Saturday, September. 7th.

Otago Witness, Issue 824, 13 September 1867, Page 6

Saturday, September. 7th.

The Court sat at ten o clock. CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

Ann Doyle (on bail) was indicted for that she did, on the 19th July, 1866, receive into her possession eight wincey robes, the property of Joseph Watson and others, she well knowing that those robes had been stolen.

This was the third and last case arising out of the stealing from the lighter Argua, for which WillLun Brannigan, who had pleaded Guilty, was on Friday sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr B. C. Haggitt) conducted the case for the Crown ; and Mr James Smith defended the prisoner.

The Crown Prosecutor stated the case. He would at once rail Brannigan, as the indictment must fail -unless he gave such evidence as tho Crown had a right to require from him. William Brannigan (after being briefly examined as to the robbery) : I know the prisoner, Ann Doyle — that is, 1 have suen her before. I can't say how long I have known her — perhaps three years. I used to lodge at her house sometimes. I don't think she knew where I was employed. She knew I had been a sailor. 1 think she knew I got my living on die water ; but I don't think she knew I was working as a lighterman. I never told her that I ■was employed on board the Argus ; and J am not aware that she knew of the fact. I was not lodging at her house at the time I took these robes, and I am not aware that I then owed her anytliing for board and lodging. I gave away the seven or eight robes — some of them to the prisoner. I did not count, but there might bo two or three ir what I gave her, She did not give me anything for them. I had not been very intimately acquainted with her before this time. She did not express surprise when I gave her the dresses, nor did she ask me any questions about them. She did not say anything that I'm ar'are of. Yes, shtf thanked me for them ; but "Thank you" isn't much. Ann Brady was present when [ gave the dresses to the prisoner ; and I said that she was to give one of them to Brady. I don't recollect her saying anything in reply. The prisoner never came on board the lighter. I can't say when I gave th© prisoner the dresses. It was an evening, a"d it might he on the next day or the next day but one after I got them. No, I didn't make up the dresses, I'm sure ; I couldn't. I gave them as I had them; I never opened them. They might kave been ■wrapped in niy handkerchief, or in an old newspaper. The dresses on the table here are similar to those I gave to Doyle ; I can't say more. I was not in the habit of making presents ; but I once gave the prisoner a sort of jacket. I paid money for that article. I recollect being examined before the Magistrate ; but T don't recollect saying there that the prisoner knew I was on board the Argus. I believe I said ohere, that she knew I got my living on the wharf ; I think she did know that I got my living on the ■water, and about the wharf. f don't re■collect saying before the Magistrate, " The prisoner knew at the time that I •*vas in the lighter Argus ; 1 told her so." I sec those words on the paper you show me, and my signature also. I recollect signing something before the Magistrate ; but I don't recollect whether what was ■written on the paper was read to me before I signed or not. I could not say whether I did or did not, before .the Magistrate, say that the prisoner knew I •was on board the Argus. I don't know ■whether, if I said it, it was true or not. I might have been queer, and have said many things I don't recollect now. I did not expect to escape sentence myself,. by pleading Guilty ; nor did I wish at any time to sacrifice others to save myself. I don't recollect many tilings I may hare said.

jJames Farrell, detective constable: I -went to the' prisoner's house on the 4th June, with Detective Thomson. Thomson said that we came to ask about four •wincey robes that a lighterman on board the Argus, named William Brannigan, •who was a pi-isoner, stated that he gave her in 1866. She replied that he had not given her any. Thomson said, " I assure you, Mrs Doyle, he stated to us a few minutes ago, that he gave you four wincey robes in July, 18G6." She said, " He's a li ar .» I S aid, "Mrs Doyle, it's no use denying the fact; you are now ■wearing one of the robes we are looking for." She had on an almost new wincey robe, and a jacket of the same material. After this, slir went to a box and produced a robe unmade. She said that ■was all she hud. I said, " You'd better let me have the robe you're wearing ;" and after some other words, she went

and took- it off. She then said that she had had a third robe, but that she had, by Brannigan'g orders, given it to Ann Brady. I said that 1 had Been Brady and got that robe. I then asked the prisoner to give mo tho jacket which Brannigan had told me he stole from the Mary Ann, lighter, in 1805, and had given to her. She gave me a jacket. 1 produce all the articles. On the day after this, the prisoner told me that all she knew was that Brannigan owed her money for board and lodging, and that he had made her presents..!. By Mr Smith : I w>* "examined before ,the Magistrate on the 11th June, I think. I was not then asked about the conversation between Thomson and the prisoner ; and I have not sjiven that conversation in evidence until now. I was not at all asked about the conversation with Thomson ; and I thought that ho "could be called. I stated all that took place between myself and the prisoner ; I have Stated the same now ', and, being asked about Thomson, I have stated what passed be- ! tween him and the prisoner. On the \ morning after our visit, she said that Brannigan did not owe her money. for board and lodging when he gave her the robes.

The Judge pointed out that the deposition started with a statement of the prisoner's readily giving up a robe ; whereas now, Thomson's conversation baing made a preface to what was in the deposition, there was set forth more than one denial of having received' dresses from Brannigan

Cross-examination continued, : Thomson was in or about tho Resident Magistrate's Court, at the time, but I did not know that he was not to be called as a witness. I see that the difference between my evidence before the Magistrate and now is that, previously, it appeared that the prisoner at once admitted having the goods and readily produced them, and now there is a strong denial at first of having received the goods at all. I cannot give any other reason for not mentioning Thomson' 3 conversation when I was in the Resident Magistrate's Court, than the reason that I supposed Thomson would himself be called. At the time of the conversation, there was no instruction to proceed against the prisoner ; but at the time I gave my evidence, the prisoner was in custody under the charge of receiving goods. Re-examined : I was not told to make a statement in the Magistrate's Court. I answered directly every question put to me ; the Commissioner of Police, I think, conducted the case. John Bell Thomson, detective constable : I went to the prisoner's house, with Farrell, 011 the 4th June. We vrent to endeavor to discover some robes belonging to Messrs Watson, which she was supposed to have. I told her that Brannigan, who was employed on the Argus lighter, had ,been that morning arrested by us, on a charge of stealing eight wincey ri.bes from the lighter ; that Brannigan had stated that he had given her four robes: and that I had come to get them from, her. Slie said, " How can he say so? I know nothing about them. " I said, " I assure you he said that about twelve months ago he gave you four. " She said, " He's a little liar. I know nothing about them. He never gave me anything of the sort." I said, " Well, if you hnve any information you can give about the robes, yon had better tell Detective 1 Farrell ;" and I then went out of the place for about five minutes. When I returned, there was a dress piece on the I table, and a minute or two afterwards, she came downstairs and put a dress on the table. Farrell rolled up those articles and went away. I remained, and I asked her, " Why did you not give the things up at once? What was the good of denying it." She said, " I did not know they were stolen. He owed me money for board and lodging, and I thought there was no harm in taking the dresses." I was not examined in this case before the Magistrate; and I was not in Court all the time while Farrell was being examined. The Commissioner conducted the case before the Magistrate. 1 suppose I was not examined, because Farrell \ new all that j had passed.

By Mr Smith : It is the oustom for us to make a report in each case, verbally or in writing, to the Commissioner. I did not report in this Case, for I considered it was Farrell's case. I went to Port Chalmers within half an hour of being at the prisoner's house. I was in and out of the Resident Magistrate's Court during part of this case. I saw Fdrrell in the box ; but lam not sure that I heard any of the evidence given by Farrell: I do not recollect that J did hear anything he said. I am sure that it was not my duty to listen to his evidence, and thnt I had no desire, td hear anything he said. I did not anticipate that I should be called ; 1 supposed that Farrell, who knew all that had passed, would be the only officer called, as it

wa3 his case, and it is the custom of the Commissioner not to encumber a case with more witnesses than are absolutely necessary. I supposed Farrell would state what passed between the prisoner and myself. I went out during the conversation, because Farrell had been acquainted with the j)risoner for some time, and I thought she might tell him things which she would not state in my presence. Ann Brady : I am a ' housemaid in Dunedin. I have known the prisoner about three years, and I sometimes Trent to her house. I know William Brannigan, and 1 saw him at the house one evening in July, 1866. I had known Brannigan as long as I had known the prisoner ; r but I did. not see him at her house very often. I never knew of his living there ; and the prisoner and myself never talked about him. I went to live at the prisoner's sometimes; when I was out of a situation. When first I saw Brannigan, he was not employed, but be got work shortly afterwards. J know that Brannigan was out of employment, because he told me so, one day at Mrs Doyle's, when she was not present ; T met him in the street afterwards, and he told me that he was working on board a lighter. He did not name the vessel. In July, 1866, I went inbo the house and Brannigan was there. He told me he had made the prisoner a present of some dresses, and I was to get one of them. The prisoner gave me one the same night. She fetched it from her bedroom. He told me afterwards, on the same evening, that he had bought the dresses. I saw three. I had my dress made up the week after I got it. I never told the prisoner what Brannigan had said about his working on board a lighter. j By Mr Smith : Brannigan was nothing at all ,to, me, and I took no interest in his affairs. The prisoner was not present when Brannigan told me that he bought the dresses. Evidence was given as to about eight wincey robeß being missed from a case received by Messrs J. Watson and Sons, in July, 1866. . After addresses by Counsel, The Judge said that the only question for the jury was that of guilty knowledge — Did the prisoner, when she received the goods, know that they had been stolen ? The jury were entitled to collect their answer from the whole of tho circumstances of the ease : it very rarely happened that there was evidence going directly or closely to the fact. The circumstance most usually relied upon, was the demeanor of the prisoner at the time the •goods wpre found. If the goods were hidden, and possession of th°m was.denied, more or less strenuously, those were facts from which the jury might infer that there was guilty knowledge. On looking at the depositions, he found that there was no case to go to the jury. The case there made was such, that if Farrell had given the same evidence to-day, he (the Judge) would either have sent the case to the jury with avery strong intimation of his ovrn view, or would have directed an acquittal. There was no doubt that, as suggested by the Crown Prosecutor, where an article of a nature not usually possessed by a person of the class of a particular prisoner, was found in his or her hands, that alone was such a circumstance ot suspicion as should go to the jury. If a cabman gave to a lodging house keeper a valuable diamond ring, that would undoubtedly be such a circumstance. But in the present case there was no outrageous improbability. Tho value of the three dresses was ■ L 4 10s ; and taken alone, the fact that Brannigan had three such dresses in his possession, and gave them to the prisoner, would be hardly enough to raise a suspicion of guilty knowledge. We all knew that when sailors were flush of money they thought it a fine thing to be liberal with it — generally, as we should suppose, in foolish ways. But as the case was presented today, tliere was disclosed a circumstance from which the jury were entitled to infer the very element of guilty knowledge, which was wanting 'in the case upon the depositions. Farrell was the only detective examined before the Magistrate. In this Court, William Brannigan's evidence had broken down in all that might be supposed to implicate the prisoner. He sentenced Brannigan before allowing him to give evidence ; and ho passed that sentence advisedly. He thought that, if he did not take that course, there might lurk in Brannigan's mind some sort of notion that he would screen himself, to some extent, if he could manage, by his evidence, to "pot" somebody else, as it was phrased. He (the Judge) wished to prevent any such notion ; and he sentenced Brannigan before he- was called as a witness, in order that the jury might see whether the man would stick "to the, story he told the .police. Brannigan did not stick to the stoiy — he had forgotten it, as he said ; and his evi1 dence here did not contain a word to show guilty .knowledge on the part of the prisoner. What had happened 1 Detective Farrell saw from Brannigan's evidence yesterday, that that man's evidence

to-day -would not be such aa to guiltj knowledge, as to justify a conviction ; and' Farrell also saw, very likely, that he (the Judge) would feel himself compelled to direct the jury that there was such a failure. To- day, Farrell had supplied th's very element that was wanting. Why did Farrell not give that evidence before the Magistrate ? The explanation wa3 — Because the particular portion of the conversation Wiis with Detective Thomson ; and he thought that' Thomson would be "called to give evidence. Farrell must know that he ought to have told the whole story before the Magistrate ; and his not having done so raised a suspicion that his evidence might have been a little patched up tc meet the points of the case in which there was a break-down through Biannigixn's failure of memory. Why Thomson was not examined before the Magistrate-, was perhaps kno-.vn to tho >i, who conducted the case there. It 'AM'.ild have been better, and there would not ] \uv been such an opening for comment, if Thomsonhadbeen examined before the Magistrate, or if Farrell had related all that he h eard in the presence of the prisoner. But, if Farrell's evidence was somewhat open to suspicion, such a remark did not apply to the evidence of Thomson. Was there any reason, whatever, to suspect that Thomson was not the witness of truth ? If the jury believed Thomson, implicitly— and he (the Judge) could see no_ reason why they should not— the evidence of Thomson' went far to show that what Farrell now said was the truth, although he did not say the whole of it before the Magistrate. The evidence showed that the prisoner yielded to some slight persuasion in regard to giving up the dresses. Her conduct was very different from a continuous denial, followed by a search which resulted in the finding of the stolen property. He wished to impress that point upon the jury. Upon the whole, assuming that the jury accepted Thomson's evidence — and he saw no reason to disbelieve it — his direction was that the jury were at liberty to infer, but not bound to conclude, from that evidence, that the prisoner had guilty knowledge when she received the dresses stolen by Brannigan, The jury, after an hour's absence, informed the Judge that there was no chancs of their agreeing. They were sent back to their room. In les3 than another hour, they returned, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty; the Foreman saying, "We wish, with the permission of the Court, to say that we had a doubt, of which we consider that we ought to give the prisoner the benefit." Doyle was discharged. This concluded the~Criniinal business.

A death by exposure to the severe storm which lately swept over the Colony, occurred on Tetley's station, in the Province of Marlborough. The Express says : — "The deceased was a boy named John Heniy. His father and a man named Boland were engaged in wirefencing about four miles from Mr Tetley's station, at Kekerangu, the boy assisting them, and their accommodation consisted of a calico tent. For some at present unexplained reason, Henry left his son at the work at noon, on Monday, and remained at the station- ; the poor child was meanwhile exposed to "weather that was fearful everywhere, but among the hills it must have been terrible. On Wednesday morning Boland stiggered into the station with the dying lad, himself thoroughly exhausted, having carried him all the way in his arms. Shortly afterwards, notwithstanding all that could be -done for him, the poor little fellow breathed his last." The New York Tribune, of the 9th July, contains the following notice of the death of the celebrated T. F. Meagher : — "General Thomas Francis Meagher, Secretary and Acting-Governor of Montana Territory, fell from the deck of the steamer Thomson, at Fort Benton, on the evening of the Ist inst., and was drowned. He had been absent for the last fortnight on public business, and' had succeeded in procuring arms for the troops engaged in the defence of the Territory, and transacting other military business demanded by our present exigency. At the latest accounts, his remains had not beon f/juml, the darkness of the night, and the rapidity of the current preventing any rescue. > Pie was born at Waterford, Ireland, on the 3rd of August, 182.3. At the • early age of twenty-three he was regarded, as one of the leaders of the " Yomvj Ireland" party which seceded from the followers of O'Connell. In IS4S he was one of the delegates sent to congratulate the French Republic. He took an active part in the movements of the Young Ireland ' party in 1848, was arrested, and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to banishment for life to Van Diemen's Land, from which he escaped, and landed in New York in May, 1832. He was received by hia conntrymen. with great enthusiasm. In 18G1 he raised a company and jpned the 69th Regiment, New ' York State Militia, under General Corcoran. > He acted as Major at BuH Run, and after the return of, the Regiment, he raised a brigade and Wa3'commissioned a Brigadier-General of Yoluntfeors, Fob 3, 186*2: In" 1 865 he was appointed Secretary of the Territory of Montana, and for sonaa thne has been it 3 acting Governor-"