SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1419, 4 June 1868, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.-CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

■ ■■'Wl-BDKBBHAT, JviTß 3. ' ' . '(Before' His Honor Mr. Justice Moore.) _ The ordinary; Quarterly Beesiorlof:'the. Circuit CoortwM held J yesterday. < The Grand' Jury and' ±"etit Jury panel*i were gammoned at 10 o'clock »,m, and at that hour precisely Hie-Honor took hie seat on the Bench. ... ... . The followJDg gentlemen were calleato serve npon' the Grand Jnry : — ■ ' e _ Alexander Kennedy (Foreman), James Baber, Jno. Buchanan, David Bnrn, James Burtt; Henry Chamberlain Archibald Clark, Isaac Bhodes" Cooper, Robert J. Creighton, James Farmer, Wm. : Gordon George Graham, Henry Isaacs, James Thanet McKelrie, Charles PetecWer, Samuel Thomas Bedden, Jno. Styak, Chae John Taylor, Wm. lunia Taylor Jame« Walmoslcy, George Webster, William Toune, Blsqe.

His Honor addressed the Grand Jury as follows Ml. Fobiiiak and Gentlemen- op thb Grand Jury,—You are not unaware that at the last three or four sittings of the Circuit Court I felt it my duty to congratulate you on the steady and rapid diminution of crime in your Province. Whereas when I first came—or more properly for the first two or three sittings of the Court—during which I occupied a Beat on the Bench some twenty-five or. thirty pases came before the Grand Jury at tho commencement of each Session. During the latter part of the time I have been here, the number of offences charged have gradually decreased until at the the Oourt there Were no more than nine cases for you to deal with. I need not say I should he glad'on this occasion—the lust in all probability on whioh I shall have the honor of meeting the Grand Jury— to -be able'to renew my congratulations. X am sorry to say it is otherwise. The tide of improvement would appear to' have : turned. The calendar you haYe to deal with at present contains no fewer than 30 prisoners and 21 cases. Although a great majority of these are of the ordinary kind, namely, caßes of larceny and stealing from the person, there are three or four of a more serious character. I will call your attention to the ordinary cases before ■ referring to those of a graver aspect. But before referring to either class of cases I will call your attention to another matter in connexion with the subject of erimo in tho province to which once before; X recollect, I called your attention, namely, the state of the gaol at Mount JTden. Since wo mot here last there lias been an escape from prison—that is, two prisoners have escaped, and of these two prisonera only one has been recaptured. There has also been a case of serious assault by three or four prisoners upon one of the warders. Upon that happening X mado it my business, in company with His Honor the Superintendent of the Prorinco and tho Commissioner of Police, to attend at tho gaol for fcho purpose of ascertaining all tho circumstances. An examination was taken, and a statement of all the facts is now befoio His Honor the Superintendent, or before the Commissioner of Police, Ido not know which. But this is a mutter with which the Grand Jury aro essentially tho parties competent to deal. If you should think it proper to visit tho gaol and make inquiry as to whether any and what remedy is required for preventing such things in future, you will bo doing no moro than your duty. I may Bay following the observations made by the Chief Justice on a former occasion to tho Grand Jury—you will he doing no more than your duty if you should think proper to visit the Court at the close of your labours each session of the Circuit Court. You are a despotic body (if I may use that expression) to a very great extent, and it would not be at all amiss, allow me to say, if the Grand Jury made it a rule at suoh periods to visit the gaol and satisfy themselves of the state of things existing there, for the purpose of making any presentment they might think fit to the propor quartor with respect to improvements which they think might be neoessary for the reformation, the amendment, management or constitution of that establishment. You aro perhaps awaro that Bince the occurrences I have alluded to, a gentleman has been appointed governor to the gaol, but that does not interfere with your

right to satisfy youreelvos by 'personal impection. In doing this you would bo doing, I any ag»in, no more than what would bo your duty and a benefit to your province. The assault upon the warden, and tho escape from the prison are tho only caio against the public. Allow me, however, to take the ordinary cases first, afterwards I will refer to the ir ore setious ones. The first case I shall deal with is a charge of embezzlement—namely, mis-appropriating money received by n person in tho employment of another, such perion not delivering the money over to his employer. It is certain that some of the goods referred to must have been in the possession of the master. In the case with which you will presently hare to deal, it appears in tho depositions that tho amount embezzled is four pounds in money. The prisoner, it is seen, wai in the employment of the proiecutor, and was sent to a customer whose clerk him umongit other moneys four half-sovereigns and 10s. Tho prisonfcr did not return, and hi 3 master neror saw him again until lie found liim at tho police office. There appears to be sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.' There are two cases of house breaking and stealing, &c. In one of these cases the amount stolen is not large—being under f5. In one of them two prisoners are concerned. .According to the depositions tho prenrses were secured by the prosecutor. The prisoners wero found in posneesion of tho articles alleged to hare boon stolen, which were tied up in a handkerchief, and identified by the prosecutor. Even if thore were no other facts but these, they would be sufficient to onable you to return a true bil), and leave it to a jury of the country to say whether tho prisoners are or are not guilty of the offence charged against them. In another offence four persons are concerned; tto amount stolen being considerable, consisting mainly of jewollery, and valued at £52. The house, it is deposed, was fastened when tho prosecutor left it. On his return to it ho found that it had been entored by tho kitchon window. It does not appear whether tho window was fastened, but it was closed, and if it was ruined and entered by the prisoners that is a sufficient breaking in law. As to what appears in tho depositions against the prisoners, it seems that one of them plodged two of tho stolon articles—that they wero taken to be plodged by one of the prisoners, who was sent by another; and tho same witness who deposes to this fact also deposes to the additional fact that she received the rest from tho other prisoners. There are other witnesses who show that it was by the window tho house was entered, and tho prosecutor conQrins tho testimony by stating that this is the window by which the house must have been entered. In these facts there will be enough to constituto a prima facie case, but there is moreover the fact that footsteps were found outside tho premises, and the»e being compared with one of tho prisoner's boots, both wore found to correspond. There ate two casos of oattle stealing—one of Bheep-itealing, the other of stealing a steer. According to the depositions in the eheepstealing case, there wero seventeen nheep stolen, of the value of £20. In this case four prisoners are concornod, who appear to have been joint olfanders in the transaction —at all events three in one way or other appeartd to be interested in the matter. Seven of theso sheep found oil tho prisoner's farm are identified by tho prosecutor. Two ofjthese are found sometime after the rest, and two of them are found dead. Ten are found at tho settlement of which the prisoner's farm forms a part. Now the dead sheep are found covered with rushes. I need not say they could not have covered tliem«elvcsin that way, and therefore it must havo been done by somebody. That circumcumstanco raises suspicion against somebody or other. One prisoner says in his statement that ho leughfc tho shoop from another prisoner, and the prisoner from whom ho says he bought them denies tho assertion. This is a suspicions circumstance. Tho " other" prisoner admits that some of the sheep may havo got among his, but cannot account for how they got there. It will bo for you to say whether you see sufficient to justify you in returning a true bill. All you have to do is to see that there is a prima facie case made out. In the other cattle stealing case the offence chargFd is that of stealing a Eteer, alleged to be of tho value of £10. The stealing the animal in this cavo appears to have been admitted by the prisoner to the constable. The constable asked him according to the depositions whether it was possible that ho could havo stolen the animal. It does net appear, however, that tho constable did in this case what he ought to have done, and what every constable ought to do having charge of a prisoner, namely, to caution his prisoner before asking him any questions, or inducing any observations from the person he has in custody. In this case the constable did not do so, and the prisonor mads the admission deposed to. I think you ought to dismiss from your mind what waß said by the prisoner in reply to any such question as that put to him. I need not, I think, refer you to any authority on this point, but I may quote a. line or two from a book with which you are all acquainted, written by a judge of this Court, in confirmation of what I say in this case (reads): No auoh warning

■w ill required iby.i the •abore paßjag? appears tohave been.'givctito thaprisoner, and'the prisoner should! havd-the. benefit of wliat th&ljiw prescribea in that case. But it; was admitted by him to another I constable who apprehended him} aft«r doe; caution, *' that tho statement he made might be naed again at ' him. If after Bach a cavition he chose to confess his 1 guilt, in that case there, would be quite enough for i the Grand Jury to find a ! true bill upon. The next 1 case, gentlemen, is rather peculiar. The offence : :charged Against the prisoner is that of placing poison . —that poison being phosphorus—in a trough oil the - prosecutor's premises, with the intent to kill a pig , valued at 10s. • Now "that is not an indictable ofience, , and tbu.magistrate should have dealt with the case - summarily. _ Whatever the evidence may be, we have , no jurisdiction on the matter here. You must there- , fore throw out tho bill. 'Ihe neit are five cases of , larceny of the ordinary kind. In the first case, according to the depositions, the value stolen is 30a. It is matter of regret that it was necessary to send > theprisoner to he tried hero, at what cost I neednotsay. , But I suppose it was necessary, and that the magisr trate could not find another way of dealing with it; . and the Court is put in motion, at what expense you [ all know. The nrticlea stolen are an Inverness cnpe J and a pair of leggings._ The prosecutor overtook the j: prisoner in a house which he mentions and there he , saw the cape and leggings. The prisoner's statement t is that he acknowledges taking the things, not with , the intention of stealing them, but of returning them. . That is a question for the jury who will try tho case, s It will be enough for you to consider whether the ; facts deposed to form a prima fucit case of larceny. ! The neit case of laroeny is one in which a watch and . chain ib Btolen, the alleged value being £8 Bome odd r shillings. The prisoner is the eame that is charged t with stealing the capo and leggings. In this case the t prisoner went to the house and inquirad . for apartments. According to the deposition, he . raised money on tho property alleged to have been . stolen at the house under those circumstances. That ! throws upon him the onus of accounting how he , becamo possessed of the property. As in the , former caa~s it will be enough if you are satisfied there is a prima facie casa against the prisoner to [ justify you to send him before tho common juty. In l the next case 'wo prisoners are charged with stealing , various plated articles of tho value of £7 10s. The prisoners in this case respectively pledged and sold some of tho articles to some of the witnesses who will ; be culled to prove the case. Other articles tho police found in the house occupied by the prisoners—if not by "ioth at least by one of them. The burthen thrown upon them of accounting liow they came possessed of these articles warrants you in retnrning a true bill ajjninst them. In the next caae a woman is charge i with stealing a sum of money in bank notes. • In this case according :o the depo-ition of the man, the money wo i found cn the prisoner and thercforo you can have no doubt es h what the Grand Jury should do in such a ense. Neither does the woman's statement make any difference to you, although it may when tho case shall bo before the" common She then strongly denies tho charge, and says "The man gave me the money." Tho circumstances deposed to will warrant you, I think, in finding a true bill in this cise. In tho next case the prisoner was charged with stealing a gold watch value £20. The evidence against the prisoner is to the effect that the watch was given to the prisoner by one of the witnessss to sell. But the onus is thrown on the prisoner to account for how he became possessed of what is not his property, and you will, therefore, give him an opportunity of clearing himself from the charge bofore a jury of the country. Tho next case, gentlemen "of the Grand Jury, to which I will call your atttention is a charge of uttering a forged cheque, and the next to that is one of forgery—both very much nlike in their nature. In the case of uttering the forged cheque tho amount of the cheque is £20. lam sorry to see that this is one of a class of cases which wa have had over and over again in this Court. In this case the grounds shown for the charge wero only too great. The prisoner is also the samo person as is charged with stealing the cape and laggings, watch and ohain, <fcc- In the case of forgery the instrument forged is an crder on the Auckland Savingß Bank for £10. On a date given it appears that four pounds wero drawn out of the Savings Bank by " a sergeant," but the witness who deposed to this faot cannot say whether it was the prisoner, but the order on which the money was paid is proved to bo in the prisoner's hand-writing. Here tho rule of law will apply, who does a thing bv another does it by himself. Subsequently ten pounds are paid to the order produced, which is also sworn to he in the prisoner's hand writing, and he acknowledged the receipt of the money. The particular feature in this case is that this was done—this forgery was committed—in the name of adepositor who was already dead when the orders—certainly when the litter order —was presented. There is prima facie proof that the offenco was committed. The depositor was oertainly dead as far a3 the deposition goes. There must have been an intent to defraud some one, and the intent rnuy he inferred from the act itself and by the consequences which proceed from it. A person who does any act must he supposed to do it with the intention of bringing about the consequence whioh must immediately proceed from it. There are four cases of stealing from the person. In the first, according to the depositions, the sum stolen is £48 in bank notes. In this case the evidence is very remarkable. It is remarkarble in this rospect that it is almost too good But this remark will apply more correctly when addressed to the jury before whom you will probably send the prisoner. There is a great deal more than a prima facie cose here. The evidence is that tho witness actually saw the prisoner take the notes from the prosecutor's pocket. There is nothing peculiar in that fact by itself; but it is peculiar that the witness did not do anything to stop tho act. The notes aro afterwards found on the prisoner." It is certainly remarkable that any man should see another robbing a third party, and not interfere in any way whatever. Instances have occurred where persons witnessing sycli an act did not wait till the act was completed, but actually; and without warrant, apprehended the robber there and then. Such a ease has occurred in this Province, and such a case came before me when I was lately at Taranaki. In this case, however, there is enough and more than enough to warrant you in returning a true bill. The question will be when the prisoner comes beforo a jury of the conntry whether the evicence will bo deemed of such a nature that they will be bound to convict upon it. The next case is a charge of stealing fourteen pounds in bank notes. In this case tho parties wont into a room together previously to going , Ito bed. Tho prosecutor had the money loose in his pocket. 1-Ie identified the prisoner after the robbery was committed, and when prisoner was eearched portion of the money was found on him. You will pay attention to this ciroumstanoa that when first charged with the theft the prisoner offered to be searched, stoutly

denying that he had ever taken the money, but notwithstanding this when he was searched eight of the notes were actually found upon him. Although the prosecutor can only swear to one of the notes, there i» quite enough in the case to warrant you in return - ing a true bill, and bo allow the prisoner to clear himself of the charge made against him. That case, as also one or two other cases, comes from the Thames Gold-fields. It would seem as if you may reckon on similar cases during ' the existence and progreaa of the Gold-fields, and this may to some small extent account for the increase of crime ; though it is anomalous in some respects, that when, to use a familiar phrase, Auckland has " turned the corner" crime should increase, while during the greatest period of depression it had sensibly diminished, It is certainly remarkable that crime should have increased apparently two-thirds as compared with what it was when the last Circuit Court commenced its sittings. The next case is a charge of stealing from the peraon 2 ozs. of gold, valued at £8; also £4 in notes. In this case the gold was sold to one of the banks in Auckland. It is identified by its particular shape or form or mark. It was not shown that the gold was sold by the prisoner to the Bank. The prisoner himself, however, makes a statement which is not very intelligible, about his finding the gold " sold by him." Now to take that moat strongly it amount] to an admission that he stole the gold. I have not the deposition before me, but there is no question that the gold stolen was in his possession and afterwards in the possesion of the Bank, and was identified by the , prosecutor. Though the cuse nor the statement very strong there was enough to enable the Grand Jury to give the prisoner the opportunity of I clearing himself in the usual way. The case which came next was a charge of stealing from the person a | watch guaid, gold key, greenstone, &c., of the value ; of between £8 and jB9. In this case the watch is j found in a cart after a souffle whi«hhad taken place between the prisoner and the prosecutor, in consequence of Bome quarrel they had in a publio-house. According to one of the witnesses the prisoner fell 1 down near the cart. There is some question whether , the prisoner was druhk or not. According to one

3 of the witnesses on the depositions har appeared _to be drunk,. and . according to i another his drunkenness was'described ad "mere p sham," and not actual inebriation. The question , arose did he know what he was about. The aeposit tions are to the effect that the watch must have been 3 "put"ntothe cart; that jt could not have been r " thrown " into it from the place where the prosecut tor and the prisoner were scuffling. The' prosecutor s said the Watch was taken from him, and it i 3 sworn i that the prisoner cried " I have got the watch and s will fun like The 'watch somohow or' other f got into the cart, and if it were thrown in ifr would , have been injured, but no injury appeared to have j done to.it except the breaking of one of the hands. 3 The witnesses therefore say that it must have - been put there designedly and carefully or it f must have been broken if thrown. These facts will , perhaps leave you without any doubt that there i 3 . enough to justify you in finding a true bill. The re--1 mainiDg cases are more serious than those I have . enumerated. The firat of them ia a case'of Tobbery • with violence in which a watch chain and other ; articles are stolon from tho prosecutor, valued- bel twoen seven and eight pounds. This is the case 3 known as the '* garotte" case. Two prisoners are a charged with, this crime. One of them, it is ! alleged 3 in the deposition, seized the prosecutor by the throat, t whilst tho other beat him about tho breast, face and i body with his fists. During this the watch and . chain is taSen from the prosecutor, or rather part of the chain, the remainder being left on the" prosecutor's" ) per»on. The part that was left corresponds with. . the part stolon. The watch and chain were afterl wards found by the police. The boots of one of the I prisoners were found to correspond with the foot I prints on the spot where the robbery was committed. 9 There can hardly be any doubt in your minds I what to do in this case. The case which s follows is one of burglary. The property i stolen ia a cash box containing bdtwean £13 and £14. t It is subsequently found by the prosecutor bv moans J of some information given to him by his step son, in a 3 swamp a few yards from the prisoner's dwelling. Tho I house had been broken into apparently by means of > a knife, which was altered into a sort of saw. The i prisoner admits that he changed the knife into a saw. ; There may be eomo question whether the prisoner can ! be convicted of the crimo of burglary or stealing in a I dwelling upon tho evidence as it stands, but there is I no doubt that tho property was found iu bis possession ) and that throws upon him the burl hen of showing how : lio became possessed of it. Tho only other case is of a i more serious kind. It is a case in which the prisoner F is charged with arson, " with intent to murder." [ But for the words " intent to murder " the bill would I have to be thrown out, because if a prisoner sets fire to i his own liouee, wtich is not insured, and in doing i which ho defraud 3no one, that is not a crime. Amani has n right to burn his own house if he please?, bat he . mußt take care not to burn anybody else's. The only ; question is, does he defraud o- injure snv one ? In this case the prisoner is charged with intent to murder, i which i 3 a vory serious crimo indeed. Gentlemen, i you will have to consider this case very fully and i carefully. The evidence is to this effect. 3he prisoner was heard to eay in so many words to oaa • of the witnesses just before the house wa9 fired, " that he had two children to kill." The witness went to the house with another person on hearing i this, and tsok the children away; according to that evidence it appeared that tho children were not in the ' house when the prisoner set firo to it. Tho crime is i th« " intent" to kill the children. The witness goear on to say that she believes the prisoner WoB not aware that the children had been taken out when he set fire to the house. The prisoner goes to another witness and says that ho has " a deed to do—two Children to kill," ho then goes and asks another witness for some matches. The witness gets up (it is in the night) gives him some matches, and the prisoner replies, " Thank you. God bless you You shall see the house on fire directly," and directly the witness does - see tha house on fire. Injustice to the prisoner I am bound to tall you what his own statement is, namely that "it was not he but that he had got a man.to do it," That, however, makes the case jmtthe same, for in that case the rule of law already cited applies that if a man does an act by means of another, he is consi- * dered to do it himself- That will at the same time give enough to warrant you in sending the case before the common jury- There are two other cases which I have to tpeak of, namely, the cases against the public, namely, the escape of two prisoners from Mount Hden Gaol, one of whom has been recaptured. The prisoner retaken has been identified by the constable who upprehended him, and that at. onco calls upon him to account for how he became at largo. There is the other case of tho attack upon the warder of the gaol. In this case the bill will be sent before you charging tho prisoner with that offence. lam not able to tell you as ther» are no depositions of the exact nature of the indictment that will be preferred against those but there is little doubt enough will be submitted to you to justify you in finding a true bill. Gentlemen, of the Grand Jury, I will only in conclusion remind you that according to a recent enactment, if you should require any other witnesses to bo brought before you than those whose names are on the baok of the indictment you can have them called. I will therefore ask you to retire to your chamber—apologising for the length at which I have detained you, which is rather my misf jrtune than my tault.—The cases will be laid before you and the witnesses called as you require them. The Grand Jury retired to their room, and immediately afterwards the foreman returned into Couri with a true bill against Ejachlan ti. Hair. CATTLE BTEAXIN'O. Lachlari H. Hair (18), was indicted for stealing a steer. The prisoner, who seemed a mere boy, pleaded guilty. The facts of the case will be found referred to in his Honor's charge to the Grand Jury. His Honor, in passing sentonce, thought it incumbent upon him to remind .all constables that they should not ask questions of the persons whom thsy had in charge, without cautioning them in the usual manner. 'Xha prosecutor recommended the prisoner to the mercy of tho Court. His Honor, in consideration of the prisoner's youth and the recommendation of the prosecutor, passed a lenient sentence —twelve months' imprisonment. BTXR&LABY. John 3t[cCormich was indicted for this offence at Opotiki, on the 11th of April, and stealing a cash-box containing £13 and a half-sovereign belonging to the district constable. Mr. Brookfield conducted the prosecution. William Nott, district constable of Opotiki, deposed that the prisoner was in his custody on a charge of drunkenness, from 11 o'clock in the forenoon to six or seven in the evening. The witness was authorised to give bail in such a case for ten shillings deposited in lieu of the fine. The lock-up is'about 200 yards from witness'* whare. Eeturned to his house shortly after eight o'clock. Missed the cash-bos containing money; afterwards saw the prisoner drunk in the town. That was 11 o'clock. Ho waa standing before a public-house door. Eeturnad home übout eleven o'clock. Found the house in disorder, and the cashbox missing. Could not say whether the cash-box was looked before it was missed. It contained 13notes, a half-sovereign, and a number of papers and receipts. On examination found that the chimney had been partially torn down; Next saw the cash-box on the followinjg Sunday night, between six and seven o'clock. The cash-box produced was in the state it now presents, as if it had been burst open. A step-son of the prison6r, named Stanley, showed witness the box in a swamp about fifteen yards from prisoner's house. It would be utterly impossible for anyone standing at prisoner's whare to see tho box in the swamp. _ Searched prisoner's house and found a knife cut like a saw, and <'» morticing axe which was pointed out as the instrument whioh had been used to force the box. Did n<>t find any money. Cross-examined by prisoner: It was .Vbnut oleven o'clock when he Baw prisoner at the public-house. To'd him to go to his wife. Did not notice anything in prisoner's possession. Witness went home ten or fifteen miuuteß afterwards. Charles Stanley deposed lhafc he resided at Opotiki with prisoner. Kecollected prisoner coming home on Saturday night, the 11th April. Was roused up by prisoner to look for his hat betweea Corporal Tardy and.Con;oral Is'ott's house. Did_ not find it. Found his belt uear Corporal Nott's. Prisoner a Eked if witness saw the box, and he replied that he had not. Went to bed again and slept till morning. asked him if he had seen tho boy. Prisoner want down to the swamp to look for it. -Witness and hi 3 mother went with him. Prisoner picked up the box on the side of the swamp. There was a bank between the whare and the swamp. _ The box picked up was the one now produced. Priflone? broke open the box with a morticing axe, which he took out of the whare with him and then put tho box in the swamp. Prisoner was at home on the Sunday morning, but not in the afternoon. Wit-

rieiß heard people talking about the box on Sunjlay--•hewed Corporal Nott where tho box was. The knifs gbewe p prisoner to cufc th'S -adojike "Cross-examined by prisoner : WUness saw prisoner m, • Vinr Did not say it must bo a Maori box. the u b y ox opened. Didnotsee deposed, That he was at a musical entertainment on the night of the lltli of Apnl, and went h-ire between XI and 12 o'clock. Saw the Mason, deposed, that ho saw the prisoner on the nigV.t of the 11th ipril, » ' iule ? fter ° clock "between tho publichouse and the prisoner s house. Afterwards went to prisoner's house. Prisoner arriTed a few minutes afterwards. He sent his boy out -to look for his hat. Ha apparently was slightly intoxicated, but knew what he was about. Cross-examined by Did not observe any■thinsr about you when I saw you going home. This wa 9 the ca-e for the prosecution. Prisoner handsd in a written statement in his defence, whioh having been read. The learned judge said that oe saw no evidence of Jiiirclarv whatever, nor couli he seo any evidence connecting the prisoner with xobbery from a dwelling house of a box containing five pounds, l'hero was jrreit doubt on every circumstance attending the oise and no property was found on the prisoner. They would therefore give tho prisoner the be efit of tho The jury after a few moments' consideration found the prisoner not guilty. iumigxaby. Thomas Johnson and William Costello were indicted with burglariously entering tho dwelling-house of G B Hudson, and stealing therefrom 2 cloth coats, 1 pair trousers aud aistcoat, pair of boots, 2 jackets and 1 scarf. Thev pleaded guilty. . William Costello also pleaded guilty to having bren seven times previeusly convicted of larceny. The prisoners were then sentenced, Johnson to one year's imprisonment with hard labor, and Costello" to two.years' with hard labor. STEALING A WATCH. James Rogers was charged with having stolen a eilrer watch, gold guard, green stone, and gold key from the ptrson of one G. Brothwell. He pleaded guilty and was sentended to bo imprisoned for eighteen calendar months and kept to bard labor. sON-ATTEND AKCE AS A JUIVYMAN. _ "William Stitt was lined £5 for not appearing when called upon as a jurymen. STEALING A WATCH. Jaseph Smith was charged with stealing a watch from one William Young, on the 2Stli October, 1867. He pleaded not guilty. Detective Ternahan, deposed : X had information given ine by Mr. Young respecting the loss of a watch. I recovered the case from Mr. Beck, on the 21st January. I got the works from Mr. Baker, a watchmaker, in Victoria-street. Tlicy havo been identified by Mr. Toucg. I apprehended tho prisoner when he was released from prison. William Young, deposed : I was formerly Collector of Customs, and reside at Kemuera. In October last I was in possession of a watch which I had liad about thirty-five years. It cost thirty-five guineas. I gave it to a man named Mahon, to have a key fitted to it. Mahon hart been in tho habit of working for me for ten or t w elve years. He did not return It to me. I have seen the case and woras of th watch since. The case produced is my property. I can swear to the case and the wcrns. Thomas Mahon, deposed: I have been in the habit of working for Mr. Young for the last twelve years. I received a watch from Mr. Young in the latter end of October last to have a key fitted to it. That watch was taken out of my waistcoat pocket, the ribbon which held it being out. I missed it at seven o'clock in the evening. I believe the esse produced to be the one I lost. P. P. F«ge, deposed that he recollected seeing the prisoner on the 29th October last,- on whioh oc■casion he was passing witness's house. Prisoner asked him to bay a watch which did not belong to him, but to a new chum who was hard up; that he had not eot it with him but would go and fetch it. He returned in the afternoon at five o'clock and brought it with him. Witness tol l him he never bought such things without first submitting them to a watchmaker. He loft the watch with witness who took it to Mr. Baker, watchmaker, in Victoria-street. Told prisoner the watch was worth nothing only as old gold. He asked witness to sell it and he would* allow him ten shillings. Took the watch to Mr. Baker who took out the works, and then took the case to ..Mr. Beck. Mr. . Beck gave him £3 8s 6d for the case ■which he paid to prisoner. The Judge: Have you, Mr. Fagg, been in the habit of doing such transactions as these ? Witness : No, I have not. Judge: What business were you carrying on in Grey-Btreet ? Witness : None at all. I have only once or twice, -when in the public line, bought watches. Judge: I shall allow y.:u no expenses after what you have done in this matter. Don't you think it would hare been right for a man in your position to have endeavoured to have traced this watch instead of taking it to a watch-maker and giving him the ■works, and selling the case to another ? Witness: I had no idea. Judge: No idea! a watch which is valued at "twenty guineas. Take care that you don't get into trouble Mr. Fagg if you carry on such transactions as these. Your expenses will not be allowed. Stand down. Thomas Baker, watch-maker, deposed that he would value the watch which Fagg brought to him at £5. The original value of it would be about twenty pounds. It was hall-marked 18 carat gold. He took the works as some recompense for little jobs he had ■done. He broke up the case by Mr. Fagg's order. Richard Beck deposed that he bought the case from Mr. Fagg's uon-in-law, and gave him £3 8b 6d for it. The watch was never given f> him entire. This was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner called no witnesses, and declined to eay anything. His Honor, in snmmin? up, called the attention of the jury to the great facilities that were presented to thieves for disposing of their stolen property, and animadverted at considerable length on tho conduct of the witness Fagg. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour, sentence to commence from the date of the committal. STEALING PBOM A DWELLING-HOUBE. Bernard Duffy and Williim PiJcc were charged with stealing sundry articles of plate, drapery, &c., from the dwelling-house of Thomas Taylor Masefield. Dufly pleaded guilty, and Pike not guilty. IThe case was then gone on with as against Pike. T. T. Masefield deposed that he rented a house on "the Ponsonby Road in February last. Did not go into the house until the 27th March. Had previously removed all his furniture into the house. On going to live there he missed the coffee pot now produced (value £3), and the blankets (value £110s.) W. E. Harris, marine storekeeper, deposed that he had known the prisoner Pike five or six months. Prisoner came to witness' shop on the 27th March, and brought a teapot, a blanket, and another small article, on which he asked witness to lend him half-a-crown. Witness lent him the money, and retained the articles until they were taken possession of by the police. Detective Ternahan deposed that he received the articles produced from the last witness. Apprehended the prisoner at the guard room. This waß the ca?e for the prosecution. The prisoner called John Burns, who deposed that he was in the house where the prisoner was in bed on the night of the 27th March, when Duffy called him out of bed, and asked him to Bell some black lead for him. The jury returned a verdict against Pike of guilty of simple larceny. Both were sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour. Sentenco to commence from ■the date of the committal. NO BILL. In the case of John Cobb, for malicious injury to a pig, in Onehunga, the Grand Jury brought in no bill. In the case of Jilin Sand, indicted for arson, no ■Ml was returned. Mr. Brookfield called tho attention of the Court to the two cases in which tho Grand Jury had returned "no bill." One was a case which ought never to have been sent to the Court from its triviality, end the other was one which the law took no notice of namely, setting fire to his own house Ble hoped the Court would make some remarks on this case so that the magißtrates in the country might bo more careful in investigating both the facts and the law of the cases before putting the colony to the expense which •oases sent to that court always entailed*

His Honor remarked that ho cordially endowed what the learned oounsel had said, and he hoped that country Magistrates would be more'careful in futture. AN OLD offbndbb. Frederick JUCarshal alias William Henry J&aiokins, was arranged on threa charges to all of whioh lie pleaded guilty. The first was a charge of forging and uttering a cheque with intent to defraud, toe second, stealing a cloak and other articles, and the third, stealing a gold watch, chain, sells and lockets. He also pleaded guilty to four previous convictions. The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning.