SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 979, 5 December 1890, Page 25

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. His Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury of 12 (of whioh Mr J. Maginnity was foreman) were occupied on Friday with hearing the case Joseph Gaut v. T. Kennedy Macdonald. The plaintiff, who is an artist resident in Dunedin, alleged in his statement of claim that in March, 1888, he placed a collection of nine pictures in the hands of the defendant for sale, and in December of the same year assigned to him another picture (of Tawhaio), then on view at the Melbourne Exhibition, to be sold by the defendant in case of it not being sold by (Mr Charles Callis ; that in February, 1889, Sir William Clarke made to Mr Callis an offer of £IOO for the- Tawhaio picture, which offer was acoepted by Callis, on the instructions of the defendant, who then informed the plaintiff that ho had been offered £9O for the whole ten pictures ; that the plaintiff refused that offer, and shortly afterward the defendant represented to him that the offer had been increased tc £llO for the whole ten pictures; and that the plaintiff, having originally received from defendant on acoount of the pictures a sum of £63 19a Id, for which he gave a ptomissory note maturing in March, 1889, on the understanding that if it were not met his pictures would be sold without reserve, accepted this offer of £1 JO for the ten—being ignorant of the Bale of the Tawhaio picture for £IOO, and fearing that his pictures would be sacrificed if he could not meet the promissory note. In these circumstances, the plaintiff alleged that the offers of £9O and £llO were fictitious, and that the defendant had falsely represented them, and suppressed the fact of the sale of the Tawhaio picture. Therefore the plaintiff prayed that defendant might be ordered to return the piotures (except that of Tawhaio) or pay their value, £255, and that the defendant might be ordered to properly accouut to the plaintiff for the sum of £IOO received for the picture “ Tawhaio.” He also claimed general and special damages for conversion, deceit, and breach of duty as agent. The defendant, in his statement of defence, alleged that the picture of Tawhaio was sold to him by the plaintiff in December, 1888, for £63 19s 3d, which sum was then paid ; that tho plaintiff then placed in his hands nine other pictures, for which (taking into account the price paid for the Tawhaio portrait) the plaintiff subsequently agreed to take £l6O, but on the defendant informing him that the best offer he could got for tho collection was £9O (exclusive of one which had been sold for £2O), the plaintiff said he would take £l2O cash. The defendant then informed him that the highest price he could getwaߣllo, which the plaintiff accepted, requesting that the transaction might be closed. Accordingly, account sales were forwarded to the plaintiff (then at Hastings) with a balance of £32 0s 5d shown therein as due to him, and the plaintiff gave a reoeipt. Finally, the defendant denied aDy detention of pictures belonging to the plaintiff. Mr Morrison wa3 for the plaintiff, and Mr Travers for defendant. The only witness called by Mr Morrison was the plaintiff, who gave evidence at considerable length in elaboration of the general points contained in his statement. He denied :'ny knowledge of the sale to Sir William Clarke at the time he accepted £llO, and said that sale would probably have raised the price of his other pictures. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that he assisted Mr Gaut (who was then in Wellington) to get the Tawhaio picture framed and sent to the Melbourne Exhibition, and that in consideration of this, the plaintiff transferred the picture to him, advances having been made on account of it to the amount of £63 19s Id. It was agreed that the defendant should hav9 20 per cent, commission, so that with commission, exchange, and advances deducted, the sum coming to Gaut from the Tawhaio pioture was £ll 13s lid, instead of which he got £32 0s sd. Consequently £2O 6s 7d (in addition to which there was a sum of £5 53 in dispute, not paid) was the sum Gaut got for the other pictures. When witness received intimation from Mr Callis of Sir William Clarke’s offer ho instructed him to accept it, and notified Gaut that he had buyers for all his pictures. Cross-examined: An English tourist namely Bealey offered £25 for the nine pictures, and therefore witness telegraphed Gant that he had an offer of £9O net. The subsequent offer was £llO gross. A good many questions were asked with, reference to the £2O commission, as to whether or not it was claimed. Mr McDonald said that in completing the sale for £llO with Mr Gaut he took into consideration the fact that he was entitled to £2O commission. By his Honor : Unwittingly and unwillingly witness practically assumed the position of purchaser. Examination continued : The £2O commission was not shown in the account sales; Gaut knew it was being charged. Gaut got £2O 6s 7d out of the transaction, and witness had the nine pictures, which he would sell to anyone for a £lO note. The verbal arrangement was that witness was to receive 20 per esnt of the Tawhaio picture purchase money. Mr Thomas Beadnall, picture - framer, deposed to framing tho pictures, &c, and said, when asked about tho value of them, that be was afraid the Tawhaio one Would not bring the value of the framing. Mr Francis Grady,whohad had experience in picture dealing, valued the collection of piotures at about £5, and said one of them

was worth about 3d, being “ out of drawing, out of colour, out of perspective, and out of everything that should contain art." Mr F. C. Binns, photographer, expressed an opinion that the pictnres “ would do very well for signboards.” Better pictures could be bought in the shops lor 25a or 30s. Mr G. D. Barraud was also examined as an expert, and said the pictures did not oom* mend themselves to him as works of art, nor should he be disposed to pnt a high value on them. Mr W. L. Morison deposed that he would not class the pictnres as works of art; they had ro quality. The plaintiff, recalled, denied any agree* ment to pay Mr Macdonald 20 per cent, and said he had been given first awards at the Melbourne and Auckland Exhibitions for works of art. Counsel addressed the jury and his Honor summed up. The jury were absent for half an hour, and returned with a verdict to the effect (1) that the defendant has no claim to the 20 per cent commission on the sale of the Melbourne picture; (2) the jury assess the value of the nine pictures at £25. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for £25 ss, with costs on the lowest scale, Mr Macdonald on his part retaining the pictures as his own property. Judgment was given for the plaintiff on the counter-claim, with five guineas costs. His Honor refused to certify for a special juryCRIMINAL SITTINGS (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were begun at 10 o’clock on Monday morning. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a Grand Jury :—Messrs H. G. Morescroft, David Speedy, C. W. Smith, Georg© Humphries, R. J. Ogle, William Lambert, VY. G. Jackson, J, G. Chapman, A. J. McTavish, George Wilson, William Cook, Edward Pearce, Jame 3 McMenamen, W. Twentyman, Alfred Reid, D. T. Stuart, Robert Hunter, F. de J. Clere, A. E. Bowden, R, G. Howden, E. C. Mills, S. R. Dransfield, R. Hannah. Mr Edward Pearoo was chosen foreman. HIS ftONOR’S CHARGE. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, said there were on the calendar only four cases of special importance, the others being generally larcenies of no very great importance. Having referred at length to the charge of murder against three Chinamen (his remarks being reported elsewhere) his Honor directed the Grand Jury with respect to a charge of false registration, which originated in Mas* terton, that they must be certain, not only that the accused person’s statement was false, but also that he knew it was false. Touching a case of forcible entry which came from Pahiatua (where, his Honor observed. people seemed to prefer settling these matters by litigation at the expense of the State instead of by civil action) he directed the Grand Jury that in ejecting a person, such violence must not be used as would cause fear. Tha Grand Jury then retired. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills against the following prisoners :—John Austin and Henry Kerr, larceny ; Henry James and John McGuire, breaking and entering; Emanuel Silva, larceny from a dwelling j John Thompson, alias Yates, larceny from a dwelling, James Gatt, alias C. F. Harris, and Elizabeth Swan, alias Jane Harris, false pretences ; Joseph Jessop and John Hancock, forcible entry; James McCann and Oscar Moss, Robbery with violence ; Edward Ryan, alias O’Brien, and Thomas Buckley, larceny ; Patrick Daley, larceny as a bailee. NO BILLS. No bills were found against Thomas Sloan for alleged breach of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, and Edward Bourke, attempted suicide. His Honor decided, at the request Mr •Jeliicoe, that the cases againßt E. J. Robin* son, charged wish embezzlement, should not come on for hearing until after the Hutb murder cases. BURGLARY. Henry Jones and John McGuire, the two men connected with the Cuba street bur* glary, pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering, and were ordered to come up up for sentence on the following morning. LARCENY. John Austin and Henry Kerr were in* dieted for the larceny of a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of Emanuel Silva, from the Willow Bank Boardinghouse, on the 22nd of October. Austin pleaded guilty, and sentence was deferred till the following ! morning. The other prisoner, Kerr, stated that he had put the stolen articles in his swag to accommodate his mate, not knowing that they had been stolen, Mr McAlister appeared for the prisoner. The jury (of whom Mr H. Wall was foreman), after a short deliberation, returned with a verdiot of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. LARCENY FEOM A DWELLING. Emanuel Silva pleaded not guilty 'to having stolen a gold watch and Us in money, on the 25th September, the property of Henry Richelieu. Accused wan undefended. The evidence in this case haß been reported before. The prisoner and complainant were living together at the Willow Bank boarding houße, and while there the property was stolen. The accused was subsequently arrested on board a foreign hound vessel. The jury without retiring found the prlsonsr guilty,. and he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Mr Koch was foreman of the jary. Tuesday, December, 2. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) SENTENCE*. John Austin, who was found guilty of tha larceny of a swag, the property of Emanuel Silva, came up for sentence, and was ordered to bo imprisoned for two years with hard labour. Henry Jones and John McGuire, the two mon found guilty of breaking and entering Mr D. Ralph's premises in Cuba street also came up for sentenc e. The former was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment an

"the other to five years, he having been previously convicted. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING. John Thompson, alias Yates (undefended) pleaded not guilty to an indictment oharg. 3ng him with larceny from a dwelldeg. The stolen articles consisted of * carpet bag containing clothes, and also a silver watch, belonging to Thomas Uodgins, hotelkeeper. Prom the evidence it appeared that the things were left in charge of Mr Valentine, proprietor of the Club Hotel, Palmerston North, who shortly afterwards missed them. The prisoner had been seen hanging about the premises, and subsequently, a greater part of the articles were found under a sofa in the Star Hotel. The prisoner we.s laying on the sofa. George Lee, a second • hand dealer, Palmerston North, gave evidence to the effeot that the prisoner had offered some of the clothes produced for sale, and also a watch. Witness refused to purchase the watoh, but bought a coat and vest for 6s. The jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to 12 mouths’ imprisonment with hard labour. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Patrick Daly pleaded not guilty to a charge of larceny as a bailee, and was defended by Mr Coates. From the evidence by the prosecution it appeared that the prisoner had borrowed a horse from a person named W. J. Richmond, and had subsequently sold it, to a man named Cartwright at Pahiatua. The prisoner gave evidence, and stated that he was not in want of money and bad no remem- . forance whatever of disposing of the horse. Ho said he 'was under the influence of liquor while in Pahiatua, and did not remember even being arrested. The jury, after half an hour’s deliberation, brought in a verdict of not guilty. Before discharging the prisoner, his" Honor characterised the verdict as a most extraordinary one ani contrary to law and common sense, and if such a principle was to be carried out society would be in danger. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. James McCann and Oscar Moss pleaded toot guilty to an indictment charging them with robbery with violence in Wellington on the 14th November. Mr Coates defended the prisoners. The prosecutor, James Russell, a coloured man, in his evidence stated that on the night of the 15th October he went into the Central Hotel, and while there met the two prisoners, who asked him to shout. Complainant refused, and the prisoner Moss, after hustling him, snatched a watoh out of his pocket.' Moss then handed the watch to the other prisoner, and ultimately they were both given in charge. Sergeant Keily stated that he found the stolen watch in the possession of a man named James Keogh, who boarded in the same honse as the prisoners. Both the accused were sworn, and stated that they did not see any violence used towards Russell, nor did they know anything about a watch having been missed. Mr Coates, in his address to the jury, characterised the case as a most trumpery one, and considered it should have been dismissed at the lower Court. The jury retired at 5 o’clock, and at 10.45 returned with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoners were then discharged. Wednesday, December 3, 1890. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) FORCIBLE entry. John Hancock and Joseph Jessop were charged upon an indictment with having on the 23rd of September forcibly taken possession of premises in the occupation of John H. Jenkins, situated at the Pahiatua village settlement. The prisoners were defended by Mr Skerrett, and pleaded not guilty. For the proseoution it was stated that the complainant occupied a section in the Pahiatua village settlement under a twelve months lease from Hancock, one of the prisoners, who was the original selector. During the time Jenkins occupied the section the two accused commenced to build a lean-to to the house already on the section, and to this Jenkins objected, and pulled down the framework. The prisoners then, it was alleged, gained entrance to the honse by bursting in the back door, and afterwards carried the effeots of the complainant outside. For the defence it was stated that Hancock had received notice from the Commissioner of Crown Lands calling upon him 'to comply with the necessary conditions in regard to residence upon the property, and for that purpose intended erecting the leanto so that he might sleep upon the prearises. After counsel had addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and said the whom question for the jury to consider was whether the prisoners had broken the law, . and pointed out that if the accused were convicted they should not be branded as disreputable persons or visited with any punish, meat beyond a pecuniary penalty. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned with a verdict of not guilty, and the accused were discharged. larceny. Edward Ryan, alias O’Brien, and Thomas Buckley, were arraigned on a oharge of larceny. Prisoners pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr Bunny. The complainant, William Meroer, a groom, corroborated his evidence given before the Resident Magistrate last week. It will be remembered that his evidence (which has already been published) was to the effect that on the evening of the 21st November, while he was passing the Dnke of Edinburgh corner, in Wlilis street, the prisoners accosted him and said, “Are yon going to shout?” and being answered in the negative, they stole his handkerchief and handled him rather roughly. The prisoners after this ran away. The jury retired for half an hour, and returned with a verdict of guilty of attempting to' rob. Mr Bunny applied that the prisoner Buckley might be brought under the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act. His Honor postponed the matter, pending the report of the Probation Officer, and qrdered the prisoners to come up on Monday for sentence. (PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Blenheim, November 28. A half caste named John Aldridge (cf Tua Marina), for foraery, received a sentence of j

five years' penal servitude this morning, Mr Justice Edwards commenting severely on his conduct in trying to shunt the blame op to an innocent man. Godfrey, charged with rape was acquitted, the Court stating it was impossible to convict the man on the evidence advanced. Auckland, December 1. In the Supreme Court this morning, Mr Justice Connolly alluded to the charge against Te Mah&ku and 20 other Natives. His Honor 3aid the conduct alleged contained all the elements of riot within the meaning of the Act, the only question for the jury beiDg the identification of the prisoners. Referring to the charge against Keru Kahu of removing a trig station, the learned Judge said that any person removing a trig station from private land without permission was liable to punishment. There was an idea on the part of the Natives that planting a trig station upon Native land was unlawful, but most probably the offence was one of thoße foolish defiances of the law which some Natives Btill indulged in. The prisoner had admitted the removal of the trig station and there could be very little difficulty in finding • a true bill. Referring to the case of concealment of birth, the Judge said that- a solicitor bad been guilty of gross contempt of Court in writing to the newspapers stating that accused was not guilty of the alleged offence. He Honor directed the jury to take their directions from himself, and not from any practitioner who choose to write to the papers. Edward Brennan, charged with throwing vitriol at Robert Clemeuson, at the Thames, was acquitted. Harriet Ann Letham, for laroeny, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour. John H. Johnson, charged with breaking and enter, ing at Cambridge, was admitted to probation for 12 months. , Auckland, December 3. At the Supreme Court Annie Rauners pleaded guilty to a charge brought against her of concealment of birth. Mr O’Meagher, who appeared for the accused, said this was one of the most pitiful cases that had ever come under his notice. He denounced the seducer of the young woman as the veriest our ou earth, and said it was a pity he could not be placed in the dook. Mr Justice Conolly said these sentiments did Mr O’Meagher honour, but they were outside the case. On the application of her counsel the young woman was released on probation for six " months, and left the Court in company with a lady who is taking oharge.of her. Dunedin, December 1. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning. There are 15 cases ou the calendar. Andrew Semb, for larceny, received eighteen months; John Houghton, for housebreaking, two years. James Murphy and David Murphy pleaded guilty to an indictment for laroeny, and sentence was deferred. Christopher Conway pleaded guilty to a charge of malioiona injury to property. Seutenoe was deferred. Lachlan McLean, a boy, charged with shop breaking, was admitted to probation for 12 months. Patrick Begley, charged with attempting suicide, waa released on his own recognisances. James Kearney, for non fulfilment of condition of the probation lioense, was committed for a further term of twelve months. Dunedin, December 2. At the Supreme Court to-day the jury acquitted Lindly H. Bowerman, hook can vasser, of a charge of shooting with intent, without leaving the box. Julia Henderick and Ethel Gray, stealing from the person, wore acquitted, and aLo John Atkinson, charged with assault. Dunedin, Deoember 3. In the Supreme Court James Henry Wilson and Frederick Remington, charged with the robbery of £9l from the Savings Bank, were found guilty, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment eaoh. In the charge of criminal libel against Patrick Glinnan, the jury found him guilty of publishing but considered there was no criminal intent, and he was released on giving a recognisance for £3O to come up for sentence when called on.

THE HUTT MURDER CASE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHARGE. TRUE BILLS FOR MANSLAUGHTER. NO BILL AGAINST YUNG BIN.

Nearly the whole of the Chief Justice's charge to the Grand Jury at the opening of the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court on Monday dealt with the charge of murder preferred against Sam Koy, Tom Hung, and Yung Bin for murder at the Hutt, under circumstances which are well known enough to most of our readers. His Honor, having referred to several comparatively unimportant cases on the calendar, said there was, however, a oharge of murder, of which, no doubt, they had heard, said to have been committed at the Hutt. Three Chinamen were indicted for this murder, and the Grand Jury would probably be aware, from previous experience, that on a oharge of murder it was competent, where the indictment was framed for murder, for the petty jury, if they were of opinion on the evidence that the offence of murder waa not made out, but that man. slaughter was, to convict of manslaughter, even though the indictment was for murder. Directing the Grand Jury further, his Honor said their duty was not to try the case, bat to ascertain only whether there was such a prima facie case made out as to make it proper that the person indicted should stand his trial. With regard to the charge of murder, wherever .a person’s death was caused by another’s intention or act—that waa to say, not neoessarily the intention to cause death, but by an intentional act —-it laid upon the person charged to prove the homicidal offence was not murder. If it was proved that a person had oaused the death of another by an intentional act, not intentional murder, then it laid upon the person charged to reduce the act of homicide, if he could, to any less offence. It laid with him to show some grounds of provocation that kind of provocation which was recognised in law as sufficient provocation—and to pro-

duce evidence or to show by argument from the facts or any proper inference from the faots, that the offence was less than murder. That could be done by showing either sufficient provocation or that the act was done in self-defence, or even by accident. That was the law upon the point. With regard to provocstiou, he 'should tell them this also, that it was not any provocation that the law recognised as sufficient to reduce the act and to excuse a person who had oaused the death of another flom a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. It must be that provocation which the law re o gnised as sufficient to have deprived the person of his self-control. Mere words, it had often been decided, were not sufficient. A mere blow was not sufficient, though thore might be suoh a blow, especially when accompanied by words, as would be held sufficient. There were exceptional cases, of oourse, of whioh the grand jury would have heard, such as where a husband found another man committing adultery with his wife; but a trivial assault, a threat, or anything which, properly considered, was not sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of his self, control, would not excuse or justify the inference that the death of the other person had been caused by manslaughter only. Referring to the circumstances attending the crime, his Honor pointed out that death was caused by a wound near the knee which severed a large artery, from which wound, according to Dr Wilford, a person would bleed to death unless prompt steps were taken, and those steps by a skilled person. The fact of the wound being in the knee (his Honor went on to say) indicated very much that the person who gave the stab, whovever he was, did not intend to cause death. If a person intended to oause death you would suppose that he would aim at some other part of the body. But that, he might .tell them, was not material matter at all in this sense, that when a person had committed an assault and it was said that he had done it maliciously and with malice afoiethought, it did not really mean that he intended to kill the man. That was not necessary at all. If in the course of a violent assault—whioh was an illegal act — upon another, he inflicted a wound resulting in death ; then, although the jury might be quite certain he did not intend death, nevertheless that might be murder. Although it so happened that the large artery in the leg was injured and death resulted, that really was not by any means conclusive evidence that the person inflicting the wound, whoever he was, wa3 not guilty of mutder, because, it being an illegal act to wound a person at all in any part of the body (prima facie illegal), the person inflicting the wound was responsible for the consequences, and if death resulted he was guilty of murder. His Honor went on to review the circumstances as disclosed in the evidence given before the Coroner. He pointed out that Smith (the young man who was killed) was the last of the party of young men who ran away after throwing stones at the Chinaman’s hut, and that the next one, Hobbs, heard him cry for help. Then, it was said, Smith fell to she ground, and two Chinamen had been seen to have him, one at his neck and the other at his feet At that time, it was said, Smith was stabbed in the knee, apparently by the Chinamen j that, the young men coming back, the Chinaman at Smith’s head was beaten off, and that one Chinaman was struck by a rail. A third Chinaman had been seen standing in the middle of the road. None of the youßg men wore really able to identify any of the Chinamen. One or two of them thought the man at Smith’s head was Hung, but none were able to say with any degree of certainty as to any of them. Leevers, the railway porter, identified Bin as the man he met, with a knife or something shining, in his hand, 50 or 60 yards away from where Smith was calling “murder,” and Leevers, going there, found Smith staggering about in the middle of the road, while a Chinaman was going into Dr Wilford’s house. He saw Bin twice in the same night. If Bin had not been there before Leevers saw him, the Grand Jury would probably conclude that there was no case againßt him. If lie was 50 or 60 yards off, and only seen hurrying along, not having been at the scene of the oonfliot, the Grand Jury would probably think there was no case against him. But it was for them to when they heard the evidence, whether or not it was consistent with the evidence that he might nfit have been there before and have come away, and then run back. With regard to Koy, he was the Chinaman whom the constable found very much hurt about the head, and sent to the hospital. The evidence of the young men was that the man at Smith’s feet was the one whom they saw make the stab, and that they struck him with a rail. If the Grand Jury found Koy injured in this way they would probably conclude that he was the person at the feet of Smith. As to Hung, the young mon were not certain, but they believed he was the man at Smith’s head, and in answer to some kind of aueation put by the constable Hung bad admitted that he was there when the assault took place. Concluding his remarks with reference to this charge, his Honor said he had already explained what provocation the law contemplated in reducing a charge from mnrder to manslaughter. If it was proved that ths ‘only provocation was the annoyance of throwing stones, manifestly that was not such evidence even supposing the assault took plaoe on the very instant—as would justify reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter. But there was something more to which he would call their attention. It appeared from the evidence of the young mon that when they were running away (lifter doing what was certainly discreditable to a number of boys and young men) Smith, being the hindermost, urged them to stand and face the Chinamen. Then Hobbs said the first thing he beard was Smith saying something about his being struck. If there were evidence that Smith turned round and assaulted the Chinamen in suoh a way as to justify the use of the knife . in self.dofenoe, of course that would not only reduce the charge to manslaughter, but would actually be a defence. If Smith had turned rouud and assaulted the China, men, and any one of them, in the moment of

his being assaulted, had taken from his pocket, say a knife that he had there, that wonld probably be'provocation sufficient in the eye of the law to reduce the charge. But the evidence, so far as he could see, did not justify that inference. He aould not say, of course, what evidence would he put before the jury; he was speaking of that given before the ooroner. The evidence was that the Chinamen were hurrying after the others and were the assailants, and it was Baid that before the stab they were seen with knives in their hands. One other matter he had to allude to was the complicity of persons other than the one who actually committed the assault. Sup. posing the Grand Jury came to the conclusion that it was Koy’s hand that committed the stab in the knee, then the question would be whether the other two ought to be joined with him. Supposing they came to the conclusion that Hung was present and was there at Smith’s head, then they had two taking part in the same kind of assault upon the man—Hung at the head and the other at the feet. If two persons were joined in an assault in this way, although they could not conclude at all that Hung’s mind was neoessarily joined with Koy’s in infiioting the wound, yet inasmuch as they were both taking part in-the same assault upon the Bame person at the same time, the Grand Jury could hardly draw any other inference than that they were really joined in the assault. Supposing they came to that conclusion, they would be justified in finding a bill against Hung. With regard to Bin, the young men did not say that the third man took any part in the assault ; that apparently he ran out of the paddock with the others and joined with them in following in pursuit, and was present there. And if he was present, and stopped there with the intention of committing an assault, or aiding and abetting it, then undoubtedly the Grand Jury would be justified in the conclusion that he was taking part in the assault, though he was not actually injuring a man. Bin said he was not there at the time of the “fight,” but arrived just after it; and supposing that to be true, it would be clear that he was not taking part in the assault. If, dnriug their investigation, it should appear to the Grand Jury that the charge of murder was not one these men should be tried for, but manslaughter, it would be right for them to come into Court and say so, and have the bill altered. At the same time, as he bad already said, the petty jury had the power to alter it. The Grand Jury did not consider the bills in these oases until they had disposed of all the other bills submitted to them. They were oocupiefi from three o’clock till six with consideration of the case, and at the latter hour they announced that they found true bills against Tom Hung and Sam Koy for manslaughter, and no bill against Yung Bin. Mr Coates applied to his Honor the Chief Justice on Tuesday morning to discharge Young Bin, in whose case the Grand Jury ignored the bill. Mr Coates asked that his client might be brought up on the coroner’s inquisition and discharged. His Honor, in reply, said he was not quite sure whether the man could be separately arraigned as he was indicted jointly with the others, and suggested that Young Bin should be released on bis own recoguoisance until the trial came on. Mr Coates agreed to this course of procedure. Mr Young Hee, law student, acted as interpreter, and the man was ro. leased from custody after entering into his own recognoisanoe to appear when the case came on for hearing.