ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.

New Zealand Mail, 20 August 1902, Page 22

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.

TRIAL OP MRS DRAKE

FIRST DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

At the Supreme Court on the 13th, before Mr Justice Edwards, the trial was begun of Mrs Harriet Drake, wife of Arthur Drake, Otaki, for the manslaughter of her eight-year-old daughter, Dorothy Gwendoline Drake, at. Otaki, on the 26th of June. There were minor counts for causing actual bodily harm and common assault. The Court was densely crowded throughout the proceedings—the gallery being packed with women, who strained eagerly over the balcony to get a glimpse of the accused. Mrs Drake is a tall, dark-haired, pale-com-plexioned woman of about forty. She was closely veiled, and attired in deep mourning. In a low tone of voice she pleaded not guilty to the indictment. Messrs Gray and Herdman prosecuted for the Crown. The accused was defended by Messrs Skerrett and Wiiford. Mr Jellicoe held a watching brief on behalf of an interested party. The following jury was sworn:— Thomas Wilson, 43, Martin square (foreman); Henry Joseph Pearman, Riddiford street; Christopher Marcbell, Herald street; Thomas Ambrose Clark, Herald street; Albert William Moran, Brooklyn; Arthur Robert Alpe, Brooklyn; Albert .Hatfield, 54, Austin street; James Alphonsus Martin, Kilbirme; Mark William Griff eii, 46, Abel Smith street; James Goer, Taitville; Edmund George Corbet, Johnsonville; and Joseph Tilyward, South road.

Mr Gray, in opening the case, said the charge was, happily, one of very rare occurrence in the colony—it being against a mother for causing the death of her own child; the means employed being beating with a whip. The accused was the wife of a farmer in a good position. The circumstances of the case were painful and shocking—not the least painful being the fact that tne Crown had to rely partly upon the evidence of two of the prisoner’s daughters. Counsel detailed the circumstances as already reported, and pointed out that the medical evidence showed that the child had died of shock, the result of violence. The Crown intended producing evidence not previously given to show that the conduct of the mother towards this particular child before the occurrence had been devoid of the slightest spark of affection. This might influence them in deciding whether or not the accused had cruelly beaten the child in the manner lie had described. The case had excited a ;|reat deal of interest, not only in the locality in which it had occurred, but also in Wellington. He asked the jury to dismiss from their minds anything they might have heard or read about the case, and to be guided solely by the evidence which would be laid before them. The social position of the accused was not to be taken into account, except that it might be regarded as an aggravation of the offence with which she was charged.* Matilda O’Connell was the first witness called by Mr Gray. She stated that she was employed as domestic servant in prisoners house. There were seven children—three girls and four boys—the eldest being about fifteen years and the youngest a year and ten months. The deceased child Dorothy was about eight, and had been away from home for some time living witb an au’f at Taranaki; she only returned soon after last Christmas. Witness identified a photo of Dorothy taken during her temporary absence, and stated that she was a healthy child at the time of - her death. She remembered the afternoon of the 26th June, when Loeta was trying to induce Dnrothv to say her lessons in the dining-room. Accused and May being also present at the time, Loeta had said ‘‘Dorothy, ye| are a naughty girl,” and witness hearu the sound* of slaps. The heating might havo lasted half a minute, but not more. Witness heard the younger sister, May, address Dorothy, saying, “ Come along, Dorothy, and say it for me,” followed hv more slapping. Witness next saw the child in the hall about an hour afterwards with her mother. Mrs Drake was slapping the child with a riding-whin (produced). The accused had hold of the child’s hand, and was heating her about the body, holding the lash as well as the handle of the whip. Witness was ing through t > the kitchen at the time, and heard a few slaps after entering it; that would be between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon. The child was fully dressed, with the exception of boots and stockings, and the accused appeared to be angry. Witness last saw Dorothy at about half-past 7 that evening standing in the dining-room with her mother and sisters, Loeta and May; and she looked a bit paler than usual. Witness had noticed the marks of some bruises on the child’s legs before that. _ Witness never saw the child alive again. Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett, the witness stated that Mrs Drake had always been a careful mother, and the children had lived happily together. The deceased had attended school regularly; she. was a very stubborn child. Witness had heard Dorothy fall in the dining-room about half an hour before

dinner; but the child had not made any complaint of being hurt. Re-examined by Mr Gray: She had seen Mrs Drake beat Dorothy with a supplejack in the kitchen on the previous Saturday. When she last saw Dorothy alive, Airs Drake was speaking to her about her lessons. - •

Loeta Constance Drake, aged fifteen, eldest daughter of tiie accused, deposed that Dorothy had been a long time living with her aunt, and had not gone to school until after returning home. She was not quick at her lessons. Witness remembered being in the diningroom with Dorothy, Alay and her mother on tne affcemoon of the 2Gth June. Witness was trying to get Dorothy to repeat a verse of poetry, but she would not ; and witness slapped her with the supplejack on the arms and bare legs. Dorothy did not cry, and Alay then tried to get her to repeat the lesson. As she would not. May had whipped her on the legs ana arms with the supplejack.' Alay tried a second time to get her to say her lesson, and as . she would not, her mother had whipped her, after saving, “If you do not say it, I will punish you myself.” It was the riding whip which her mother had used, beating Dorothy across the body. The whip was her mother’s. It was usually kept in tne hall, from which her mother liad fetched it before the beating. Her mother had held the butt and lash in her hand when applying it. After the whipping, Alay had again tried unsuccessfully to get. her to repeat the lesson in the passage. After some time, her mother had followed them out, r,*- tC ] witness had heard her again beating Dorothy in the passage. Dorothy had screamed slightly more than once. Witness noticed a few marks on her legs that afternoon. Dorothy had been playing about with the other children in me dining-room before going to bed. She was taken there by her r.other and Alay. Her mother had told Dorotbv to go to bed after tea. Doro-

s by had walked part of the way to bed, but being unsteady on her feet, her mother had carried her tho remainder of the way. Dorothy had complained of icing unwell after tea. Witness had not heard Dorothy say anything after being put to bed. tier mother had sent her to fetch her father, whom she met on the road some distance outside. Witness was cross-examined by Air Wilford. She stated she had not heard Dorothy fall in tile dining-room before dinner, but she had heard Matilda O’Connell say, “Oh! Dorothy, is that you ?” to which her deceased sister had merely smiled. The whip and the sup•‘Mack had been kept in the hall for riding purposes. Thera had not been any further whipping after that administered by her mother in the passage during the afternoon. Witness had been only once to tne bedroom from the time' her mother took Dorothy there until she was sent to fetch her father, .tier mother had tola her if she did not meet him. to bring a doctor. Her mother had given Dorothy whisky and milk after tea, as she had complained of being unwell.

At the conclusion of the witness’s evi_ deuce, as the Court was about to adjourn, Mr Skerrett applied that the accused he admitted to the same bait as heretofore, which was herself and her husband in £4OO, and two sureties in £2OO each.

His Honor consented to this course. Mr Skerrett mentioned that circulars had been published, and were obtainable at a stationer’s shop in town, calculated to prejudice this unfortunate woman in her trial.

His Honor: If there is any improper interference with the course of justice y° u must bring it before the Court in a formal manner. You don’t expect me to institute proceedings against stationers ?

Air Gray observed that he thought his friend was suggesting that the Crown was prejudicing the case

Alr Skerrett disclaimed any such idea. His Honor said at all events he would take the responsibility of keeping the uiether until the case was over. Hie jury was then locked up for the ngiit. and the Court was adjourned until next morning., SECOND DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. At the Supreme Court on the 4th, before Mr Justice Edwards, the trial of Airs Harriet Drake, wife of Arthur Drake, Otaki, for the manslaughter of her eight-year-old daughter, Dorothy Gwendoline Drake, at Otaki, on the 26th of June, was resumed. There were minor counts for causing actual bodily harm and common assault.

As on the previous day, the Crourt was crowded with spectators of both sexes. The accused entered leaning on her husband’s arm, and took her place in the dock.

Alessrs Gray and Herdman prosecuted for the Crown. The accused was defended by Messrs Skerrett and Wilford. Air Jellieoe held a watching brief on behalf of an interested party. The following are the jury:—Thomas Wilson, 43, Martin square (foreman); Henry Joseph Pearman, Riddiford street; Christopher Alar_ chell, Herald street; Thomas Ambrose Clark, Herald street; Albert William Moran, Brooklyn ; Arthur Robert Alpe, Brooklyn; Albert Hatfield, 54, Austin street: James Alphonsus Martin, Ivilbirnie; Alark William Griffen, 46, Abel Smith street; James Goer Taitville; Edmund George Corbet’ Johnsonville; and Joseph Tilyward’ South road. ’

Frances, May Drake, the fourteen-

year-old daughter of the accused, examined by Air Gray, deposed that she had gone to Otaki School with Dorothy, who had been attending it for about a mouth. She corroborated the evidence of hex’ elder sister, Loeta, with regard to the slapping of Dorothy in the din-ing-room and hallway, for not repeating her lesson, on the afternoon of the 26th June. Witness and Loeta had used the supplejack, and her mother had beaten her twice with ■ the whip. Dorothy had not taken any tea that evening, merely having a drink of milk; and her mother had thought she was stubborn. Dorothy had taken some whiskv and milk afterwards, as she complained of being unwell. Witness and her mother put her to bed, and witness noticed blue stripes on her legs. i’-ness had not heard her complain afterwards.

Cross-examined bv Mr Skerrett. witness said her father was in the backyard while Dorothy was being beaten, about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Dorouiy had appeared quite well until teatime. Dorothy had not been beaten after the whipping in the passage. Witness was in the bedroom with Dorothy and her mother until the doctor’s arrival, except for one interval while she was fetching some whisky. Dorothy had complained twice during the evening of water in her ears, and her mother had examined them. Dr Patrick J. Power testified that he had been practising in Otaki for the past seven or eight years, and remembered being called to Drake’s house a; about 9.10 p.m. on the 26th June. O i arriving there, he found the accused in the bedroom with the child, who was quite dead. The mother asked him if the child would recover, and to avoid giving her a shock he had replied that the child was very bad. Airs Drake thereupon exclaimed. “How frightful! How fearful!” but she did not seem *o get into any great panic. He noticed a mark on the child’s left eye like a slight black eye, and also some slight abrasions around the eye. Oil making an examination of the body, lie found extensive bruises aird discolouration all over, with the exception of the face and neck. The marks were most pronounced on the legs, and appeared to be severe bruises, being dark blue ia colour. There were dark bruises on the chest and stomach, and horizontal linear cuts on the right side of the abdomen, m groups of three, and making about fifteen altogether. The skin was broken, and the cuts had the appearance of very severe scratches; they were slightly tinged with blood. They* appeared to be abrasions of the skin, as if caused by the lash, of a whip, and the blood had dried. There was a larger abrasion a little higher up on the ribs •if the right side ; and the skin was just broken, and it was more of a bruise. There was an older abrasion on the left side of the abdomen. He. found a depression on the right side of the skull, ■’st above the ear. There were severe bruises on the back, arms and hands. he bruises were so coalesced all over riie body, with the exception of the abdomen, that there was no spot on "Inch you could get a sixpence between them. Airs Drake held the light while he made his examination, and remarked more than once, “How frightful! I gave her a severe thrashing,” also stating that she was a naughty girl and told stories. Witness told the accused that an inquiry should be held into the cause of the child’s death, to which she had replied, “You don’t think it necessary, doctor?” Witness had repeated that it would be far better for her own sake to have an inquiry, to which she had answered, “Could not you prevent it?” He said “No.” That was all that took place at the time. Accused told him he had attended the child for fits seven or eight years before, but he told her that would not

•P the inquiry. He had no recollection of having ever attended any of Airs Drake’s children for fits, or this particular child for any ailment. That night ho formed the opinion that the child was about an hour dead; and next lay, about 1 or 2 p.m., he made a postmortem examination in conjunction with Dr Clay. On examining the inner circles of the depression on the head, hey had found the inner fibres of the muscles broken, and a little coagulated blood between the skull and the scalp. The external depression was about an inch and a half in length and one-eighth of an inch in breadth. The injury was such as would have been caused by a fall or a sevei’e blow on the head, such as might have been inflicted with the butt end of the whip handle (produced). There was a small circular depression about an inch /Her up which, with the other, would correspond with the shape of the whip handle. All the organs of the body were in a healthy condition, and the •fly appeared to have been well nourished. The bruises on the body appeared to be the result of violence, and could not have been caused by the thin end of the crop through the child’s clothes, or by the lash. The abrasions on the abdomen might have been caused by the lash while the child was undress- ; and the thong at the end might have caused the groups of abrasions there. All the bruises seemed to have been inflicted within the previous twen_ y-tour hours. He arrived at this conclusion from the colour of the bruises He believed that death had resulted trorn shock produced by the injuries on the body, or from concussion of the brain.

Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett: Accused was depressed and despondent when he was called in, and spoke coolly

and reasonably. There wa.. ithing in her conduct that might no*. Live been expected of an affectic::a<’« mot her There was no attempt on • p ar j. ' conceal the fact that she lino administered punishment to the chi.:-. Whera the depression existed was a pt -t cf the skiill which the child was liable to have injm*ed by a fall. He considered a fall a more probable cause of the injury than a blow with a blunt instrument Supposing the child had sustained a fall at half-past 11 o’clock in the forenoon it was quite possible that death might not result for some time, but the child would be insensible from concussion. It was possible, for death to occur without the mother observing the symptoms of concussion. He had found coagulated blood in small quantities inside several of the bruises. The object in incising some of them -was to ascertain if they had been made during life, and were not caused by disease.

Previous to the adjournment for luncheon witness accounted for certain discrepancies in his evidence by statin--* that he was unwell. °

On resuming at 2.5 p.m. Air Skerrett continued his cross-examination of Dr Power. The witness thought that “he child must have been very severely and continuously beaten to account for the condition of the body. He had made twenty or thirty post-mortem examinations 'in his life, the lost before this case being about nine years ago. He did not know that post-mortem stains frequently resembled the effects of flogging.

• . in Skerrett quoted the authority of Dr Tidy on “Legal Aledicine ” to.show that such was possible. Witness said that post-mortem stains might resemble flogging, but could not be mistaken for it. He had not examined the wind-pipe to see if death had resulted from suffocation, but the heart would havo indicated if anything of the kind had occurred. ~

Counsel quoted Bronardel on “ Death and Sudden Death ” to show that examination of the wind-pipe was necessary in all cases of post-mortem. Witness replied that authorities differed on such matters; and that the lungs and heart showed no symptoms of suffocation. He had not examined the intestines, but there were no superficial symptoms of death by convulsions. He had not made any microscopic examination of the blood. A person suffering from shock, and dying within four hours, would be exhausted, in a semi-comatose state, or nerhaps affected with hysteria. It would he extraordinary for the child to have been playing about during the evening and be suffering from shock. The witness was questioned as to other diseases which would give no post-mortem indication, and said he had no reason to expect their existence.

Re-examined by Air Gray, the witness said he was quite satisfied the child had not died from any of the causes Air Skerrett had quoted as being possible. The post-mortem had been performed in a skilful manner. Dr Lloyd Clay, Otaki, deposed to having made a post-mortem examination of Dorothy Drake in conjunction with Dr Power. They found extensive bruises and abrasions all over the body, and a depression over the temple region on the right side of the head. He had satisfied himself that the injuries on. the body were bruises; they were such as would have been caused by a stick, or cane, or whip. The. mark on the head was such as would have been caused by the butt end of the whip. All the organs of the body were healthy, and the conclusion he had arrived at was that death had resulted from shock or concussion. The mark on the head would have caused concussion, and shock might have been produced by the other marks on the body. Death might result from concussion immediately, or not for a. long time. He would expect the patient to be in a semi-comatose condition in the meantime, and death to take place some time after the shock.

, At the conclusion of the witness’s direct examination, Air Skerrett intimated that he would not be able to conclude his cross-examination of Dr Clay that evening. His Honor a,sked if there were any witnesses for the defence. Air Skerrett replied that he would probably call some. In the meantime there might be some discussion with his learned friend with regard to the admissibility of certain evidence, and it was not necessary that the jury should be present at that discussion. His Honor expressed his readiness to deal with the matter then, and the jury retired for the night. Mr Gray observed that the evidence ho intended to submit was with regard to £he conduct of the mother towards this child on previous occasions, indicating dislike. It had been stated that the child had been living away from home for a long time with an aunt, and he proposed to call the aunt-, who took the child in August, 1899, and restored it to the parents as late as the 15th February last. He proposed to put in evidence, statements made by the accused to the aunt as to her feelings towards the child, and not only what she said, but. the manner in which the aunt had observed her to treat the child. The aunt, Airs Jenkins, was a sister to Air Drake, and she" could also prove the state and

n;H ( »n of the cliild when she took ffiS? of her, her condition while m and at the time of being reared to her mother. He also proposed Sig other witnesses to speak of the Suet of the accused towards the SSL and of her treatment of her prior to Mrs Jenkins taking her away. Ho submitted that this evidence would help the jury to determine what.the intention of the mother was, and also the degree of her culpability. It was quite clear that if the charge were one of murder the evidence would be admissible, and certainly it was relevant -n a charge of causing actual bodily harm It was relevant here because it went’to show that it was not an isolated act of cruelty, but was part, of what might be called a system. ' His Honor: I suppose the defence is that whatever took place was not an assault, but a proper and lawful exercise of parental control. Mr Skerrett did hot think he should he asked to give his defence at that stage, or that it had anything to do with the admissibility of evidence. His Honor observed that counsel would have to indicate it if the question were to be gone into. If it was a lawful exercise of parental control, and if the child died, it would he misadventure. Mr Gray: When it exceeded the bouuds of moderation, then it became unlawful. It is relevant, therefore, 1 submit, to show that the mother acted in such a manner. Counsel proceeded to quote authorities on the subject, and said the evidence to which he alluded would show the state of mind that would necessarily accompany the doing of an unlawful act. Mr Skerrett submitted that such evidence would be clearly inadmissible. It was first necessary to understand what the Crown should establish before it could ask the jury to convict on any of the counts. There was no question but there was a reasonable occasion for correction —that was undisputed and indisputable. The next question was— Was the punishment reasonable? If unreasonable, was it the cause of death? If so, it was manslaughter. No question of intent or of condition of mind was involved in any of the acts; no condition of mind was involved in that inquiry; no question of accident or design was involved; nor could it be suggested that the acts or declarations alluded to were iii any way connected with the acts which were alleged to constitute the offence. The jury would have to consider the case by reference to what Had occurred that day—the actual circumstances, the wea--1)011 used, and the age and condition of the child. These could not be added to, or assisted by, exterior circumstances. The jury should determine the question of the reasonableness of the punishment by reference to the actual circumstances. It was alleged that three years ago the mother had made some statement which would indicate ill-feeling to the child. That she denied ; but it had nothing to do with whether the punishment on this occasion was reasonable or not. How could anything that had occurred two years and ten months anterior to the state of things under investigation, and which was not alleged to have affected the child’s health, be relevant? Intent was quite beside the question. It did not matter what the intention of the woman was, the question to be decided was was the correction immoderate or excessive ?

His Honor asked how would counsel’s argument apply if the jury thought that the woman intended to kill the cliild? Ut course, they must not assume anything against the prisoner, but if the jury thought that under the pretence correcting the child the woman had used excessive violence? Mr Skerrett: Intent is immaterial. ?°“ or . : I don’t say so. There y not he intent to commit murder; smL+,w r ° m l y H intent to commit something unlawful. so^bl! kerrett i- If a paront exceeds reaabhnJf v orr :? tlon , and in consequence fn+r ? I 1 ® 9 ,’, tho , u £ h tlie Parent does not intend death, that is manslaughter. Intent is absolutely immaterial. There is no depute that the act of striking the lealr/’ ln , tent r al , what my adm?t L f m end as l ts is tlbat y° u should fora vidence of acts three years bethe child™ 7 ? dl l lk - e to uniust } submit that it would he on 3 a mrH- ete ™mmg what occurred toccnrr P d t„ U r i? to g ° back to occurred years before. bth<w f»A° n ? r F emarke d that there were that for m S th ® “dictment besides xnat tor manslaughter. If Mr Sker- - rieW in Ms contention" it • P® M) the better for him that ■ Mri c6 .^" w b ® xtaitSi! tliat ,n conclusion, said the throw P, r ?secution was not to minds t ?L thl ? CaS ®’ to 611 tbe aeaimt ?i. • pir y with prejudice SghTnot \rd? er ’ - B ‘ > J tbat the cas ® to this narii? determined by reference then maU™* rcserve d his decision in loSfnert r mnr? letl .adjourned until again admitted to^i? 6 accused bein S THIRD DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. lo^Mr 6 & em CF Urt on be. Mrs Harriet Edwards, the trial of Harriet Drake, wife of Arthur-

Drake, Otaki, for the manslaughter of her eight-year-old daughter, Dorothy Gwendoline Drake, at Otaki, on the 26th of June, was resumed. There were minor counts for causing actual bodily harm and common assault. As on the previous days, the Court was crowded with spectators of both sexes. The accused entered leaning on her husband’s arm, and took her place in the dock.

Messrs Gray and - Herdman prosecuted for 'the Crown. The accused was defended by Messrs Skerrett and Wilford. Mr Jellicoe had a watching brief on behalf of an interested party. Tht following are the jury:—Thomas Wilson, 43 Martin square (foreman); Henry Joseph Pearman, Riddiford street; Christopher Marchell, Herald street; Thomas Ambrose Clark, Herald street; Albert William Moran, Brooklyn ; Arthur Robert Alpe, Brooklyn; Albert Hatfield, 54, Austin street; James Alphonsus Martin, Kilbirnie; Mark William Griffen, 46, Abel Smith street; James Goer, Taitville; Edmund George Corbet, Johnsonville; and Joseph Tilyard, South road. Dr Lloyd Clay, whose direct examination concluded the previous evening, was examined by Mr Skerrett. He stated the injury on the child’s head was the most serious of all, and was sufficient to have caused death. There was nothing inconsistent in its having been caused by a fall. In his opinion, none of the marks below the neck could Have been caused by the metal handle of the whip, nor were they likely to have been inflicted through the clothes. A very severe flogging should have been ;,d----ministered to cause them. He attributed death to shock or concussion. He did not think the injuries, apart from the mark on the head, would have caused death. He had made notes at the time of the post-mortem, which could be available if required. Counsel expressed his desire to have them, and witness said he would wire to Otaki and have them sent down. Further cross-examination failed to shake the witness’s direct evidence. He did not believe that death could Have resulted from suffocation or intestinal derangement without symptoms being apparent.

Re-examined by Mr Herdman, witness expressed the opinion that the child would have become unconscious after the blow on the head. He did not believe that she would have been playing about afterwards in the ordinary way. He had no doubt that the child died, of shock.

Constable Timothy O’Rourke gave evidence that .lie was stationed at Otaki. and knew the accused. He remembered going to her house shortly before 11 p.m. on the 26th June. Jtie saw the child lying dead in a bedroom, and examined the body in Dr Power’s presence. He described the injuries. After that he saw Mrs Drake in the presence of her husband in the front bedroom. The husband said, “Mr O’Rourke has come to see you,” and she made answer, “You know I did not do it all myself.” The husband remarked, “Mr O’Rourke will do the best he can for you.” The whip (produced) was given to him by MiDrake on the 27th June, the day of the inquest. Witness was present at the post-mortem, and the body presented the same appearance as on the previous night, except that tlie hands were covered.

In reply to Mr Skerrett, witness said he did not believe it possible to put the point of one’s finger between the discolourations on the body. Dr Power had called his attention to the mark on the head. Chief Detective MeGrpth was present with him at the post-mortem examination.

Chief Detective McGrath deposed to having arrested the accused on the present charge on the morning of the 28tli. Mrs Drake made the statement, “She was severely beaten, tout I never intended to do her harm. lam sorry to say she was very stubborn. I was never alone with the child in the room. The two girls held the lamp while I gave her milk and. spirits. I did not think the beating caused her death • but, oh! she is horribly bruised. I never saw the bruises until she was dead.”

Mr Gray stated' that this was all the evidence he intended offering, except that regarding the admissibility of which his Honor had. yet to decide. His Honor said the question was—whether the woman used reasonable correction to the child under the circumstances ? In his opinion, “ under the circumstances” must necessarily mean all the circumstances, including the relations between the child and the prisoner. To his mind the case stood in exactly the same position as that of a schoolmaster charged with assault. For instance, if a lad set himself to destroy the discipline of a school, and after repeated warnings still persisted in such behaviour—how much more punishment under the circumstances would he reasonable and proper than in the case of an isolated instance? There was no expressed authority upon the point, and he should reserve it; but at present he would admit the evidence. Mrs Mercy Jenkins was then called by Mr Gray, and deposed that she was the wife of Thomas Hunter Jenkins, a farmer residing at Elthain, Taranaki, and a sister to Arthur Drake, husband of the accused. She was in the habit of visiting her brother’s house at Otaki, and also when he had lived at Waipawa. She knew the deceased

child, Dorothy, and first saw her when she was about two and a half years old; that was about five years ago. Dorothy was in the nursery at the time, in her bare-feet; and as the weather was cold, witness had commented on the fact to the mother, who said they were not used to many fires there; and that when the child was tired running one way she could run the other. In August, 1899, her brother wrote for her to come and take Dorothy away. She remained a few days on that occasion. In, a conversation with Mrs Drake the latter had stated that Dorothy was “ a dirty beast of a child,” compared her to an animal, and said she had taken after her father, who was “ a dirty, selfish, bad man.” She told witness to take the child, and do whatever she liked with her; that she could adopt her and keep her. Accused said she disliked the child through her husband being intimate with one of the servants. Accused had made use of a lot of other statements against her husband, whom witness always believed to he a good man. Witness remained at Otaki about three days. She did not observe any bad behaviour towards Dorothy, who appeared to be always kept in a room, and not allowed to mix with the other children. Mrs Drake had said tliat the alleged impropriety on her husband’s part had taken place shortly before Dorothy’s birth. The cliild seemed rather stunted, was lame in one leg, and could not walk well; which witness attributed to her being constantly kept inside. Witness took Dorothy home to Elfeham, and found her to he a remarkably clean child, and very obedient. Witness had no trouble with her whatever; and she became greatly improved during her stay—getting healthy and stout, and able to walk six miles. Dorothy was a gentle, obedient, cheerful child. Shortly before last Christmas her brother wrote for the child. The mother had come to see the child once in the winter of 1901, and asked if witness could keep her a little longer, as she was busy at the. time. Witness had expressed a desire to keep her altogether, but the accused did not, as far as she could remember, 'make any answer. Witness brought the cliild home on the 15th of last February, and never again saw her alive. The photograph of Dorothy (produced) was taken while the child was living with witness. She had always been on friendly terms with the accused.

Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett, witness said Mrs Drake had not asked her to adopt the child. She admitted having spoken to Mr Jellicoe about the case, but denied having instructed him to appear.

Re-examined by Mr Gray, witness stated that Mr Jellicoe had advised her to go and make her statement to the police. Mrs Sarah Webbey, a lialf-caste Maori, wife of Edward Webbey, Otaki, gave evidence that some five years ago she was in service at Drake’s, and spenttwo years in their employment. Dorothy was' at home at the time, and was two or three years old when witness left. Mrs Drake never let her play or have her meals with tlie other children, and was in the habit of calling her a dirty child. Dorothy usually had her meals with the servants. Sometimes Mrs Drake fed her there, and the other children in the dining-room. Mrs Drake whipped Dorothy sometimes, but only when the child was naughty. Sometimes Mrs Drake tied the child to the fence with a tether-rope around the child’s waist. She would tie her up after breakfast; bring her in to dinner; and tie her up again during the afternoon. On wet days the child was put into. the nursery by herself. Mrs Drake said ahe used to tie her up to keep her away from the river; but as there was a high wire-netted fence on the hank of the river, the cliild could not have reached it. She was treated that way all the time witness was with Mrs Drake.

Cross-examined by Sir Wilford, witness said the river flowing in front of Drake’s property was the Waikawa river. The rope with which the child was tied was fastened round her waist. She was given toys to play with when tied up. When Mrs Drake punished Dorothy for being naughty she somehit her with the hack of a brush. She was always well fed; but the mother did not appear to pay as much attention to her as to the other children.

Mrs Jessie Martha Rickard, wife of John Rickard, junr., Manakau, deposed that she was formerly at service in Drake’s house, both' in Otaki and Waipawa, for three different terms, making up about three months altogether; that was about three years ago, and Dorothy was then about four years old. She did not appear to be treated the same as the other children. She was punished more by her mother; a strap being used for the purpose, and the child being beaten on the body. This had occurred pretty frequently. The child ’ had been tied to the fence at Waipawa, but the other children were never treated in that manner. Witness had seen her tied in the wash-house in wet weather.

Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett: The ohild had always been well clothed, and appeared to be well fed.

Counsel proceeded to ask the witness regarding the position of the fence between the house and the river

His Honor interposed that it was a mr-rtor of no importance. Jiither it was right or it was wrong to tie the child to the fence; that was the question for tho jury.

-Mr Skerrett contended that the question was, Whether the tying to tlie tence was an act of oruelty? He intended to show that it was not; apd that it was quite a usual tiling for parents living along the banks of the river to tie up tHeir children to prevent them falling into it.

His Honor said it was quite immatehether the fence was there or not, and he should tell the jury so. Tho question for them was one of fact. . _ Ueplying to further questions from Mr Skerrett, witness denied any knowledge of two little girls having been drowned in the river at Otaki; or that Dorothy had on one occasion beeo found m a drain.

During the witness’s evident—was some laughter from the spectators in the body of the Court, which his Honor sternly rebuked, reminding them that they were not in a theatre, but attending the trial of a very serious case.

Thomas Candler, labourer, residing at Manakau, gave evidence that he had spent about seventeen years in Arthur Drake’s employment at Waipawa, and left it about four years ago. . He sometimes had his meals in the house, and saw the deceased child sometimes in tho kitphen and sometimes tied to a fence, lhe child would-have been between one and two years old at the time. The wire fence was about five chains from the house, on the- river bank, and the child was tethered in the kitchen yard. George Philips, labourer, who had been fifteen months in Drake’s service previous to. October, 1895, gave cerrol Dorative testimony. Mr Skerrett cross-examined the witness at some length in front of the jurybox with respect to tlie position of the fence referred to—using a plan which had been handed in during the hearing: or the case.

His Honor observed that really his patience was nearly exhausted with the line pursued by counsel. In reply to a further question, the witness said it would be possible for the child to get into tlie river if unattended.

At 3.20 pmi., Mr Gray informed the Gourt that Dr James, who he intended to call, had to attend an operation, and would not be disengaged before 4 o clock.

His Honor accordingly adjourned the Court in the meantime. Mr;Skerrett intimated that he had several witnesses to call to rebut tlia evidence that was being given. On resuming at 4.10 p.m., D r Philip * James was called as_ expert evidence and testified that he practised in Wellington., and had had considerable experience. If a cliild had been severely beaten so as to cover the body with bruises, and death ensued, death would be the result of the violence which had caused tho bruises. He considered it would result from shock, which really meant a condition of collapse caused top injury to the nervous system. Any vi£i lence applied to the surface of the boddi was followed by a degree of shock, which would depend on the extent and severity of the violence inflicted. When shock resulted in death, the manifestations presented themselves almost on receipt of the injury, such as faintness and insensibility. Concussion would b® accompanied by conditions essentially the same—insensibility. Shock would apply to any other part of the body than the head, and would be oouveyed to the brain through the sense of the nerves. Concussion might he more or less severe—quickly fatal, or it might pass off in five minutes. Death mio-ht result from concussion without leaving any appearances discernible to the na ked ©ye. Concussion produced immediate insensibility; but shock would not be so absolutely instantaneous in its effects, although it would produce insensihihty sooner or later. It was possible for a person to die from shock due to heart failure without being absolutely insensible, but that was an exceptional case. Death _ might result from shock without any .indication from any of the tlie body. Assuming that the child had received a severe beating, and the injury to the head mentioned! it was reasonable to conclude that death had resulted from concussion or shock or from both. Certain conditions of the iunp and heart were apparent in cases of death from suffocation. It would be extremely improbable that a child could die from such a cause without a parent who was present being aware of it. In the course of a lengthy cross examination by Mr Skerrett, witness gave it as his opinion that an ordinary postmortem—not microscopic—might bo made in an hour and a half or two hours. He considered that under the circumstances mentioned the medical men who had made the post-mortem would ho quite justified in arriving at the conclusion that death had resulted from shock, in the absence of any indications of disease.

ilia Honor asked if the child had sustained a fall during the early part of the day which would produce concussion, would the effects have been observable before half past 7 in the evenmg, which appeared to be the time th® olr.ld first complained? The witness expressed the opinion that they would; and mentioned that vomits ing was an- almost invariable symptom of concussion. -- --- J L

FOURTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. At the Supreme Court on Saturday, before Mr -Justice Edwards, the trial of Mrs Harriet Drake, wife of Arthur Drake, Otaki, for the manslaughter of her eight-year-old daughter, Dorothy Gwendoline Drake, at Otaki, on the 26th of June, was resumed. There were minor counts for causing actual bodily harm and common assault. Messrs Gray and Herdman prosecuted for the Crown. The accused was defended by Messrs Skerrett and Wilford. Mr Jellicoe had a watching brief on behalf of an interested partv! The following are the jury:—Thomas Wilson, 43, Martin square (foreman); Henry Joseph Pearman, Riddiford street ; Christopher Marchell, Herald street; Thomas Ambrose Clark, Herald street ; Albert William Moran, - Brooklyn; Arthur Robert Alpe, Brooklyn; Albert Hatfield, 54. Austin street; James Alphonsus Martin, Kilbirnie; Mark William Griffon, 46, Abel Smith street; James Goer, Taitville; Edmund George Corbet, Jolinsonville; and Joseph Tilvard, South road.

Mi* Wilford, in opening the defence, reviewed rhe evidence given for the prosecution, and said the defence would make a strong point of the medical evidence of Dr Power and Dr Clay, particularly with reference to that part which dealt with the wound on the right temple. Dr Power had stated in cross-examination that a fall was '‘more probable” to have caused it than a blow, and Dr Clay had stated that a fall would be quite sufficient to account for the injury, and that there was nothing inconsistent in the theory that it had been so caused. The defence would submit that the injury was caused by a fall, and that if the accused had used the whip to inflict it she would not have been satisfied with striking the one blow. Counsel further contended that death might have resulted from other causes not indicated by a postmortem examination, such as haemophilia; that no acts of cruelty had been proved against the accused, unless the beating on the day in question could be construed into such: that the evidence with regard to the tying to the fence was simply brought up to prejudice the prisoner's ease, and constituted no cruelty at all. it being quite a common thing for mothers to tie young children to pivvent them wandering out of thc-ir sight and into danger: and that the fact of toys having been left with the child when so secured completely disposed of that theory. They intended showing that- Mrs Drake was not a woman of cruel disposition, and done everything she possibly could for this little child.

Jessie Biekucll deposed that she resided 2-t Nelson, and lived for about a yeg_ with the Drakes at Waipawa in IBlh'-S. Bite was governess to the children : and Sarah Web bey and George Philips were also employed there at the time. Dorothy was then three years old. A\ itness had every opportunity of judging of Mrs Drake’s conduct towards her children, and she always found her kind and the children most devoted to her: they were a most happy family. The only difference in

the mother's treatment of Dorothy was that site was a difficult child to manage. being very stubborn, but witness

had never seen any severity exercised towards ’the child. Witness mod to take all the children but Dorothy for walks: Dorothy could have come if she had wished. The child had accompanied her on one or two occasions to the beach when the mother was away, and witness was in charge. She had seen the child tied up once or twice after going there, but Dorothy was very fearless, and would have been in danger if left to do as she wished. Cross-examined by Mr Gray: Mrs Drake had a fear of the children getting into the river.

Annie Maitland Stewart Barraud -gave evidence that siie lived at Tiuakori road. Wellington, and resided at Otaki before that. The prisoner’s house was close to her place, and there was frequent intercourse between the households. The children, including Dorothy, were always happy, playing about; and witness never saw any difference in their treatment. Previous to her coming to Otaki in January cr February, 1899, witness had stayed a week in prisoner’s house at Waipawa, and had seen the child treated the same as tlio others, and having her meals in the dining-room. There was nothing to indicate that the mother had any dislike to Dorothy. Cross-examined by Mr Herdman; Witness was aware that Dorothy went away from Otaki in August, 1899. She thought tiie reason was that the mother was ill at the time, but Mrs Drake had expressed to witness on several occasions that she was anxious to have the child back.

Ada Hayes, Manakau, deposed to having been in Mrs Drake’s service a little over eighteen months previous to February, 1899. The accused was very devoted mother, and her children were very happy. Witness saw no difference in Dorothy’s treatment, or any indication of dislike on the mother’s part. Witness only saw her tied up once to her knowledge; the child was rather old then to be tied up; that was at Waipawa. She had seen Mrs Drake punish the cluldren, but not severely; she had seen her use a strap towards Dorothy.

Cross-examined by Mr Grav: Witness admitted having been'M.n the gallery of

tlio Court during the trial, although required to be out of hearing. Louisa Wilhelmina Reese, Otaki, gave evidence to having lived near the accused at Waipawa for about five years, during which time witness frequently visited her house. Witness considered Mrs Drake could not. have been a better mother, as she devoted all her time to her children, and Dorothy appeared to be just as dear to her as the others. Mrs Drake had asked her to take charge of the child about April, 1896, when she was going away to New Plymouth, and had offered to make every provision for the child’s comfort during her absence, but witness did not take Dorothy at the time. Cross-examined by Mr Herdman: Witness had never seen Dororthy tied) up, but she was aware that such had occurred. Mrs Drake was accustomed to tio all the children up at times when she was busy and could not- attend to them, and had told witness so. That was when she had asked her to take Dorothy. Witness had expressed her unwillingness, as she had a child of Imr own of the same age, and it would be difficult to take care of both when she would require to fetch firewood. Mrs Drake had then offered tier a rope to tether Dorothy, stating that she was in the habit of tethering all her children. Witness had never tethered’any of her own children, but she had put thorn in tubs to keep them from mischief. Matilda May Greeks, Otaki, who had been employed as seamstress in the house for a fortnight last June, deposed to having seen Dorothy treated the same as the other children. Tu reply to Mr Gray, she denied having ever told anybody in Otaki that Dorothy had a black eye. and was kept m the bath-room. Matilda O’Connell had not told her that Dorothy had boon thrashed on Friday, i'Oth 'June, nor had she seen anv marks on tlio child.

Alfred Knox, labourer, who had been employed by Air Drake for various terms amounting to three years, and Catherine Fanny Bird, cook, who had been in the house a year and nine months, gave corroborative evidence as to Mrs Drake’s kindness towards her children.

Mrs Drake was next examined, and gave evidence.. i:i answer to Mr Skerrett, that she was seventeen vears married. and had eight children. The deceased child. Dorothy, was eight years old. She had always lived on good toi ms uif n her husband. Dorothy "'was horn at Waipawa, and as there was sickness in the house at the time, the c.iild was sent to Wellington, and rein ai nod there until she was about three months old. Witness had to go to New Plymouth on one occasion, and placed Dorotiiy with Airs Hansen at Ivlnnakau. providing every necessary for the child—a girl, a cow and clothing. Dorothy was between two and three vears of age at tlio time. Witness had'been accustomed to tie up whichever child was most troublesome during the busy part of the morning, but that would be only for a short time—an hour at longest a time—and in summer weatlur. The reason was to keep them from getting into mischief, in the drain and river. Dorothy had gone astrnv

sometimes, and was found in a drain cm one occasion, and on the road to the herc-h another time. When witness or nor husband went from home they usually secured tlie river gate by padlocking or nailing it up. Dorothy was always tied up in the same way as the little boys. The child was subject to fits at times—she did not know what Kind of fits—and Dr Power had attend-, ed her. While at Waipawa she had not inado any difference in her treatment of Dorotiiy from the other children. The child might have had meals in the kitchen on some occasions, but that was not the rule. Witness remembered Mrs Jenkins staying a night at the house, when Dorothy was about four years old.* It was not- true that the child was running about a room trying to keep herself warm at the'time; it was a comfortable room, having linoleum on the floor. Witness had been living m Otaki for over three years, and had spent the greater part of her previous married life at Waipawa. At the time of Airs Jenkins’s visit, witness was living in the house at present occupied by Dr Power, and she and her husband asked Airs Jenkins to take Dorothy, as witness was in delicate health. It was utterly false to say that she had ever told Airs Jenkins that Dorothy was a- dirty beast of a child, or that she had stated “Dorothy was like her father, who was a drunken had, selfish man” ; or that she had compared the child_ to an animal, or stated that Airs Jenkins could take the child and do what she liked with her. It was also false that she had complained of impropriety on the part of her husband with one of the servants, or that she had made any complaints about him whatever. Neither she nor her husband had ever spoken of getting Airs Jenkins or any other person to adopt the - child. Dorothy went away with Airs Jenkins, and witness wrote repeatedly to send or bring her back. Mrs Jenkins very seldom replied, but when she did, expressed a wish to keep the child longer, but nothing was ever said about adopting the child. oWitness ultimately went for Dorothy, but Airs Jenkins did not wish to part’with her, and said she’would send or brim* the child at Christmas. Witness com sen ted to this, and Dorothy was brought home in February by Airs Jenkins, who

remained a week on the occasion. There was no truth in the suggestion that witness had taken a dislike to the child. Dorothy attended the Otaki School. On the day of Dorothy’s death, luncheon was served between 12 o’clock noon and 1 p.m. It was a holiday from school, and the child had spent the morning about the house. Witness had seen Dorothy in the kitchen that morning, when she told her she had had a fall. Witness had sent her to fetch a pin before that, and where they were generally kept in the dining-room would bo out of the child’s reach. Witness heard a noise of a fall while Dorothy was out, and asked the child if she was hurt, but she made no reply. After lunch, witness was in the diningroom, - when Loeta, May, Dorothy and little Ivan came in. Loeta attempted to get Dorothy to repeat a verse of poetry, but Dorothy would not do it, and witness tried to persyade her to do what she was told. Dorothy was su.i disobedient, and Loeta again tried to persuade her, but. finding it useless, Loeta used the supplejack, striking Dorothy on the arms two or three times. iiie blows were not severe. Loeta still tried to persuade Dorothy to repeat the lesson, but to no purpose. Witness again tried to persuade her, saying if she did not do what she was told she would have to punish her. Witness asked Dorothy to repeat a line after her, but she would not, and witness then punished her with the whip which had been produced in the trial. She ! applied the whip seven or eight times on the child’s back, holding the handle of the whip and end of the lash in her hand. May then asked Dorothy to repeat the poetry outside the diningroom door in the passage, but Dorothy still refused, and May struck her oiice or twice. Witness could not say what May used for the purpose, as she was sitting in the diningroom with her back to the door. Witness next heard her husband had come home, and on her way out to meet him she struck Dorothy again a slap or two with the whip as she passed. After speaking to her husband for about half an hour in the yard, witness went back to where "she had been darning in tho diningroom. Siie did not give any other whipping to Dorothy that day. Witness described the child’s clothing, and stated that she was bare-footed and bare-iegged. Dorothy was playing about with her brother Iran during tho evening. Witness and all the children sat down to tea, her husband having left before tiiat on business. Dorothy refused her tea and witness tried to induce her to take it. but she only had a drink of milk. The child, had complained before tea-time cf water in her ears, ancl witness examined her, but could not see anything wrong. .Witness again put the tea before her prior to her going to bed, but tlie child did not take it, saying she was only thirsty; that she did not feel well, and would not take it. Witness then gave her a cup of miik with some whisky in it. and t'ne child drank it readily. Dorothy again complained of being" unwell, and witness carried her to bed, accompanied by May. The reason for carrying her was that she had started to walk, and witness remarked that .she was walking unsteadily. Witness told the child that she was sorry she iiad whipped her that day, and that siie should sleep with the girls that night. Witness then put her to bed, and put stockings on her. as her feet were cold. The child ywas very pale, and witness gave her some hot whisky and water .with a spoon. Dorothy was lying on her back in bed, and witness dm not raise her head when giving her tho whisky and water. Witness then'sent two of the boys to the club for her husband, and sent Loeta afterwards to fetch the doctor. When her husband came home Dorothy was still alive. She told him to go back at,once for Dr Power. While lie was absent the child gurgled, and then remained quite still. When the doctor came in he looked at the child, and said she was very bad. It was her husband who told her the child was dead, after Dr Power had gone away. It was absolutely untrue that she had any conversation with Dr Power about an inquiry being held. Not a word had been said on the subject, nor was she aware an inquiry was to bp held until about an hour before the inquest. She did her utmost for child when she found siie was ill. Cross-examined by Mr Gray: The tying up of the child was not adopted as a mode of punishment, nor was it ever regarded as such. The child was never left tied up when the family were away from the house. She knew a fisherman named Anderson.

• Did he ever tell you that, on one occasion he found Dorothy tied up and nobody at home, and that as it -was going to rain, lie had put a sack over her'*—l never had any conversation with him, but I heard such a story lately ; it never occurred. Continuing, witness did not remember having suggested to Mrs Reese that she might tie the child up. She had never been in the habit of tying up children while she was out, nor did she approve of anybody else doing so. A either May nor Marjorie had ever been tied up, and Dorothy was the first with whom it had been necessary. Dorothy had had convulsions when eight months old, but that was the only occasion in her life. The story told by Mrs Jenkins with regard to witness’s husband was absolutely (untrue. Her husband had very little intercourse

with any of his own family, but always stood up for that particular sister Dorothy was a strong, wiry child when Mrs Jenkins took her. Witness had' been in the habit of feeding her the. same as the other children. Mrs Jenkins had expressed a wish to adopt her. When witness sent Dorothy for a pin on the morning of the 2(3tn June, she heard a heavy crash from the dining-room, but the child made no com plaint at the time, and witness made no further inquiries. The child was not usually stupid, but was not generally obedient, being stubborn at times. Witness had never chastised her for being stubborn before that day, but she had corrected her some days before for uncleanly habits. ' She was the same before she went to Eltliam, and witness thought she might have told Mrs Jenkins about it. It was untrue that she had beaten the child with the back of a hair-orusli, and she had no recollection of having ever used a strap. She did not think she had chastised the child morG than once previously after her return from Eltliam; that was on the previous Saturday, and she could not say whether she had used a stick or a whip. Witness had used the whip because she was vexed, and Dorothy did not mind the slapping. Witness had used the same whip on the boys, but not on any of the other girls, nor had she used the supplejack on any of them. Witness was not aware of Leota or May having beaten Dorothy before that afternoon; she was sure they never did; she had not made any objection to Loeta beating her that evening, but she bad corrected May for doing it. Dorothy had not cried when whipped. There was no other whipping after that in the passage. The supplejack was generally used by the boys on the pony. When putting Dorothy to bed that evening witness did not observe any marks on her legs, arms, or any part of the body. After being put to bed, Dorothy had only replied in monosyllables to questions. Witness had asked her if she was comfortable, and Dorothy said “Yes,” but she made no complaint about the fall or otherwise. Witness had noticed one or two marks on the child’s legs during the week, but she had not observed the ether bruises until Dr Power came. The marks on the legs had been before the beating on the previous Saturday." She did not tell Dr Power she had given the child a severe thrashing, but she told him she had whipped her. She had no recollection of having told him that Dorothy was a naughty girl and told stories, or of any conversation about an inquiry. All his evidence on that point was absolutely untrue. She had not said to him that he could give a certificate of death, or mentioned the fact that ho had attended -Dorothy for fits, until next day, when she heard there was going to be an inquest. It was utterly false that lie had suggested it would be better in witness s own interests that an inquiry should be held. She had not said in Constable O’Rourke’s presence, “ You know I dir] not do it all myself,” but she had said to Mr Drake, ‘T could not have done it.” She did not remember her -conversation with Chief Detective McGrath, but she did not believe she had said, “She was severely beaten.”' She remembered the defective questioning her. He had asked if she were alono in tiie room with the girl, and she had said IS. o.” She did not remember having made the statement about the child being “so horribly bruised.” She and her husband had alaways lived on good iCi'ms. She had never assaulted him. She had never broken a hairbrush on Dorothy’s head. It was not, true that the child had wounds on her scalp when taken to Eltliam.

Mi Skerrett .said he had never heard before, about tin's conversation between t.ie witness and Dr Power in which it was said to have been suggested that ho could give a certificate. . His Honor observed that they luid it leiy clearly in Dr Power’s evidence that ho had said an inquiry, should he held.

. Hus closed the evidence on bath sides, and it being 5.30 p.m., his Honor remarked that he did not see how they could possibly conclude tlie case that evening. . Skerrett said he was desirous that it should be concluded that night if possible.

His Honor: It is quite impossible that it could be concluded in time to give the jury a reasonable opportunity to consider their verdict before 12 o’clock.

Mr Wilford: Section 12 of the Criminal Code says “ a verdict shall not. be invalid by reason of its having been taken on Sundav.”

His Honor said that was another matter altogether, but to ask him deliberately and with malice aforethought to> protract a trial into Sunday morning was a tiling he was not prepared to do while, people’s beliefs and religious practices remained what they were. He was very sorry that the jury should have been inconvenienced to such an' extent as to have to be detaiued until Monday. The trial should have been begun, early in tlie week, but that was not his fault,, and he had no control over it. The jury .should not have been subjected to such inconvenience, but lio could not help it. He was quite clear that it was not his cluty to protract the case into Sunday, and with great regret he should have to adjourn tho Court until Monday morning at halfpast 10 o’clock. He suggested that the jury should be taken for a drive on. Sunday, and observed that, in a ill at-

kind i’.e Crown should not *are f expense in doing whatever was mnssible to make them comfortable. pt Tl e foreman asked if it was necessary that the. policemen accompanying them Sl His 1 Honor' Qesringly): I don’t-think anyone will take you for malefactors T have nothing to do with it, but I don’t, think you are likely to be taken for criminals. (Laughter.) :.. . A furor: It is the general wish of a 1.1 fury to arrive at a correct verdict, afc all events. . , , His Honor: It should hare been so arranged that you would not be detained for Sunday, but I am glad you art . taking it in such a spirit. The iury was then escorted to its Quarters in the City Buffet, and the Court- adjourned until Monday morning, Mrs Drake being again allowed out on bail.