SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10449, 27 August 1895, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. ' • Mo.ndat, August 26. '•; (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) ■ His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10 aim. ' . GRAND JURY. '' • The grand Jury consisted of the • following gentlemen -.-Charles Stephen Reeves (foreman) David Baxter. Donald Charles Cameron. Alexanner. Chisholra, Henry William Ciatworthy, Wilhani Couston, James -William Faulkner James iothenngham, James Gilmour, Ch«rle3 Frederick Greenilade, Thomas Hitchcock, Phllfp Isaacs; Joseph M'Leav ■M'Kav Alexander Alfred Wilhatn Robin, Mark Sinclair, Thomas Somerville, Frederick Thomas Stronach Willi ,m Alexander Todd, and John Wright. . . His honor's charge. ':■■'- His Honor addressed the grand jury as follows : r Mr Foreman and Gentlemen.-I am very glad to say that none of the cases which will com« up for your consideration this morning are at all of a serious nature. It is quite true there is a ™?in w°*H hem« Theieai-e no less than 16 prisoners, but th<, offences'.with which they are vpn^l t"1' °\ the most part- comparatively 1 t IV am haPPyt?, say. also, there is a complete absence from the present calendar of offences against the person. , AH the crimes charged are offences asanirt property-forgery, larceny, petty housebreaking, and so oa. I do not think there is any iie«d for me to detain you in gome mo the case.,.. You.willhave the evideuce before 5v " you kmaly retire.to.your rooms the bills will be laid before you. _~ TRUE BILLS. flw- SmdiMy nretli? cd'trueWlß ia the following ca^a:-Dona!d Jones, housebreaHi* (two charts); Albert Go,ls,hou^ebreaking (four charges); George Willde. stealing from a dwelling four charges); John Melvin, theft iromTdwell g; J-t mes Stadson; theft from a dwellinetSlX?l^'****!: 7 '■. jMn«^ue, housebreakinl; Patrick M Gree, stealing from R dwelling; Daniel ThS, M aUil Aiw T Joyoe< robber >' and assault; Thomas Myall, theft from the person; James sKYSSafe, afe SRddle- and bridle; John wrWe4aktot SteWan' houaebre^in^ '_~ , NO BILL. ihe grand jury found no bill in the charge of forgery against Georse Munru, jun. t/I"*lec ot t- ~ T , HOUSEBREAKING. W Daof (>-S) w«s barged with having, on rl U\ ¥%h br')ken iuto the dwelling of Thomas John Gawn, at > or th Taieri, aud srolen therefrom a brooch, two stccki-gs, and a pair of socks. He was also further charged witb having on the s»me date broken into the dwelling of Thomas Robertson at North Taieri, and stolen thererrom a suit of clothes, a pair of boots two pocket handkerchiefs, a cash reckoner and a pencil. ' The accused, who was undefended pleaded guilty to exch charge. In answer to the usual question as to whether - he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, the accused said he had : nothing to say for himself. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr B. O. Haggitt) ' stated, in reply to. his Honor, that the '■ prisoner was a naive of New Zealand, j mere were two previous convictions, against him—one on August .28, 1594, for housebreakui", and a second one at the fame time. For these ottences he received 12 soonths' hard labour in tbe i Supreme Court; the senteuces being concurrent. I ile was se.nt to tiie Lyttelton fiuol, and a portiou Oi. the sentence was remitted. He left the gaol on a Saturday, and on the following Monday the j offences to which he had just pieaded guilty were \ committed ; so that he had only been out of gaol two days when he commenced committing crime JP 1™- He wa» at one time in the employment of JVj.r (Tiwiij so tbat was how he knew his way about the place. ■ His Honor asked what was known against pmouer before 1894.

TneOrown Prosecutor said the only thing that he had not mentioned in the'police report was that the prisoner kept bad company. Alter consulting ; with Detective M'Grath, he, however, said his ! Honor would recollect that two prisoners of the ; uame of Jones were tried for breaking into Mr i Johrwon's drapery shop in Ruttray street. The j prisoner was one of the two. He went over to Melbourne and came back with another youth named Jones, who evidently was an old hand. ! Ihe prisoner in the <iock had a mother here, and ' after the charge against him of breaking into Mr Johnston's place he was admitted to bai!, and I during the time of his being admitted to bail and ? tne ease coming on for trial at the Supreme Court j he committed another burglary, He was convicted ; of both offences and sentenced to 12 month* on'! eaoh charge, the sentences ru&ning concurrently. ! His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said : The j sentence of the court is tbat you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dnnediu for the term of two years and kept to hard labour. The sentence is on j each indictment, and is concurrent. i A SERIES OF'OFFENCES. Albert Oods (36) was charped with having, on j June 14. broken into the dwelling of William i Marshall, at Mdsgiel, and stolen therefrom 2s, one ; j pair of boots, a sheathknife, and a tomahawk. He j I was also charged on a second count with re- ; i ceiving the property, knowing the same to have > been stolen. ' ' . \ The Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded Not guilty, but asked if he might lie placed on proba- ; tion, and said he bad Been very much knocked t about since he came to the colony. J The Crown Prosecutor said the facts of the case j were shortly these : Mr Marshall was a labourer -' living at Mosgiel in a house which' stood in a ! raddock at some distance eff the road. He left \ his house on the morning of the 14th June, with j everything secured. On returning late in. the j afternoon he found that the door of the houfe had i bsen smashed in and the boss head of the look ! knocked off and lying on the floor. On looking I round, he found that a tomahawk was gone, that i a pair of boots were gone, and that a sheath knife i and a two-shilling pivce were also gone. Inquiries were made, and a perton named John Bringans;l J who worked in the factory at Mospiel, state! that he had aeen a man whom he was able to describe, ' ' off the road, going in the direction of Marshall's ' house. The man had asked him for a match, and < Mr Bringans then saw him go into the paddock in which Mr Marshall's house was situated This ' clue was followed up, and the prisoner arrested ; on the 25th of June, at Barswood Reefs. He was i i in a hut by himself, and Constable Caraiody, ■ having opened his swag, found in it the articles 1 ' mentioned in the information. . i Evidence in Bupport of the chirge was given by i - Wm. Marshall, John Bringans, and Constable < Garmody. The prisoner had nsthing to cay for himself, . kut again asked if he might be placed upon !.i probation. I '.* It is a recognised fact that Ascot tobacco is the finest ever submitted to smokers

His Honor asked Mr Phillip? (.the probation officer) if the prisoner wag right irl-his mind. The Probation Officer : He is not <rf sound mind, though he knows very well what to G^>- He has j baen in an asylum once or twice, T>.ut he is ordinarily sane but soft .''v- ! His Honor having summed up, ""'- j Th« jury without retiring returned a verdictof" Guilty." I The prisoner was then charged with having, on June:23, broken into the dwelling of William I Saerburd and Benjamin List, at Deep Stream, i and stoleu a watch, a watch-chain, Jib of tea, five j plugs of tobacco, a tea canister, and 21b of wax ■ candles (the goods of William Sherburd), and a purse and Is Id in money (the propsrty of Benjamin List). -1 he Prisoner pleaded Not guilty. ■■' The Crown Prosecutor said the facts of the case were as follow :—On Juce 23 the prisoner went to the hut of Messrs Sherburd and List, in the daytime, and Mr Sherburrt was at that time in the hut by himSHlf. The prisoner asked for some tobacco, and he gave him some, and also some food. The prisoner stayed outside the hut, and Mr Sherburd had to go away ; and when he weut ' he locked up the door of the hut and put the key in the meat-safe at the back of the hut, so that his mate could get it when he returned. When Mr Sherburd left the hut, the prisoner was sitting outside the hut eating the food which he had given him. Some time afterwards Benjamin List came home, and he missed something, and when Sherburd came home the two looked about, and found all the things mentioned in the indictment were gone. The person who bad taken the things had evidently obtained the key from the safe, entered the hut by means of it, and tben replaced the key where it had been previously. The occupiers of the hut gave information to the police, and the articles mentioned in the indictment were subsequently found in the prisoner's possession at Barewood Reefs. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Win, Sherburd, Benjamin List, and Constable Car- , mody. <% ■"•■■■ [ The prisoner had nothing to say in his own defence. His Honor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of *' Guilty " without retiriug. His Honor asked Mr Haggitt if he intended to go on with the other cases against the prisoner, who was evidently a person of weak mind. The Crown Prosecutor said it was simply a question of getting the stolen property returned to the prosecutors. His Honor observed that if there was any real need for it. the cases must be gone on with. The Crown Prosecutor said the man had been a criminal all hii life. He did not think he had a weak mind, but that he " put it on." His Honor remarked that the accused had been in an asylum. The Crown Prosecutor said there were 17 pievious convictions against the accused, who got a sentence of two years in Christchurch the other day. If accused would admit that the property did not belong to him, there would perhaps be no need to go on with the case. The Prisoner, on being asked by Mr Haggitt who was the owuer of the watch which lie (Mr Hasigitt) produced, said that it was his own. The Crown Prosecutor said in that case he would have to proceed with the next charge. The same prisoner was then charged with breaking and entering the hut of Arthur S. F. Parker at Hindon, and stealing therefrom a silver.watch, a candle, and a box of matches. To this indictment also he pleaded Not guilty The down Prosecutor briefly stated the facts of the case, and Arthur S. F. Parker, Constable Carmody, and James Fleming gave evidence \ T.^ i?' ry> r with°.ut retiring, returned a verdict of Guilty of stealing." ■ The Prisoner, on beinc aske.i if he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, said:"l am very thankful to you. That is all I have got to say." The Crown Prosecutor stated that the prisoner was a uative of Scotland. . He was a rivetter and ship's carpenter by trade, and was a very bad character. In August ISBS he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour for larceny; on the 10th of September ISSS he got one mouth's hard labour for vagrancy at Hokitika; on the 13ch of January 1887, H days for abusive language at Westport; on the 18th of February 18s7, six months' hard labour on three charges of larceny at Greymouth; on the 20th of August 1857, one mouth's hard labour for beins illegally on the premises at Greymouth; on the 2Ut of November ISS7, two months' hard labour for vagrancy at Westport; on the Ist of April ISB9 he was acquitted on a charge of burglary on the I ground of insanity ; on theiOth of April ISSS he ; got one months hard labour at Southbridge for vagraucy; on the 20th of November ISBS, two months hard labour for damaging property at Sheffield; on the 26th of April 1890, I one months hard labour for larceny at Colgate; on the 20th ,of January 1895, - two months hard labour for theft at Methven • He was now doiDg a sentence of two years for housebreaking at Ashburton, the sentence being received at the Ohristchurch sittings just concluded tie had two aliases. The principal part of his convictions were in the name of Robert Cnrlyle, I but he had also been convicted under the name of [ John Crawford. . , I His Honor, addressine the prisoner, said • The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol of Dunedin ;for a term of two : years, and be kept to hard labour. The sentence is concurrent on each conviction, and is to commence at the expiration of the sentence which you are at present undergoing.

j STEALING FROM THE DWELLING HOUSE James Madsou (18) pleaded Guilty to au indictment charging him with the larceny on the 12th August, of a watch and two watch chains from i the dwelling of Nellie Wilson iMr A. S. Adams, who appeared on behalf of the | prisoner, said that the lad had only recently been : let out on his own resources. When he was nine or 10 years old the prisoner was committed to the Industrial School for a petty off .-nee, but wa3 two years ago let out on probation. Mr Burlinson, the master of the Industrial School, said the lad's age - was 16 or 17 A^eut six months ago Madson got • a Bum of money from the school and went up-country, where he got employwent Then he went rabbitine and secured a pony with which, in the bad weather ( h£came to Uunedin. On the Saturday before the" i ° -f? 0? xu° w]? lch he Pleaded guilty was com- | mitted the prisoner sold his pony. He had been 1 getting into bad company, and was taken to the house of Nellie Wilson, in Stafford street where he.stayed all.mgnt. Tn the morning his money ; was gone, and he charged Nellie Wilson with ! stealing ic. She denied that she had done so, bat he took those articles with the object of squaring the account. If his Honor saw fit to allow the prisoner to come up for sentence when called upon the balvation Army had undertaken to see that he got employment, and to keep him until he got ) J^is H, onoJ S id he could not assume that Nellie Wilson tooft the prisoner's money It mi"ht be j true and ltmieht not be true. If it had been the case the prisoner would probably have told the constable who arrested him. Heplying to his Honor, . ' The Crown Prosecutor said the prisoner was a native of New Zealand, and a bootmaker by occupation, and bore a bad character. On the 12fch October ISSB he was convicted of larceny and ordered to come up for Sentence when called upon • on the 21st December ISSB he was convicted of larceny, and Bentencerf to 14 days' imprisonment • on the Uth February 18S9 he was again convicted of larceny and senteaced to 14 days; on the Ist ; March 18S9 he was convicted again of larceny ! and sentenced to seven days; and on the 7th : March 1889 he was committed* to the Industrial ochool. . . . ' Ut l° nor-in Passing sentence, said: Ido not ; think there is sufficient to justify me in pass- ■; ing over the offence without punishment It ; h bo. as if the accused had never been in gaol before He^ has been in gaol on three previous occasions No doubt that was vrhen he was quite a lad, and the fact of his previous convictions • when he was so young ought cot to enhance the ; sentence, but at the same time the case is different ' from one where a lad had never been in gaol at ; all, when to send him there would probably be a i greater mischief than to let him go. Looking at I his age. however, there is no reason to pass a severe sentence. (To prisoner:) The sentence of i the court is that, you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for a term of three months and be kept to hard labour. STEALING OVERCOATS. George Wilkie (28) pleaded Guilty to four charges of stealing overcoats from four different nouses in Dunedin. The Prisoner, on being asked if he had anything ,to say why sentence should not be passed upon , him, handed up a written statement to bis Honor. The Crown Prosecutor, in reply to his Honor eairt the prisoner was a native of England and arrived here from Sydney in 1534. He was a fireman in one of the Uniou Steam Ship Company's boats. Nothing was known against him previous to his coming here. He teemed to have a mania for stealing overcoats. He was caught at last through the aid of the second-hand dealers The ■ police had to get the second-hand dealers to buy ; the coats in order to convict him.- ---• . His Honor sentenced the prisoner to six months' j imprisonment with hard labour on each charee the sentences to run concurrently. ' YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS John Melvin(l4) was charged with having on February 2S, 1595, broken into and entered the ! dwelling hoiue of Thomas Howard, at Roslyn and stolen therefrom, a watch, a watcli chain a ; knife, a bottle of brilliantine, and Is 3d in money? ! The accused pleaded Guilty. * jMr V. C. MacGrtgor, who appeared for the , prisoner, said there was nothing known egaimt I him previously. He had already been a fortaiWit !in gaol in default of bail. His father was away ; from home, and therefore he could not get bail He (learned counsel) understood that his present employer wu willing to take him on again if his j Honor would admit him to probation, or order A"? to come "P for sentence when called upon Ihe Crown Prosecutor, in reply to his Honor ! said he haa nothing to say about the accused , Iheie were no previous conviction- against him. ■ The,P, r. osec»tor asked him to say that he did not wish to bave the boy punished at all He "id i omy proceeded against him from a sense of duty I Ihe watch was out of repair at the time it was stolen. The accused took it to a w.-.tchLker'f and, having expended time and n.ouev upon it' gave the accitsed a Waterbuvy in exchange f« it and then sold it to Mr Davidson. There would be belonS'to 011 aS t0 Who the "^ foSof PriS°Der t0 *^ James Blue (19) pleaded Guilty to a charee of Wing, on July 15. broken into the sho? of Thomas Joyce, in Great King street and £%?» quautity of tools therefrom. 'nd st<)leu a The Orowa Prosecutor said nr;c™ native of New Zealand, a dSria- tM«f a HTk* constant associate of thieve On It' a om,.the October IS*7 he was convlctid of 1 3°'h °f ordered to come up for lenteno. ceny' ,^ nf upon; on the 10th of Noven"w iss- l Called victed on two charges of W n v . was. COD: to the Industrial School •on the'lTth co™mitted ber ISB7 he was convfetfS on «„- °i hoyeta; larceny, and ordered to mm? ...T f charses of when called upon ;on the mh nfl M f*?™?? 0 got one month's hard lalxnir fn Mrtrch 1594 he 11th of May two months^ hZdfl^T 7! on the on the 18th of March 1895114 da^T F, \ aree7 ; vagrancy and three mouths' for a s ,a u lt b°Ul" f°r inS^nrSh^Lbt?^^o^-'

of stealing, on the 9th. of June 1595; at Williamson's camp, Hyde, the sum of £16. the property of Francis Docharty. J Ml, Hanlon, ■ who appeared for the accused, asked that he should be liberated under the provisions of the Probation Act. His Honor would see from the depositions that the trouble arose out . of a drunken brawl on the Otogo Central railway. ■The owner of the stolen property got back ill' Ithsppeared that while still ..sunxria^ from the effec^Qf drink the accwed Changed a £s.note at a hotel in.Bg.flistnct He had been in tEe colony for some 2i years, and for 20 ye*rs past had been living in Green Island, where his wife and a family of four children resided. He (learned counsel) thought this was the first trouble of any conse-' quence that accused had got into. The only other time that he was before the court was on one occasion, when he was fined 10s for drunkenness. He understood that the probation officer's report was favourable. The Crown Prosecutor stated that accused was fined 10s for drunkenness 14 years ago. That was the only previous conviction against him He had been 19 years in the colony, and his one fault was that he was fond of drinking. The sum of £5 17s 7a was found on him. ■'.' ~ His Honor: He can be admitted to probation tor 12-months on condition that £5 is paid to the prosecutor out of the moneys in the hands of the poles, and further that the accused pay £ > towards the expenses of this prosecution by instalments of 5s a week for 24 weeks. KORGERV. Mary Bibby (50) was charged, on seven counts, with having on. June 1,, at Dunedin, forged and uttered a cheque for the payment of £iO 12s 6d, purporting to be sigaed by George Thomson. One ot the counts charged the accused with obtaining, |on the same date, from John Hosking Carter by means of. false; pretences, certain rires* material and lining of the value of £1 17s 8d and £19 33 iU.I in money. The Accused at first pleaded Not guilty, but subsequently withdrew the plea and pleaded Vjriinty. • Mr Thornton, who appeared for the prisoner, said he desired to urga a few points in mitigation of punishment. The woman came-froni Kaitangata, where she had been living for a number of years with her husband, and there she was left a widow with a family of seven children—four girls and three boy's. At the time her husband died she was left a small amount of property—a couple of small sections at Kaitangata with a small buildingon them and horses and chattels. On her husband's death, which occurred eight or vine months ago, she thought the best thing she could dc, as there was a good deal of work being done at .the Castle Hill, mine, was to put an addition to the building and try to get lodgers. After erecting addition and mortgaging the property for the purpose of paying for the building she found she could get uo lodgers, and she was left with the property mortgaged on her hands, so she resolved to coTtie to town. She endeavoured to sell the property but could not manage it, and she let it to a tenant and came to Dunedin. Prior to this the woman had lived an honest and respectable life. When she came to town, she had actually no means She said that Mr George Thomson, of Balclutha, owed her money, but he said on the other hand that he did not owe her. anything. There was, however, a matter in dispute between them, and the* woman's primary* intention, which no doubt showed very stupid ienorance, was to get money from Mr Thomson. She had no idea of injuring Mr Carter, but when she uttered the cheque she made misstatement3 for which there was no excuse and for which she could claim no extenuation. She. had since done all that wag in her power—she had succeeded in selling her property and had restored to Mr Carter the money he had lost. The woman had already suffered considerable punishment, having lain in gaol for practically two months. Her married daughter had come from Sydney to take steps to provide a home for the widow and her. family. The prisoner was well advanced in years and was not in good health. Under these circumstances learned counsel submitted it was a fair case for mitigation of punishment. \ His Honor asked whether the prisoner had not been convicted once before ? v Mr Thornton said there wa3 a small matter of a pair of boots about the same time. One of her small boys stole a pair of boots, which he told his I mother he had found, and she did not make proper [ inquiries, and was convicted for having received the boot 3; knowing them to be stolen. His Honor asked the Crown prosecutor what was known about the prisoner. : I The Crown Prosecutor : She is a native of Wales and a widow. She arrived at Port Chalmers in the ship Asia in 1873 from England. Nothing further I isknownabout her. On July 5 she was sentenced to threedays'imprisonment forreceivingstolen property. That was the case to which Mr Thornton referred. What Mr Thornton had said about her having restored the money toMrCarterwascorrect. His Honor : She lived an honest life up to this time ? . . ; . ■■.-;.■ :'.-■ The CrowH Prosecutor: So far as is known. His Honor : Is she going to Sydney ? i Mr Thornton replied in the negative. Her married daughter Had niade provision for a home for her. It was the intention that the four elder I children should go. to situations, that two'others should remain,with the mother and go to school, and that the married daughter should take one to Sydney to look after. His Honor : Looking at all the circumstances, and at the fact that the accused has been in gaol since July 5, I think I am justified in practically treating that imprisonment as sufficient punishment-. She will be released on entering into her own recognisancesin the sum' of £25 to come up for sentence when called upon. ROBBEKY WITH VIOLENCE. Daniel 3TFarlane-(27) and Mary Joyce (29) were arraigned on an indictment charging them with having, on the 14th July, assaulted Michael Clinton and robbed him of the"sum of £5. ■ Mr Hanlon appeared for the prisoner. M'Farlane, who pleaded Guilty to an assault; and Mr C. Mouat appeared for the prisoner Joyce, ?who pleaded Not guilty. .....,,. The Crown Prosecutor accepted M'Farlane's plea, an. assault being all that there was' any evidence of. There was nothing on the face of the" depositions'-to show that the male prisoner knew that arobbery was contemplated or being attempted. He catue in from an outside room, and seeing that she was struggling with the prosecutor he took the woman's part. The police report was that he was of good character and had [ no previous convictions.

Sir Hanlon applied for the admission'of HTarlane to probation, under the First Offenders' Probation Act, on account of the character given him by the police and because he'canie from very respectable people. He was-born in Dnriedin, where he had worked for the greater part of his lifetime.- There was nothing on the depositions to show that he knew that the prosecutor had any money, and the suggestion that he could have been communicated with by the woman was negatived by the evidence of the prosecutor himself. His Honor said he saw that the probation officer reported that this prisoner was of sober and steady habits, and that as the case appeared to be exceptional he recommended the man for probation. It was suggested as a condition of probation that the .accused should, pay the costs o! the prosecution. That was a perfectly reasonable condition. The accused should pay the costs of the prosecution His Honor directed that M'S'arlane should pay £6 towards the expenses of the prosecution, by weekly instalments of 10s, and be put on probation for nine months. ■■■'■■

The jury having been empannelled to try the prisoner Joyce, The Crown Prosecutor stated that the prosecutor was a man named Michael Clinton, who was a stoker on one of the boats coming to Port Chalmers. He came to town on the night of the ltthJuly, and about 11 o'clock went to the house ot the prisoner, where he arranged to stay for the night. .He had af this time .£6 5s in his possession, consist-ing of six sovereigns and five single shillings. He gave the woman 3s, which she expended m beer, and he also gave her one of the sovereigns. While he was in bed he noticed her going through his pockets; but his money was not.there, for he had taken the precaution of placing the money i-to one of his socks, which he put into his boot. When he saw the character of the woman he made up his mind to go, and before he could put on bis socks the sovereigns jingled and directly the woman heard that she grabbed at hi? sock* and a struggle ensued. As the prosecutor was dragging tiie sock from hershe called out, and a man came out of another room and assaulted the prosecutor, and while the assault was being committed the woman msde off with the money. As soon as the prosecutor >was dressed he went out and found a policeman, with whom be returned to the house, where they found the man and woman together. The police had some trouble in gaining admittance, and after she had been told what she was charged with she denied knowing anything about the prosecutor's money. Shortly afterwards she picked up a dress, from which a purse dropped, lnis she snatched up, and she succeeded in escaping from the room with it before the constable could stop her. On the next day Detective M'Grath went back to the place and on searching the backyard found a purse containing s>x sovereigns aud a few shillings. The Prosecutor would s-uy that earlier in the evening ne had seen the- purse in the woman's possession *;Ujen it contained nothing but a few shillings. Michael Clinton, Constables Daubney aud U Connor, and Detective M'Grath gave evidence in support of )he case for the Crown. ■»r 5 e ■ Pris °aer, who was subsequently called by Mr Mouat to give evidence in her own behalf, said she was a married woman, whose husband lived in Wellington. She kpt a shop in Kins street for about twa years. When Clinton gave her the sovereign and the 3s she put the money in her purse, and she had 2s in her purse before. She left her purse on the mantelpiece with the money iv it, and went to the shop to get some herbal beer to put in the brandy which Ciinton brought to the house with him. When she was coming back from the shop i-he saw him putting her purse back on the mantelpiece. She looked in the purse and there was no money in it. She then heard money rattliug in his sock, and she thought it was silver. She put her hand in his sock, took out the money without looking at it, put it into her purse, and put the purse into her pocke\ She subsequently put the purse under the pillow of her little boy's bcrf, aud when the pohce came to the house it fell on to the floor, bne then picked it up, and, thinking that the constable would give her money to Clinton, »he hm the purse where the detective found it. bhe aid not tell the police about the matter at the tune, because she did not wish to bhow M iarlane up. She was under the ionuence of drink on the night in question, and so wa« Clinton. He never complained about his pockets being picked, out she complained about hi* taking her P"rse When she put the money back into her purse the lamp was tinned down. . i. ~ ,• Mr Mouat having addressed the jury on behalf of the accused, and the Crown Prosecutor having replied, his Honor summed up. The Jury retired at eight minutes to 6, and returned to court five mmutts later with a verdict Of piiMmet r y'had nothing to say in reply to the question why sentence should not bs passed upon The Crown Prosecutor stated that prisoner was a native of Ireland. She was of intemperate habits, a prostitute, and a suspected thief. His Honor sentenced prisoner to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Tl»e court adjourned at b p.m. until the following morning at 10 o'clock.

Mrs Emily Thome, who resides at Toledo, Washington, says she has never been able to procure any medicine for rheumatism that relieven the p»sn so quickly and effectually as Chamberlain's Pain Balm, and that she has also used it for lame back with great success. For sale by all leading chemists