. Several witnesses were examined, and it appeared from their evidence that the prisoner had embezzled several sums entrusted to him for collection. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after retiring for some time, returned a verdict of "Guilty," accompanied with a recommendation to mercy, on the ground that he intended to refund the money, which he had converted to his own use. His Honor remarked that the jury had evidently given his case every consideration. The offence of

which he had been guilty was a very serious one, and one calling for substantial punishment. H would be imprisoned for six months in Lyttelton Gaol, with hard lubour, to be computed from June 1. FOKOKKV. Robert M'Laren was found guilty of this offence, and sentenced to two years'imprisonment, with hard labour, in Lyttelton Gaol, to be computed from June 1. LARCENY, Jane Glass, a smartly dressed female, was indicted on this charge. She pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr. Duncan conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. Mr. Prince was foreman of the jury. Mr. Duncan opened the case, and stated the chief features of it to the jury. [A woman named Bowcn was brought before his "Honor, charged with creating a disturbance in the court. She had two children with her, and she addressed the Court in an incoherent style, stating that she required maintenance for herself and her children. His Honor, after kindly remonstrating with her, warned her that if she caused any further annoyance, she would be locked up. She persisted' in doing so, and was committed to the lock-up for 24 hours. She was removed.protesting, that she did not care for the sentence.] The case was continued, Mr. Duncan calling as the first witness, Detective M'Elroy, who deposed as follows : I am a constable of police. I know Robinson, the prosecutor in this case. I remember May 12th last; from information received, I went in search of some property, alleged to have been stolen. The property comprised a watch, a sillc pocket-handkerchief, and a sum of .£9O. I went to the prisoner's lodging, and saw a man named Wade. He stated that she had not been at home that night, f went to the house of a person named George Acqua, in Lichfield street, Christchurch. I arrested her, giving her the usual caution. Acqua gave me the handkerchief produced. It answei's the description of one given to me by the prosecutor. (Witness described some peculiar marks upon it.) I have not been able to find the money or watch.

The prisoner declined to ask the witness any questions. John Robinson : I am the prosecutor in this case. On May 12 I came to town from the station where lam employed. I had a watch, chain, £90 in gold and notes, and a £10 cheque. I had also a handkerchief. I went into Coker's hotel. I had all the articles and money with me. (Witness described the places where the articles were.) I met the prisoner at Coker's. I had a conversation -with her ; I treated her to one glass of drink. She was standing at my right hand. We were in company together about twenty minutes. She left the house, but returned shortly. Soon after she had been with me the first time I missed my money. I informed the barman of my loss. I felt her hand in my pocket. I broke a glass, and was about to pay for it, when she put her hand into my trouser's pocket, saying, "I'll find the money." Immediately afterwards I missed my money and watch. It was after that she had gone out that I missed my money and watch. On my way home I missed my handkerchief. (The witness identified the handkerchief produced, by two holes in it.) By the prisoner: I lent you the handkerchief, and you returned it to me. The prisoner put a number of irrelevant questions, but his testimony was, in the main, unshaken. James Fisher was called. He was the barman at Coker's Hotel when the occurrence took place. He corroborated the evidence of the prosecutor. He stated that the prosecutor had treated the prisoner and another person to drink. He paid for the drinks with a £1 note, which he had loose in the right-hand pocket of his trousers. Witness saw a purse in his hand. He left £4 in gold in the care of Mrs. Coker. He told witness that he had £90 'or £100 in his pocket, and that if he fell into the company of the women, he should lose it. By the Court: I will not swear if the prisoner heard him make the remark. I saw her put her hand into his pocket; she withdrew her hand, and putting it under her shawl, she walked out, but returned after an absence of five or six minutes. She did not rejoin the prosecutor; she stood behind him. She left the hotel before Eobinson did. She paid me nothing. By the prisoner : I did not see you take anything out of Robinson's pockets. You might have gone about 100 yards when the prosecutor, missed his money, and went out to look for you. George Acqua was the next witness. He stated : I lived in Lichfield -street last month. I knew the prisoner; she was at my house on the evening of May 12th ; she gave me the handkerchief produced. She told me that " she had brought it from Port as a present for me, as I was a sweetheart of hers." She remained at my house all night, and was arrested the next morning. She had a child with her.

By the prisoner: You took the handkerchief out of your pocket and gave it to me. I saw no money in your possession. I received none from you. This was the case for the Crown. The prisoner declined to call any witnesses. She made a statement to the effect that she was innocent of the offence laid to her charge. His Honor carefully summed up the evidence, remarking that the case was a very simple one. The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor sentenced her to be imprisoned in Lyttelton Gaol for six months, with hard labour. This was the last case heard yesterday, and the Court adjourned until this day (Saturday), at 10 a.m. The Peacock at Table.—At chivalric the peacock usually appeared enshrined in a huge crust, his head protruding from one end, while at the other his train was extended in all its glory. It was the privilege of the fairest dame to bear the bird to the table, and set it before the victor in the tourney, while the hall resounded with martial strains. In presence of this noble dish, the knights of old dedicated themselves to the service of honour, virtue, and beauty ; and when Shallow swore " by cock and pie," lie but imitated the example of the bravest of the brave. Thus served, the peacock must have made a noble adjunct to a feast, so far as appearance went ; but whether he afforded proportionate gratification to the appetite is another question. Turpin thought the flavour of peacock flesh exquisite, when he tasted it in Siam; Colonel Williamson declares the young birds are remarkably sweet and juicy, but considers the older ones best boiled down into soup. Sir Emerson Tennent says peacock is excellent served hot, but has the drawback of being indigestible, and of contracting a disagreeable red tinge as it cools; so far bearing out Gervase Markham's opinion, that the bird is better fitted to delight the eye than please the palate, " the flesh being very unwholesome, and used at great banquets more from rareness than nourishment; for, roast a peacock never so dry, set it up, and next day it will be blood-raw, as if it had not been roisted at all." It has, however, the merit of keeping uncorrupted a long time, when once it has been cooked. St. Augustine, astonished at the sweetness of a pcacock of which he courageously ate twelve months after it had been roasted, nsks, " Who but God, the creator of all things, gave to peacock's flesh a faculty of not putrefying ? " Sir Thomas Browne hung up some peacock's flesh, "so that it touched no place," and found his experiment confirm its reputation for incorruptibility.—Chambers' Journal.