THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1354, 10 February 1898, Page 28

THE COURTS.

; SUPREME GOURT. I * THE BRUNNER MINE EXPLOSION CASES. The rehearing before the Chief Justice of the cases arising out of the explosion in the Brunner colliery entered its twentyfirst day on Thursday. A start was made in October, but there were breaks on account of the sittings of the Court of Appeal, the Christmas vacation and other causes. After speaking for the greater part of three days, Mr Jellicoe concluded his reply on behalf of the plaintiffs yesterday afternoon. He urged that the law declared to be illegal both the use of mixed lights and the firing of shots without supervision; and that some gas was ignited on the morning of the 26th by either a naked light or flame from a shot. Mr Bishop, the mine manager, had admitted that the use of naked lights was a bad practice. The Chief Justice : Would it not be a fairer expression of his meaning to say that he now admitted, in the light of the knowledge gained after the explosion, that the use of naked lights was a bad practice ? Mr Jellicoe proceeded to say that the explosion of the 26th March might have been repeated over and over again if the precautions]which had been taken since that date bad not been taken. He invited His Honor, who was sitting as Judge and jury, to draw the same inference as a jury would have drawn from the fact that the defendant'company had not thought' fit to call Mr Cochrane, the Government inspector, who would have been an independent witness. The plaintiffs said that the defendant Company had affirmatively shown that the explosion originated from one of two causes —by an explosion of fire-damp by a naked light, intensified and carried on by the presence of coal dust; or an explosion of coal dust, with or without an admixture of fire-damp, and originated by a blown-out shot. They further said that the explosion and the deaths of the men ’were due to a negligent system of working the mine, which did not protect the men. So far he had contended that the case for negligence had been established quite independently of the statute. The Act of 1891 was passed, he submitted, at all events the sections now in question were passed, with the object of endeavouring to secure the safety of persons working in coal mines. These sections practically constituted a mine-owner an insurer of his men. The reason was obvious. In this country the coal fields were undeveloped, and not fully understood. The Legislature, therefore, when it entrusted a mine-owner with a coal monopoly, practically left with him the responsibility of seeing that all necessary precautions were taken to protect the lives of the men employed in his mine. He was made responsible for an explosion unless he could show that he was not guilty of negligence. It had been contended that the defendant Company should be taken to havepurged itself of negligence by successfully passing through the ordeal of three trials. In regard to that, he would point out that the plaintiffs had had arrayed against them the services of three of the leading legal firms in New Zealand and the whole coal monopoly of the West Coast. In an unBritish way the defendant Company had Hot made admissions that it might reasonably have been expected to make. It had retained most of the mining experts of the country. The plaintiffs were left with only the dumb witness of the explosion itself. It had been said that the statute was hard upon the defendant Company, but it did nothing more than had been done by the recent amendment of the Employers’ Liability Act in England, which also cast the onus on the employer of proving that there was, 'no negligence. Mr Jellicoe claimed that the plaintiffs, if they succeeded, would be entitled to the costs of the abortive trial at Hokitika. His Honor remarked that he could not conceive that he had any jurisdiction over that trial. It was agreed between counsel in regard to the present trial, that there should be only one set of costs, on the highest scale, whichever side won, the question of extra allowances to be left to His Honor. The Chief Justice said he would consider his judgment. THE HOROWHANUA CASE. MR JUSTICE DENNISTOJVS JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS. The reserved decision of Mr Justice Denniston in regard to the payment of the defendant’s costs in the action the Public v. Sir Walter Buller and Meiha Keepa te Rangihiwinui has arrived from Christchurch, and was made known to the parties on Saturday, when it was found to be in favour of the plaintiff. Argument in the special case stated was heard here in December, when Mr Treadwell and Mr Baldwin appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr H. D. Bell and Mr Skerrett for Sir Walter Buller and Major Kemp. Mr Justice Denniston, in his judgment, said that by the Horowhenua Block Act, 1896, section 10, it was enacted that " for the purpose of testing the validity of the alienation referred to in subsection (/) of section 8 herewith, and also of dealings the registration whereof has been cancelled as aforesaid, the Public Trustee is hereby directed and empowered to institute on behalf of the original owners of the said block, as set forth in the second and sixth schedules hereto, or any of them, such proceedings in the Supreme Court at Wellington as 1 may be necessary for the purpose within six months from the date of the passing of this Act.” There was no provision in the Act as to the costs of or in connection with such proceedings. No property or interest was by the Act given to the Public Trustee in the land affected by. the dealings which

were to be the subject matter of the suit. The effect of establishing the invalidity of those dealings would (assuming them to be onerous upon the land affected) have enured for the benefit of such of the registered owners (if any) as might be ultimately found to be the owners of such land. It was not contended that the persons on whose behalf the action was directed to b© brought were liable for costs, and the Public Trustee had no money of theirs in his hands. Any money received by him under the Act was from specific payments, and was by section 20 directed to be held for such persons, and in such relative proportions, as the Court determined were entitled to it. It was therefore clear and was admitted by all parties that defendants’ costs, the subject of these proceedings, if payable by the Public Trustee out of funds at his own disposal, must be paid out of moneys in bis hands by virtue of his position as administrator of the “ Public Trust Office ” as created and defined by the Consolidating Act of 1894. Very full and special powers were given to the Public Trustee under the Act, but they were all relative to his position as trustee, executor, &c. As to all estates consisting of property other than money, and as to money expressly prohibited from being dealt with as a common fund, the Public Trustee occupied the ordinary position of a trustee. As to all other capital moneys it was provided that they should become one common fund, which should be invested as prescribed by the Act, and that “ any investments made from such common fund shall not be made on account of or belong to any particular estate.” If the common fund should be insufficient to meet the lawful claims thereon, the Colonial Treasurer should pay such sums out of the Consolidated Fund as might be necessary to meet the deficiency. The effect was that such moneys ceased to be as between the beneficiaries and the Public Trustee trust moneys. The relation of trustee and cestui qui trust ceased. They became moneys placed on deposit at interest with the colony, with the colony’s guarantee for the repayment of principal and interest. As between the colony and the Public Trustee, or rather the Public Trust Office, the latter, through the Public Trustee, invested the moneys as prescribed by the Act. The Public Trust Office was, in fact, a trading or banking department out of which money might be, and, in fact, had been made. His Honor thought the Public Trustee had, under the Act, very full powers to manage the business of his office ; and, as incident to such management, to pay all proper claims or demands arising out of such management. It was contended for the plaintiff _ that section 33, which made moneys in or payable into the Public Trustee’s account the property of Her Majesty for the purposes of the Act, made such moneys subject to the provisions of the Public Revenues Act, 1891. Such a contention, dangerous and damaging as it was to the success of and confidence in the department, was, he thought, quite unjustifiable. The provisions of the Public Trust Act gave the Public Trustee power to pay directly out of his account all proper claims. The further point remained, Is the Public Trustee to expend moneys coming into his hands under the Public Trust Act in discharging the duty imposed on him under the Horowhenua Act ? There was no reference in the latter Act to the Public Trust Act, and, as he had said, no specific provision for the costs of the action. The Horowhenua Act did not refer to the Public Trust Act. It directed the Public Trustee to do a specific thing in pursuance of or under th§ authority of that Act. The powers, privileges and rights under the Act were* specifically restricted to things authorised to be done under the Act. Under it the Public Trustee was subject to any directions made by the Public Trust Office Board. Could the board control or interfere with the action of the Public Trustee under the Horowhenua Act? Could the payment of these costs be called a “ lawful claim ” on the common fund under section 32 of the Act ? There was provision under section 47 of the Public Revenues Act for unauthorised expenditure ; that was, expenditure for which no Parliamentary provision was directly made. Under this the expenses of this action had been provided, and the costs ordered to be paid could have been provided. His Honor thought it must be taken that Parliament had a right to assume that the Executive would take whatever steps were necessary to give effect to its directions, and would therefore assume that all payments properly incident to taking proceedings in terms of the Act, including, of course, the payment of costs directed by the Court to be paid, could and would be met by the proper authorities. As to the claim against the chattels of the Public Trust Office, His Honor was not satisfied that property supplied to a public department could be said to be the property of the corporate officer (if he might use the expression) who controlled and managed such department. The property was held for the purpose of administration of the business of the Public Trust Office, under the Public Trust Act, and must be taken to be necessary for such administration. If he were to hold that such property was available to discharge debts not payable in respect of such administration, he should either interfere with the proper administration ©£ the office or make it possible by a series of executions for a debt to be paid indirectly out of funds which he had held not to be available directly. For these reasons he was of opinion that no mandamus should issue as asked by the defendants, and that there were no moneys available under the charging order for payment of costs. It was hardly contended that the officer for the time being holding the office of Public Trustee was personally liable for acts done by him in the discharge of an obligation imposed on him by statute. And His

Honor was satisfied that there was no ground for the contention. In the view he took of the case it was unnecessary for him to answer specifically the questions submitted. He was of opinion that the Legislature must be taken to have • relied on the Executive respecting the obligation imposed on a public officer by providing the necessary funds for all proper expenditure thereunder, including, of course, moneys directed by the Court to be paid to the successful defendants; and that having so relied it had not thought it necessary specifically to provide for such expenditure. There would be no costs. At a sitting in Banco in the Supreme Court on Friday, before the Chief Justice, Mr Richmond, on behalf of the Wellington Law Society, moved for a rule calling upon a country solicitor to show cause why he should not answer the matters contained in affidavits which had been filed, and why he should not be struck off the rolls. On the application of Mr Jellicoe, who appeared for the solicitor, the latter was allowed a fortnight in which to file affidavits and answer the matters contained in those already filed. The Chief Justice, sitting in Banco in the Supreme Court on Friday, heard argument on a question which has arisen upon the construction of a clause in the will of the late Mr Robert Pbarazyn. The clause provides for the payment of commission to the trustees of the will. The main point involved is whether the commission is payable on moneys received by the trustees as exeeutors, or whether, as regards such moneys, the executors must apply to the Court under the Administration Act. Mr M. Chapman and Mr C. H. Izard appeared for the executors and trustees, and Mr Jellicoe for Mrs Pharazyn, widow of the deceased. The executors claim 5 per cent, commission on .£13,330, assets received; and also 5 per cent, commission on the income of the testator’s estate, amounting to about JJ2OOO a year. The value of the estate is assessed at i 860,000. Mr Jellicoe contended that as executors the applicants were not entitled to anything under the clause in question ; and that now that the Court had made an order letting his client into possession, no further moneys could be said to arise from the estate on which any commission would accrue. His Honour held that the provision, in the will in regard to the payment of 5 per cent, commission must be limited to trustees. The clause related solely to the remuneration of trustees, and did not include executors. In regard to commission on the income of the estate,even if the trustees oould claim anything they certainly could not receive anything, because the estate had now been vested in Mrs Phaiazyn, and they were not now receiving money. An application by the defendant for a new trial in the Grey town breach of promise case, Lindop v. Tully, was on Friday refused by the Chief Justice, sitting in Banco in the Supreme Court. Mr Jellicoe supported the application, which was opposed by Mr Bell. The action was tried at the last sittings of the Supreme Court, when the jury awarded the plaintiff .£SOO damages. The action was undefended, and the defendant was unrepresented. Mr Jellicoe now moved that the judgment be set aside and the defendant let in to defend at a new trial, upon the ground that the defendant had neglected to pay proper attention to the process of the. Court, and in ignorance had allowed the plaintiff to proceed to trial and obtain judgment by default. Affidavits by the defendant, his brother (C. J. Tully), the plaintiff’s father, and Mr Jackson Gray, were read. Mr Gray was the solicitor whom the defendant had consulted with respect to the action. His Honor said that Mr Gray’s affidavit showed that the plaintiff was fully aware of the day when the case was to come on f®r trial, but had taken the chance that the plaintiff would not go on, on account of her reluctance to bring the matter before the public. Under the circumstances His Honor held that there was no precedent for granting a new trial, when the case had been tried and the jury had given their verdict. The application was accordingly refused. Instead of following the criminal sittings, the Supreme Court civil sittings in Wellington are this year to commence on the 14th March. The case of Emily Woodward against G. F. and H. Woodward, a petition for the custody of two infant ohildren by the widow of the late Thos. Woodward, was mentioned in Chambers on Friday. Mr Gray, for defendants, requiring time to put in a counter petition, the hearing was ordered to stand over till the document was filed, Mr Wilford consenting on behalf of plaintiff. An application was made in Chambers on Friday by a girl named Entwistie, under the Marriage Act of 1880, to have a judicial declaration made that her marriage with Wm. Morris would be a proper one, she being an infant and her father withholding his consent to the union. It will be remembered that the parties were involved in the wellknown Entwistie shooting episode, and as Mr Justice Edwards had been engaged in hearing that case he preferred that the matter should come before the Chief Justice. Mr Wilford and Mr Andrews, who appeared for the parties, consented to this being done. The divorce suit Ada Sarah Eastwood and James a i wood, in which the wife is the petitioner, wai on Friday, in Chambers, fixed for hearing at the March civil sittings of the Supreme Court, Wellington. The decision of Mr Justice Edwards was announced on Monday in the matter oi a motion made before him in Chambers last week. A plaintiff, who was represented by Mr George Hutchison, moved for leave to serve a writ upon two defendants, who are resident out of New Zealand, by service upon a resident attorney, or, in the alternative, for leave to serve either of the defendants where he may be temporarily resident. The plaintiff is a resident of Waitotara, and the defendants are contractors in Western Australia. The subject matter of the contemplated action is a partnership dispute in connection with railway contracts in Western Australia. His Honor said it could not be that, because a person not resident in this colony had an agent authorised to transact his affairs generally here, he could be sued here in respect of a cause of action which had not arisen in this colony. The agent in question had no power or right to intermeddle in matters whioh had arisen out of this colony. The motion was dismissed without costs. Christchurch, February 3. The case of Parker v. Salt was before Mr Justice Denniston yesterday. This was the case in which the Receiver for the debenture-holders in connection with the Midland Railway Company sought to have a mortgage given to Mr Salt declared

void. When the arbitration case between the Midland Railway Company and the Government was pending, funds were wanting to prosecute it. Mr Salt advanced .£6OOO, and took the mortgage which it was now sought to declare void. His Honor held that the allegations had not been proved, and gave judgment for the defendant, with costs on the highest scale. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, February 7. (Before Mr Justice. Edwards.) The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, Wellington district, opened on Monday. The following gentlemen composed the Grand Jury:—William McLean (foreman), John William Hill, Stephen Lancaster, Maurice Haufmann Samuel, William Cable,' Gerald Fitz Gerald, Henry Frederick Davis, William Edward Woods, John Knox, John McGlashan, Joseph Jameson, Thomas Ward, William Gill, Arthur Warburton, George Mee, Charles Hill, William Arthur Waddell, John Prouse, William Joseph Salmon, Louis Albert Sanderson, Henry Cook, John James Casey and William Edward Welch. CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. His Honor, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said that a considerable number of cases would come before them, some of which, unfortunately, were of very grave import. There was no very great difficulty in regard to any of them so far as their legal aspect was concerned, and therefore he need say very little about the calendar. There were a large number of charges of breaking and entering and theft. The only thing that he need say about these was that in many, perhaps in all the cases, there was no .direct evidence against the persons so charged, except the possession, immediately after the offence charged, of goods stolen from the premises alleged to have been broken and entered. There was a charge of forgery and perjury against a man named Amos Burr. In regard to that there was evidence that Burr produced in the course of' a civil trial in that Court a receipt alleged to have been given in 1872, and to have been witnessed by a Justice of the Peace. This receipt and others subsequently produced all bore a stamp which was not issued till some 10 or 12 years later. The Justice of the Peace in question was dead, but genuine specimens of his signature were in evidence. His son and an expert had given evidence to show " that the signature on the receipt was not his. The whole matter was a question of fact. After referring to other cases, His Honor proceeded to speak of the SILVERSTREAM MURDER. He said that, lastly, there was a charge * against a man named Frank Philpott, alias Stanhope, of having murdered his mate, one Ernest Alfred Hawthorne, at the Silverstream, near the Hutt, in the month of September last, or about that time. As to this case, the Grand Jury would find that the evidence showed that Philpott and Hawthorne were employed together upon a contract for cutting sleepers at the Silverstream. That was unquestioned, of course. They continued together until early in September. The witness who spoke of having seen Hawthorne last alive was a person named Phillips, who said he saw him in company with the prisoner. The prisoner unquestionably represented to a great many persons that Hawthorne had left the district and gone to Dunedin. There was an enormous number of witnesses, but it was evident that the Grand Jury did not want to go through the evidence of all of them. The thing was succinctly shown in a statement made by the prisoner to the police. In that statement, made when the prisoner must have known that his conduct was the subject of suspicion, he stated that Hawthorne, after having previously sold him his camp, had left the district on the 7ch September; and the prisoner produced what he alleged to be a receipt from Hawthorne for the purchase money for the articles in the camp. That document was dated the 12th September. In the course of the same interview the prisoner stated that the receipt was not really Hawthorne’s, but was written out by himself, he having lost Hawthorne's. The Grand Jury would find, therefore, according to the evidence, which prima facie they would credit, that it was clear that the prisoner represented that Hawthorne had left the district and gone to Dunedin on the 7th September. Six days later, on the 13th September, however, the prisoner wrote to Hawthorne’s sister and told her that Hawthorne was laid up with a poisoned hand, and that he wrote the letter in her brother’s name and at his request. There-was some religious matter in the letter, and, as the jury would see, it was an attempt to account for Hawthorne’s, silence. However, on the 12th November the body of Hawthorne was discovered, with a shot-hole through the head, buried in a rude grave near the whare which had been occupied by him in company with the prisoner. Of course, there was a greal deal of evidence in the case, but that, or even a portion of it, was sufficient to enable the Grand Jury to bring in a true bill. He need say no more about the case at this stage. HORSE-STEALING. • Frank O’Neill, alias Patrick Barron, alias Beresford, 31 years, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing a bay gelding, the property of John Barnes, at Motua, near Foxton. His Honor said there were 18 previous convictions against the prisoner for various offences, including a good many charges of theft. He must pass a substantial sentence, but not so severe a one as he would have passed if the prisoner had denied his crime. The prisoner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labour. BREAKING AND ENTERING. George Robert King, 30 years, pleaded not guilty to breaking and entering the

shop of William George Lightfoot, in Cuba street, and stealing therefrom some boots and Bboes, on the night of the 19th : January. After evidence had been given to support the. charge, the prisoner, who was undefended, and who called no witnesses, explained that he obtained the boots and shoes from a hawker who was staying in “the same boarding-house as himself. The jury {foreman, George Remington), after half an hour’s retirement, found the prisoner guilty of being in possession of stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. His Honor said he would not pass sentence until other charges against the prisoner had been dealt with. William Duncan Rennie, 47 years, pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking pnd entering the shop of Albert William Waterhouse, at Masterton, and stealing therefrom the sum of ninepence, on the 24th of November. Hiß Honor said the prisoner had already served three sentences for larceny. The prisoner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labour. Niel Bensen, alias Bernhardt Bensen, . alias Neils Englehardt, 50 years, pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking and enterr ing the premises of S. Strachan, at Halcombo, during the night of the/ 28th December. ” His Honor said *the prisoner was convicted at Kaikoura, in 1888, and at Christchurch, in 1889, of larceny and housebreaking, and was sentenced to three months’ and twelve months’ imprisonment. He would take into consideration the fact that about nine years had elapsed since the prisoner’s last exploit of this description. . The prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with hard labour.

THEFT. Frederick McGlashan,- 38 years, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing a saddle and bridle, the property of Mr T. McGrath, at tV ellington, on the 10th October. His Honor said the prisoner had already served eleven sentences, including no fewer than eight for theft. The prisoner was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Fritz Gagern, 56 years, was charged with the theft of a cheque for £7 6s at Fowler’s, Birmingham, on the 29 th December. '

The prisoner, who spoke in broken English, was< understood to say that the cheque was given to him by a man who owed him money. The case was postponed. FORGERY.

Daniel Jamieson, 19 years, pleaded guilty to the charge of forging a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, payable to « Bicycle or bearer,” and signed “ G. Mills,” v at Palmerston North, on the 29th Novem- ' J^qjs/J. Has Honor : It appears that you have / already been sentenced to 12 months* imprisonment with hard labour for false - pretences, at Palmerston North. - The prisoner: I was sentenced on the 3rd of this month. His Honor: Then you are now in custody, and this is a separate charge ? ■ The prisoner : Yes. His Honor, after reading a written statement handed up to him from the prisoner, said he was inclined to think that this'was more an act of folly than of deliberate criminal intention. It did not appear that anyone had been defrauded, or would have been defrauded, by the forgery. Of . course, the prisoner’s act was utterly unjustifiable, as he himself admitted. But this was not an offence of the most serious character. He ■ >’ thought there was probably, a good deal in the reasons the prisoner urged in pleading for the leniency of the Court. If the 7 prisoner was the writer of the document he must have had a good education. qhe prisoner said the document was his own composition. His Honor, continuing, said that, as the prisoner was already serving a sentence, he did not think it necessary to add to it substantially. He would deal mercitully with the prisoner, whom he hoped would appreciate the mercy shown to him. The prisoner was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour, the sentence to be concurrent with that he was already serving. ALLEGED SERIOUS ASSAULT. Hugh O’Hagan, 23 years, and Thomas Woods, 21 years, two jockeys, charged with attempt to commit a serious assault at Palmerston North on the Ist February, pleaded not guilty. Mr Wilford appeared for the accused. Mr Hugh Cleary was foreman of the jury. His Honor, in reply to Mr Gully, said he did think he had power to turn adults out of the Court, and he did not know that he would exercise the power if he had it. The case was absolutely urfib for ladies to bear, and they should leave the Court. Young persons in Court must be turned out whether they liked it or not. Several women in the gallery left the Court at this stage. Subsequently, during the cross-examina-tion of the principal witness, there was laughter in Court, which was crowded with young men. His Honor said that if there was any mirth he would have the Court cleared of all onlookers. He would not allow the Court to be turned into a theatre. Eliza Southey said she was a married woman and lived in Terrace street, Palmerston Horth. She had been married twice, and had had 15 children. The accused assaulted her at midnight in the yard of the Empire Hotel. She had been taken up for drunkenness. Mr Wilford cross-examined the witness as to her history. Archibald McMillan, labourer, said he saw the assault take place. ConGriffiths said he was attracted by MM?oman’s screams, and on going to the her struggling on the ground ■co men.

Mr Wilford said the defence was that there was a consent. . He called the prisoners, who denied several statements made by witnesses for the Crown. 'J hey said tho woman screamed only when she heard someone coming. The jury, after a retirement of an hour and a quarter, came into Court with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoners were discharged. ALLEGED AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. .. It was arranged that the case of John Healey and Margaret Healey, charged with aggravated assault on a boy, which had been postponed from two previous sittings, should be set down for Thursday, iio BILL. The Grand Jury returned no bill in the case of Elizabeth Stennett, charged with attempt to procure abortion. TRUE BILLS. In addition to those found in the cases reported, the Grand Jury found true bills in the following cases : —William Gill, alias Teare, unnatural offence; John Barry, unlawfully wounding; W. E, Perry, Fred. Arnold and George Arnold, theft; Amos Burr, forgery and perjury; Charles Gurote, breaking and entering; George R. King, burglary and breaking and entering: John King, Patora Ngaihi and W. R. Huru, conspiring to defraud; and Frank Philpott, murder. At five minutes to 5 o’clock the Grand Jury was discharged. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. next day. Tuesday, February 8. (Before Mr Justice Edwards.) V , absent jurors. Thomas Wilkes, James Henry Carson and Francis James Fear, absent jurors, were each fined 40s unless cause was shown for their non-attendance. They subsequently explained that they had understood that the Court was to resume at 10.30 and not 10 a.m. His Honor accepted the explanation and remitted the fines. burglary in luke’s-l vne. Charles Gurote, aged 44 years, was • charged with breaking and entering. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended. Mr J. Smith, jun., was foreman of the jury. Mr Gully, who prosecuted, said the main charge against the prisoner was that he was concerned in a burglary at the premises of Messrs Edwards and Embury, bootmakers, on the night of the 22nd January. The shop in question was situated in Luke’s lane, which ran off Manners street. It had two windows which abutted upon the lane. On that side of the lane the burglary took place. Gurote appeared to have been the watchman, while the other men concerned committed the" burglary. The prisoner was also charged with having had skeleton keys and a jemmy in his possession. Evidence was given, and His Honor, in summing- up, said the question was one of identification. X The jury, after a quarter of an hour’s retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was remanded for sentence till the following day. SILVERSTREAM MURDER CASE. Mr Gully mentioned that it was proposed to take the Silverstream murder case on Tuesday next. He had been desirous to fix it for Monday, but Mr Jellicoe had intimated that he would be unable to attend pn that day. His Honor said he was always desirous meet the convenience of counsel, but this was a matter in which' the question of locking up a jury over Sunday might be involved. The depositions taken in the lower Court covered 174 pag -s, and there was a large number of witnesses. If they through the ease in six days they would do very well. He was no£ prepared to run the risk of its being necessary to lock tip over Sunday 12 men who had to discharge a public duty, for which they were practically not paid. Ho thought Mr Jellicoe had better make other arrangements.

A few minutes later Mr Jellicoe appeared in Court. Mr Gully said he understood Mr Jellicoe to.say that it was not possible for him to begin the case on Monday. His Honor :On what grounds ? Suppose I were to decide to take the case tomorrow ......

Mr Jellicoe, who mentioned that he was defending the prisoner gratuitously, said he had not anticipated that the case would be reached before Tuesday.

His Honor said that so far as he could see the case would last a full week. Tbe course Mr Jellicoe was taking, apparently at his own convenience, would probably necessitate tbe looking up of the jury for 24 hours.

Mr Jellicoe said he had conferred with counsel for the Crown (Mr Bell and Mr Gully), and understood that they both were willing that the case should not be taken before Tuesday. His Honor : I must consider the jury. You won’t be locked up. Mr Jellicoe said he didn’t know. (Laughter.) It meant that if the man was to stand his trial on Monday he might be .undefended, as it would be impossible for him (Mr Jellicoe) to be ready then. lie had consented to take the case with great reluctance, and he had had very hea cy work since.

Ilia Honor said it did not matter one iota to him on what day the trial began. The persons who ought to he considered were undoubtedly the citizens who were brought there to discharge a very unpleasant and very onerous duty for practically no remuneration at all. Mr Jellicoe said it was only during the last few days that he had had notice of some witnesses.

His Honor said that might be some reason for not trying the case at these sittings. After some further discussion,

His Honor said he thought counsel had better see if they could not arrange for the case to begin on Monday.

ALLEGED FORGERY. The case of Amos Burr, charged with forgery and perjury, was mentioned. His Honor said that if the prisoner’s counsel preferred the case to be tried before the Chief Justice, so much the better. In the afternoon,

Mr Young, counsel for the prisoner, said His Honor had given him an interview in Chambers in regard to this case. He had nothing to add to what he had said in Chambers.

His Honor said that, if the Crown consented, he should be very glad to have the case adjourned for hearing before the Chief Justice. But the Crown did not consent. He could not think there was any real reason whatever why he (Mr Justice Edwards) should not try the case. The sole reason suggested was, he believed, that the trial at which the alleged forgery was produced took place before him, and that he probably knew too much about it. He could not see how that was going to affect the fair conduct of the trial. At all events it would be his duty to see that it did not. Ho did not admit that it would.

Mr Gully said he wanted to go on with the case at these sittings. Mr Young said there was some difficulty about witnesses. The accused was unable to secure the attendance of some of his. The Crown had refused to grant them passes from Palmerston North, or to get them here by any other means. Mr Gully said the witnesses were all subpoenaed for to-morrow. The Crown witnesses were all in attendance. His Honor said he had no power to mske the Crown pay anyone’s expenses. It was agreed that the case shoul l be taken on the following day. AN ABOMINABLE OFFENCE. William Gill, alias Teare, aged 41 years, was charged with committing an offence on a mare in a stable in Wellington on the 10ch January. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was undefended. The jury, who deliberated for 25 minutes, found the prisoner guilty. The foreman (Mr George Remington) said the jury thought it was a matter for regret that the constables who were watching the prisoner did not interfere before the offence was committed, seeing they had sufficient grounds for a conviction- for attempt. The prisoner was sentenced t 0... three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. A CHRISTMAS INCIDENT. W. E. Perry (28 years), Fred. Arnold (35 years), and George Arnold (30 years) were charged with theft. The prisoners, who pleaded not guilty, were undefended. Mr F. J. Fear was foreman of the jury, The case for the Crown was that the certain articles of clothing, the property of M. E. Loughnan, stolen from the office of Messrs Morison and Loughnan, in Wellington, on Christmas Eve, were on the following day sold by the prisoners to a second-hand dealer. The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned. His Honor said he did not propose to keep the jury locked up. In . releasing juries in criminal cases the Court relied upon them to obey the injunction not to speak to anyone outside of their own number about the case. The Court, at 5.10 p.m., adjourned till half-past 10 o’clock next morning. Timaru, February 8. The Supreme Court criminal sessions began to-day. Ten cases were on the list and seven were disposed of. In a case of false pretences no bill was found. A girl, who pleaded guilty to retaining <£2o, tbe property "of her guardian, which sum she alleged she had found, was released on condition that she was of good behaviour. D. Salmon, an old station hand, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment f ( 'r attempted rape on a young child. F. Williamson and A. Finn were sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for stabbing without provocation. T. Sounness was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for wilful windowsmashing. Roberts and McKellar were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. for breaking into a store on the 7th. In the case of J. Qasey, charged with stealing £l6 from the bedroom of the licensee of the Ship Hotel, the jury disagreed.