THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1163, 15 June 1894, Page 32

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. 0 CRIMINAL SITTINGS. His Honor the Chief Justice took his seat upon the Bench yesterday week at 10 a.m. SENTENCE. Christopher Lockyer, who was convicted the previous day of keeping a brothel, 'came up for sentenco. His Honor said that as the man owned some property and had relatives in the city, it was reasonable to expect he could find sureties for good behaviour. The sentence of the Court was that he should bo imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three months, and that he should be bound over in his own recognisance for <£1()0, and two sureties of .£2O each, as security for his future good conduct. Until ho found these sureties he would be imprisoned for a further period not exceeding three months. ALLEGED FORGERY. Walter Charles Prior was indicted on a charge of having on the 3rd April last forged the name of W. and G. Turnbull and Co. to a chequo on the Bank of New South Wales and with having uttered the same at tho Royal Oak Hotel. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Wilford, pleaded not guilty. Richard James Coulson deposed that ho was formerly with S. Gilmer, of the Royal Oak Hotel, as clerk. Ho first saw the accused on the 3rd cf April, lie came to the office oft the Royal Oak Hotel at 8 p.m. and

j asked witness to cash a cheque. Witness at first declined. Prisoner said it was one ■ of Turnbull's cheques and witness eventually cashed the cheque. The prisoner then endorsed it with the name of " G. ! Finn." Witness afterwards handed over the cheque to Detective Gantley. Prise ilia Aldous, tobacconist, thought ' tho prisoner was the man who bought some cigars and tobacco at her shop on the 4th ! April, and then asked for a blank cheque of the Bank of New Zealand. Witness said she had no Bank of Now Zealand cheques, I only Bank of New .South Wales ones. The I person referred to said. " Oh, that will do ; I I can alter it." Witness brought her | cheque-book, and the man put down a ; threepenny piece, saying " Never mind the i change ; give me three. 1 ' Witness tore out ; three cheques and handed them over, but j was sorry for it immediately afterwards. Geo. Fife McLean, cashier at W. and G. | Turnbull and Co.'s, deposed that in his i opinion the signature to the cheque pro- ! duced was not in tho handwriting' of Mr ! Turnbull or Mr Reid, who were the only i members of the firm who signed cheques on behalf of the firm. The firm had no account I at the Bank of New South Wales. Douglas Inglis Scott Burnes, ledgerkeeper at the Bank of New South Wales, j Wellington, stated that the cheque produced was presented on the 6th April by - Detective Gantley. Messrs Turnbull and j Co. had no account at tho Bank. I Detective Gantley gave evidence as to ' tho arrest of the prisoner. Alex. 11. Turnbull and Nicholas Pteid, I members of the firm of W. and G. Turnbull and ! Co., were called and stated they had not either ; signed the cheque produced or authorised { it to be signed. Mr Reid said tho signaj tare to the cheque somewhat resembled his own handwriting. MrCoulsonwas recalled, and having in

(ho meantime referred to the books kept at the Royal Oak Hotel, he now stated that the date on which he cashed the cheque for the prisoner was the 4th of April and not the 3rd April. Tho jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Thcro are three more charges to be heard against tho prisoner. THE CASE OF W. H. HARRIS. In the case of W. H. Harris charged with forging the name of W. W. Beswick, postmaster at Gisborne, to a promissory note for .£SO, Mr Skcrrett (counsel for the defence) intimated that lie would bo prepared to proceed on tho indictment tomorrow (Saturday). The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Chapman) said he would ask leave to amend the indictment if necessary. The Court was then adjourned till next morning. ALLEGED CHEATING AT PLAY. Henry Harness pleaded not guilty to having on tho 25th March at Porirua cheated in a certain game with dice with intent to defraud Kips Baldwin. Mr Skerrett appeared for tho prisoner. Kips Baldwin, butcher, Marton, deposed that in his capacity as Volunter ho was present at the Volunteer encampment held at Porirua during Easter. The prisoner had a shooting gallery or tube thoro close to the canteen. In the evening he saw the prisoner in a tent close to the canteen. He thought this tent had been put up by tho proprietor of tho canteen for the entertainment of his customers. When witness entered the tent a gamowas being played, but it was changed soon afterwards. Tho table was covered with a glazed cloth, having marked on its eight divisions various geometrical figures, besides a crown, feather, &c, and the gamo was played with three dice. If a shilling were placed on one of tho symbols on tho cloth, and if a die turned up with a cor-

respondingjsymbol, a player got one shilling in addition to the stake, if two dice turned up with this symbol he got 2s besides the stake, and if three dice turned up with it he got 3s besides the stake. After witness had lost 248 or 30s at the game lie suspected that something was wrong, and, therefore, picked up one of the dies and examined it. I He found there was no crown upon it, and, I as the prisoner had represented the marks on the dice corresponded to those on the table, ho accused him of cheating, and demanded the return of his money. The prisoner swept off the cloth and (lice and cleared out of the tent. In answer to His Honor, the witness said he did not remark at the time, but he now saw that each die had only six faces and therefore could not have the eight symbols marked upon it. Examination continued He followed j prisoner when he went outside and took ! him back to the canteen, where he de- ! manded his money back. He handed j over either 8s 6d or 9s 6d, and was arrested by an artilleryman. He told prisoner that if he did not give witness his money back I he would give him in charge. He told him I it was a swindle, and he did not deny it. To Mr Skerrett: "\Vitnes3 had shaken | with dice for drinks. He stood looking on j at the game before he joined in. He had j got all his money back, and consequently I came out all right in the end. Did not get I angry until he found it was a swindle, i They collared all the money that was on | the table, but did not afterwards set upon ! accused in the grounds. He would have ! listened to any explanation, but accused ! did not offer one. The Volunteers did not ; call accused names at all. The crown ; came up pretty often at first, and, noticing j this, he backed it with success, others following suit, but the crown did not turn

up afterwards. Players could have backed anything they liked. Edward Hurry deposed that he was at the encampment, where accused drew out a gaming figure-marked cloth, and said the figures on the dice corresponded with those on the cloth. Ho saw accused change the dice after tho gamo 'had been started awhile, and told him of it. Prisoner denied having effected any exchange, and told witness to shako tho box and throw the dice out himself. He observed him put his hand in his pockot, though, and then shako tho dico before giving them to witness.

His Honor: What was that for; was ho shaking them up for luck ? Witness, smiling, said he did not know. One of tho Navals picked up one of the dice and said there was no crown on it. He .wanted to know tho meaning of that, and then the row took place. Witness lost about 15s altogether, and next morning asked accused to give him some of it back ; ho would be satisfied with ss. However, accused would not give him anything, but eventually ho got half a crown out of him. John Larkin deposed that he backed tho crown and lost a shilling (laughter). . Cross-examined: He saw nothing wrong with the gamo. To His Honor: Ho did not understand the game. Colonel Newall, who was in command at Porirua, remembered the disturbance. He went to tho guard tent where the prisoner was confined and spoke to him. He knew tho prisoner, and expressed surprise when he saw who it was that had been locked up. He had given him permission to have a shooting gallery in camp. A dice was handed to witness, and he asked prisoner where the others were. His reply was that ho did not know. However, on accused being searched three were found in his pocket. He told him he was charged with playing an illicit game, and that among others one man had lost 15s. Prisoner, who said ho had been roughly handlod, expressed his willingness to hand it back, to which witness replied that he would see about that Liter on.

To Mr Skerrett: Knew Harness, of whom he had a rather good opinion. Thought he was a hard-working man and did not belong to tho class known as spielers. Detective Herbert said ho had seen the game played that they had had described to them during the case. To give the players a chance with the banker four dico would have to be played with instead of three. He had seen the game played on racecourses, but tho odds would be in favour of the banker if the dice were "rigged." If people were backing any particular character, and a dice with that character on it was changed for another with none on it, the odds were of course all in favour of the banker. This was tho case for the Crown. For the defence witnesses were called only as to character—William White, messenger at tho Government Buildings, who had known accused for seven years, and Walter Mansfield, who had known him for ten years. They deposed that he was a hardworking man, and was always in constant employ. Mr Skerrett then addressed the jury. After the summing up the jury retired at 20 minutes to 5 o'clock, and after an absence of 15 minutes returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty. The Court then adjourned until 10 o'clock next morning. His Honor tho Chief Justice took his eat upon the bench on Friday, at 10 a.m. THE "FISH CEMENT" CASES. James Eastwood, alias James Rogers, and Thos. Eastwood, alias Thos. White, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them with having, between the 10th and 16th May last, conspired by deceit, falsehood and other fradulent means to defraud the public; and with having in particular conspired by these means to defraud Mary Elizabeth Edwards, Alfred Arthur Landall, Susan Janet Feek and Kate Everton. The prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr Poynton appeared for James Eastwood and Mr Wilford for Thomas Eastwood. Detective Herbert deposed that he arrested the accused on the morning of the 17th of May at Schofield's, in Taranaki street, on a charge of conspiring to defraud Mr Walters. On searching James Eastwood he found a bunch of keys, with one of which he opened a portmanteau at the lodgings of the accused, which James Eastwood had said was his. In the portmanteau he found a number of printed labels for "Jager's Fish Cement." In the same room he found small bottles, some filled with stuff and labelled "Jager's Wonderful Fish Cement," others empty; also corks for the same, sheets of glue or gelatine, and a billy (all these articles were produced). Next day he was handed a sAall valise (produced) containing razors, shaving brushes, purses, bracelets and some bottles filled with a substance labelled "Fish Cement." He was also handed a small box filled with similar bottles, filled with a like substance and labelled in the same way. In James Eastwood's room, moreover, he found a box of groceries. Parcels of *' fish coment" in bottles (produced) he procured from Mrs Edwards and Mrs Feek respectively. He took one of the bottles found in the valise to Mr Brownrigg, chemist and druggist, to be tested, and gave to Mr Wieken, picture frame dealer, a bottle out of each of the parcels to test. Witness likewise made a test himself on a broken cup, following the directions for use given on the labels. He left the cup with Mr Walters, with instructions not to interfere with it for 48 honrs. He saw the cup afterwards, and found tho stuff did not appear to have any effect upon it. Cross-examined by Mr Poynton: Mr Brownrigg was in the employ of Messrs Kerapthorne, Prosser and Co., and at the time witness went to him he was managing Mr Woods' business in the latter's absence. Robert Schofield, lodginghouso keeper

Taranaki street, deposed that James Eastwood and another man named Watts, engaged a bedroom at his house on the 10th May. One of them borrowed a "billy," saying he wanted to boil something in it. He tcok it upstairs, brought it down again, and placed it on the kitchen stove to boil. This occurred six or seven times between the 10th and the loth of May. To His Honor: He asked James Eastwood what ho had been boiling in tho " billy," and he replied " Koyalter glue." Ho saw glue and water in the " billy." Susan Janet Feek, managing for her son a grocery business in Courtenay stated that on the morning of the 15th of May tho accused Thomas Eastwood came to the shop, bought a loaf and asked if she had any of Jager's fish cement. Witness replied that she had never heard of cement of that kind, but that she was going out and would enquire for it. Thomas Eastwood replied that he wished she would, as he used a quantity of it for leather work. He also said witness could get it for 7s Gd a dozen, and that he would give 103 a dozen for it; also that it was made in Auckland. In the afternoon the other prisoner came in and asked if she would buy any "fish cement." She replied "That's strange, I have had that enquired for." She said she would take half a dozen and see if th* person would come back again. She paid him 4s, and told him she might take some more. He informed her that by the gross the price was £4, 10-s, and 7s 6d per dozen. Thomas Eastwood, the other prisoner, came back in the evening, when she told him that she had the cement he had asked for. Ho bought it, and paid her 5s for it, at the same time asking hero to try and get some more. Next morning she was out, and both called, so she learned, during her absence. When she returned the man who sold the cement came in again and offered her seven dozen of the cement. Informed him it was too great a quantity for her, as tho man might not come back who wanted it. He said he would take part payment in groceries, so she eventually gave him 15s in cash and 23s worth of groceries. Some of those produced were the ones she gave him. She owed him 10s on tho transaction, and this lie was to call subsequently for. Never saw him again, nor the probable buyer, the other prisoner again, and she handed tho cement over to Detective Herbert. Mabel Feek, daughter of the last witness, also gave evidence Kate Everton, keeper of a grocery shop, gave evidence to one of the prisoners calling and asking for some fish cement. Next day the other j>risoner came in and asked if sho wanted any of tho " lines " he had in his bag, including a bottlo of fish cement. She took half a dozen bottles, on the understanding that if the man who had asked for it had not called he should take it back. An hour afterwards the other prisoner called and bought the halfdozen, which he so id was not enough for him. He intimated that ho would call again. The seller of the cement waited on her husband, but was informed that no more of tho stuff would be bought from him. About half an hour afterwards the buyer came for the fresh supply, but was told by witness' husband that he could not get it. Prisoner demanded the return of a deposit of 10s he had made for a further supply, but her husband refused to give it to him, and told him to return at 8 o'clock tor it. He refused to go out of the shop until he got it, and her husband put him out. After some bother accused said he would return at 8 o'clock, but he did not return then or at any time again. There was a reason for not returning the money. Cross-examined: Sho still had the 10s

so that sho did not lose anything by the transaction. The seller had not made any representations about tho efficacy of the cement. *

Martin Everton, husband of last witness, also gave evidence. Arthur A. Landall and Mary E. Edwards, both keepers of stores, gave evidenco respecting visits of tho prisoners. The firstnamed witness did not buy any, but tho latter, owing to one of the accused having left her 10s as a deposit, bought eight dozen, for which she paid £3. James Eastwood was tho purchaser, but never came back for the cement or tho 10s. She had tried the cement.

Counsel: How did you try it ? Witness: I tried to stick a stamp with it, and it wouldn't stick. (Laughter.) Mr Wilford: Tho directions say that an article on which the cement is used must bo given 48 hours. Did you give it that time ?

Witness: No. (Laughter.) Willoughby M. Browiirigg, druggist, gave evidence that the cement was apparently only common glue with a lot of water with it. The "cement," bottlos, corks, paper, and everything should not cost from Is 6d or 2s a dozen.

Dr Skey, Government analyst, said he analysed the cement, and found it was animal glue and water. Frederick W. Wicken, picture-frame maker, deposed that he had tried the cement on moulding and cardboard, without result. This was tho case for the Crown. Messrs Poynton and Wilford addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners. His Honor briefly summed up, and tho jury retired at 5.30 p.m., but could not agree, and were discharged.

At the Supreme Court, on Monday afternoon, James Hackett and Priscilla Hackett surrendered to their bail and were charged with having at Wellington on the 4th May and on divers other days between the 4th and the 10th May conspired together by deceit, falsehood and other fraudulent means to defraud the public and particularly to defraud Frederick Augustus Vaughan and various unknown persons at Wellington on the 4th and Bth of May and at Petone on the 16th of May by protending to exercise sorcery and the conjuration of spirits, whereby they pretended to conjure in a certain room certain disembodied spirits. Tho indictment also charged James Hackett with having fraudulently pretended to have the power of communicating with tho spirits of deceased persons and to cause these spirits to be produced in a materialised or other form, by means of which pretences both prisoners unlawfully obtained .£5 from F. A. Vaughan. The prisoners pleaded not guilt}'-. Mr Poynton appeared to defend Priscilla Hackett and Mr Wilford appeared to defend James Hackett.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Chapman), in opening the case, explained that tho jury were not asked to try the possibility of such things as spiritualistic manifestations. It was nothing to them whether or not there was anything in this supposed occult science called spiritualism. There were wide differences of opinion as to what it was, and as to what amount of fraud there was in it. The jury, however, were not asked to enquire into the reality generally of spiritualistic manifestations. What they wero to enquire into was the genuineness or otherwiso of what took place under the auspices of the accused. Supposing even they were absolutely convinced there was something real in spiritualism, they still would have to convict the prisoners if they thought that although the manifestations might be produced, yet that these prisoners did not produce, but only imitated thonij pretending they were real,

Only one witness was examined,Vaughan, a compositor, whoso evidenco, taken at the lower Court the other day, we published in full at the time. Both Mr Poynton and Mr Wilford crossexamined witness, but nothing material was elicited. The Court adjourned shortly after 6 o'clock, the witness being admonished not to talk to any of tho others subpomaed in regard to the case. Accused wero released on bail for the night. i His Honor the Chief Justice took his ■3at upon tho Bench at 10 a.m. on Monday. ALLEGED FOKGEBY. Walter Charles Prior was charged with having on tho 30th March forged and uttered a cheque for £2 ss, made payable to Mr Wilkins or bearer and signed " llarcourt and Co." The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Wilford, pleaded not guilty. Mr Chapman appeared to prosecute for the Crown. Margaret Fama, wife of Vincenzo Fama, baker and confectioner, Willis street, believed tho prisoner to be a man who came to her husband's shop on the 30th March between 7 and 8 p.m., bought a shilling cake, and gave tho cheque (produced) in payment. Witness said, " I suppose it wants endorsing," and prisoner replied, "Oh no, I've cashed many of them." Witness saw that the signature was " Harcourt and Co." and then cashed the cheque, handing tho prisoner the change, £2 4s. Chas. Herbert Lucena, teller Bank of New Zealand, stated that the cheque (produced) was presented by Mrs Fama, and dishonoured. The cheque form was one of two sold by witness to the accused, who gave the name of Bryant. John Bateman Harcourt, auctioneer, deposed that the cheques (produced), ono for £2 5s and another for <£4 103, although signed " Harcourt and C 0.," wero not in his handwriting, and had not been authorised by him. Julia Godber, wife of James Godber, confectioner, deposed that on tho 31st March the prisoner bought from her a shilling's worth of mixed cakes, and gave in payment the cheque (produced) for .£4 10s drawn on Harcourt and Co. She cashed it and gave him tho change, £4> 9s. Arthur Lindsay stated that the prisoner came' to his father's boot shop in Cuba street on the evening of tho 2nd April, and that he sold him a pair of tan boots for lGs 6d. The prisoner gave a cheque for £5 10s signed " W. and G. Turnbull and C 0,," and witness cashed it, handing prisoner tho change. Priscilla Aldous, tobacconist, Lambton quay, gave evidenco as to selling three blank cheques to the prisoner. Richard James Coulson, formerly a clerk with Mr Gilmer at the Royal Oak Hotel, said that on the 4th April prisoner came into the office of the hotel and asked him if he would cash one of Turnbull's cheques. Witness refused at first, but afterwards cashed the cheque, which accused endorsed with the name of " G. Fenn."

Alexander H. Turnbull, of the firm of W. and G. Turnbull and Co., George Fife McLean, cashier in the employ of the same firm, and Douglas Inglis Scott Burnos, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New South Wales, gave evidence similar to that which they gave last week in a case against the prisoner.. Detective Gantley deposed as to the arrest of the prisoner. Peter Thompson, clerk at the Bank of New Zealand, stated that tho Bank had a customer named Bryant whom ho knew by sight. The accused was not Bryant. This was tho case for the prosecution. No evidence was called for the defence. The jury retired at 1.15 p.m. and returned into Court at 3.15 p.m., finding the prisoner guilty of uttering tho cheque for £2 5s to Mrs Fama knowing it to be forged. The prisoner was remanded till next morning for sentence. THE PRACTICE OF PALMISTRY. On Friday at the Supreme Court Lily Caroline Hansen, alias Lily Tisher, surrendered to her bail, and was charged with having on the 30th April at Wellington unlawfully undertaken to tell the fortune of William John Butler. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Wilford, pleaded not guilty. Detective Herbert deposed that he knew the accused by the name of Madame Tisher, but that she had shown him by her marriage certificate that her real name was Hansen. Sho lived in Lome street, Wei-

lington, and had had an advertisement in the paper announcing that sho revealed the " Past, Present and Future," at a charge of Is for ladies and 2s for gentlemen. In company with Constable Butler, who was in plain clothes, ho went to the house of the accused on the evening of the 30th of April. The accused opened the door, and in answer to witness' question " Do you tell fortunes here P" she replied "No; I read hands by the science of palmistry." They entered the house, and witness asked the accused to read the palm of his friend. She asked, "Are you going to pay me," and was assured this was their intention. They then sat down, and accused, taking Constable Butler's hand in hers examined the palm, and told him that ho had had a very serious illness, that he was fond of horses, and had sustained a severe accident in the past from a horse, that a near relative was then ill, that he would inherit money through the death of a relative, that ho would be married twice, and that he was of a quiet disposition but hasty temper. They asked her charge. The accused said " two shillings/' and 2s was accordingly paid her. When they entered the house there were a lady and two children there.

Cross-examined: He did not remembor that Madame Tisher's first words to Constable Butler when sho took his hands were, " Physically, you aro a fine man." Neither did he romember her saying to Constable Butler, " You would be a fond husband for a lono woman." Sho was fluent and talked a good deal about the " Mount of Venus " and the " Plain of Mars." He did not think he could again find "the Mount of Venus" on Constable Butler's hand. She also talked of what she called the " bracelets " on Constable Butler's wrist (i.e. the wrinkles caused by bending the wrist inward), and laid that these denoted that he would live to a good old age. Ho did not regard this as a joke at the constable's expense, for other [persons who practised palmistry had also mentioned the " bracelets." He would swear that the accused did not say to him, " The next time you come, come .with your masks on." She knew he was a detective.

Constable William John Butler deposed that he accompanied Detective Herbert on the 30th April when ho went to the accused's house in Lome street. Detective Herbert told the accused that he had brought his friend (witness) to get his fortune told. She replied that she did not tell fortunes, but read palms. They went in, and the accused said " I suppose I'm going to bo paid for it." Witness then submitted his palm to her inspection, and her reading of it was then detailed. His account of it agreed with Detective Herbert's, but went further. Madame Tisher had said he was fond of building castles in the air, and that if he saw a man going down the street and knew he had jfiiOO or .£SOO in his pocket he would have that money if ho could. Cross-examined : Ho admitted ho was fond of horses; ho did not know anyone who was not. He objected to say whether ho had been connected with a racing stable, but he had ridden horses. Ho had had a slight accident from a horse. Mr Wilford : Now if you saw a man going down the street with J 6400 or .£SOO in his pocket, would you take it if you knew you would not be found out ? Witness: How could I know I would not be found out ? But if you did know ? I don't know what I would do. His Honor : Aro you dishonest ? Witness : Not so far. Cross-examination continued: To the best of his knowledge the accusod did not speak of " bracelets." She told him, however, he would live to a ripe old age. This was the case for tho prosecution. No evidence was offered for tho defence. Mr Wilford then addressed the jury, and His Honor summed up. The jury retired at 11.30 a.m., and returned 20 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. The accused was accordingly discharged. At the opening of tho Supreme Court on Friday morning the Chief Justice remarked that in the case against George Anderson, in which Mr Tanner appeared the other day, he found that there was a more recent decision than the one referred to on that occasion. It was a decision of Lord Justice Smith in 1893 in the Queen v. Gavin, and it was there distinctly held that the answers made by prisoners to policemen were admissible in evidence. He thought it highly probable, were the principal j

fact to bo provod by such evidence, tho jury would not act upon it. He hoped tho police would not understand from tho discussion that such a practice was approved, although tho evidence so obtained was admissible. On the contrary, he understood that tho instructions given to tho polico were not to question prisoners when they were in custody. Ho regarded theso as very proper instructions, and all tho Judges approved of them whatever they might say as to the admissibility in ovidenco of answers obtained from prisoners in custody. Ho had thought it necessary to mention this matter. With regard further to this case of Geo. Anderson, His Honor said he did not prevent the accused from making a statement to the jury. On tho contrary, ho had stated tho accused might make a statement, but that it would give Mr Chapman the right to reply. Thereupon Mr Tanner elected not to call upon, his-client to make a statement. Dunedin, June 8. At tho Supreme Court to-day Charles Gamblo, a bankrupt, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for failing to keep propel' books. Auckland, Juno 8. Mrs Mary Alice Jenkins has been acquitted of tho charge of breaking and entering, but sentenced to two years on tho charge of receiving goods knowing them to havo been dishonestly obtained. CIVIL SITTINGS. Some civil cases were heard beforo His Honor Mr Justice Richmond. NATIONAL BANK V. ANDREW YOUNG. In this case it appeared that defendant was formerly a member of tho firm o£ Cassidy, Young and Co., coach proprietors, mail carriers, &c, and assigned his share in the firm to tho bank as security for some small amount owing to tho bank. When the partnership was dissolved Mr Young received .£SO cash, a bill for £6O, and a coach and horses, and tho bank now claimed to havo possession of those goods. The contention was that before taking them the bank ought to indemnify Mr Young against any liabilities in connection with tho performance o£ mail-carrying contracts for the Government. Mr Hislop appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Quick for tho defendant. His Honor reserved judgment. CHAPMAN V. HEBBEND. The defendant in this case, Jane Hebbend, is tho owner of a house in Murphy street, Thorndon, and made arrangements to let the house to the plaintiff, Mary Chapman, for .£52 a year. Subsequently she failed to carry out the arrangement, and was now sued for specific performance of tho contract. Mr Sinclair appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Poynton for tho defendant. Mr Poynton contended that there was not a 7 sufficient agreement to satisfy tho statute of frauds, and also that there had been suppression of facts. His Honor reserved judgment.