Friday, March 29. Saturday, March 30. Thursday, MARCH 28.

Otago Witness, Issue 1950, 4 April 1889, Page 14

Friday, March 29.

Saturday, March 30.

Thursday, MARCH 28.

The hearing of the case was resumed at halfpast 10 on Friday. Charles Brown deposed that he had been bailiff here since 1862. He had known John Gallic since 1860, and had kept up an acquantance with him until a short time before his death, say up to 1875. Gallic's mind did not seem to be at all affected of late years, but his bodily health got worse. At the time of the wreck of the Surat, in 1874, Gallic used to talk a good deal about the occurrence, and to talk, about old court cases up to the last. He also took a good deal of interest in elections. At the time of the mayoral contest- between. T. Birch and H. Driver witness was canvassing for the latter i and asked Gallic for his vote, but Gallic replied . that he intended to vote for Birch, and would not have anything to do with a Yankee. When the Roddam and Fritchard case was on witness was one of the witnesses. It lasted several days, and a large number of witnesses were examined. One day Gallic was at the court, and in conversing with witness on the evidence given he made comments on it, showing that he understood it. Pritchard had bought some.horses from Roddam, and subsequently employed Joe Mills to smuggle Roddam on board a steamer in order to get him away to Melbourne, via the Bluff. Mr Fraser: I think we have precedent for asking who Joe Mills is. His Honor : I suppose he was a man who was well known at the time. Mr Chapman: The question was asked by Mr Justice Richmond 27 years ago, your Honor. Mr Fraser : There were two questions asked : Who is Joe Mills, and what are " props " ? Witness continued that he was- acting on behalf of Pritohard, and the witness whose evidence Gallic was commenting on' was George Dowse, who was a friend of Fritchard's. To Mr Fraser: In that case witness was cross-examined by Mr Barton and Mr Chapman, but came off scathless; he could not say whether counsel (Mr Fraser) would be able to make anything out of him. He was never a total abstainer, but never had a drink with Gallic. Mr Fraser : I can tell you the average number of drinks that Gallic used to take daily in the early times, and it will make your mouth water — it was 42. Now, did you never have a drink with him ? Witness; I never did. Witness continued that he had seen a camel walk, but Gallic did not walk like that, neither did he drag his heels or shuffle along. He used to speak thick, and have a difficulty in getting his words out, but he did no stutter.^, He took a good deal of interest in the establishment of the woollen factory in the Kaikorai Valley, and used often to talk about the machinery and a Mi Booth, who brought it out from Home. Mr Fraser : DJd he use to talk about Booth before Mia arrived ? ' 7 - Witness : He used to talk about the arrival of the ship before it came ; everyone was talking about it. Mr Fraser : But did he talk about Booth before his arrival ? Witness : Well, he couldn't arrive without the ship, you know. Mr Fraser : No, I know that. Please leb;me down lightly, Mr Brown. Now, was Gallic as smart a man at that time as you are? Witness : Smarter, when at the age (60) lam now. In his later years he looked like an afflicted man. Mr Fraser : How ; in what way ? Witness : By the will of God, I suppose. Mr Fraser : That'B not the will we are trying now, Mr Brown. Please explain. Witness : He looked as though he had acute rheumatism or had had a paralytic stroke. Mr Fra3er : Do you mean to say that he was a shrewd man, and perfectly sound in his mind ; so that no one could say that there was anything wrong with him ? Witness: They could say what they liked, but that would not alter the facts. Thomas Davys, deposed that he was an iron-., founder. He was married ■to one of the daughters of John Gallic in May 1878, and had been in the habit of visiting Mr Gallic's house for three or four years before that date. Witness used sometimes to talk with Mr Gallic during that time, but had not known him previously. At first he had a difficulty in understanding Gallic, but this difficulty soon disappeared. It was his thickness of speech that made it difficult to understand Mr Gallic. Mr Gallic's conversation was reasonable. Some of the conversations had reference to the foundry business. OnoneoccasionGalliespoke'to him about the screw-cutting lathe, explaining how [ they managed to cut the screws on the iron by ; changing the wheels. This was something witness did not understand at the time, and he found subsequently that the explanation waß correct. Gallic also talked about the steam hammer. There were also other conversations about the business witness was learning. Mr Gallic did not seem to understand it, and there was many a man did not understand the moulding ; the business was one that required a good deal of explanation even to the most intelligent. To' witness Gallic appeared to retain bis intelligence as long as he lived. Witness had seen Gallic once or twice about Messrt Eincaid and M'Queen's foundry. Gallic told witness he hoped 'he would not take his' daughter away from home until he could support her. It did not require much patience to understand what Mr Gallic said.- At first Miss Gallic explained what her father said ; but he soon come to understand him. Witness was anxious to' see the will of 1872 upheld, and he had strong sympathy with Mrs Gallic in the matter. ; ; James lieighton (storekeeper in Dundas street) deposed that he knew John "Gallic in early times, and continued the acquaintance up to 1874 or 1875. Witness knew of no difference in Gallic's intelligence from the first time he knew him. Gallic always talked rationally and sensibly; his intelligence Was always good: He had no difficulty in understanding Gallic, but strangers would not readily understand him at first. Francis Antonio Joseph deposed that he was a journalist and lived at the Taieri Mouth; Before that he' had been , a' schoolmaster. \ He wrote for the Otago Witness^ tha Otagd Daily Times, and for Australian papers. He had known the Gallic family well, and with the exception of a few years' absence in the country, had known v Mr Gallic very well. About' the time the Tuapeka rush broke out in 1861, witness* family came to live in Dunedin, and he often saw the Gallics then. In 1862' they (the Josephs) went to live at Waihola, and he did not gee any more of the family until March "

i'l 1870. In that year witness was an in-patient I of the Dunedin Hospital for a week and' oat-' '" I patient for over three weeks, during which time ■ I he stayed in Gallic's house, where up to the present time he had been a frequent visitor. Daring the three weeks referred to he had had good opportunities ef seeing Mr. Gallic, sen., and had spent a good part of his spare time conversing with him. Mr Gallic had a slight in expressing himself, bat witness had no difficulty in understanding him. Mr Gallic's conversation with witness was always perfebtly rational^ and' 1 intelligible; lie spoke just as /any other ncjan would. ,Mr Gallic used to ask about witness' father and mother, and other people, and woijrtd talk about old times, and also about current subjects in the newspapers, paying mote attention to law pases than to other matters. -At this time witness was 10 years old. On a subsequent occasion in 1873 or 1874, when wit; ness had ridden, into town, Mr Gallic, on meeting him, asked him where he had put np his house, and then began talking about the best stables in older days. Witness thought that Mr Gallic had a remarkably good memory. In 1871 witness was' in town to be examined at the Education office, and at that time stayed for two nights at Gallic's. On that occasion, hesaw Mr Gallic, and never visited the house without seeing him and speaking to him. From 1872 — for about three years— witness taught a school at Akatore.near Milton, and used to ride into Dunedin two or three times a year. After this he went to Lake Waipori, and used to come into town more frequently. In 1878 he went to Oamaru, staying a night in Mr Gallic's house,; on his way to Oamaru. Mr Gallic was then living and • was as usual. Mr Gallic's conversation with witness was never silly. He used to talk a good deal to witness if they were alone or if the other members of the family were busy, but if they vrere all present the talk was general. Witness had seen Gallic help Mrs Gallic, and tidy up the yard. He had also seen him go out for a walk, but he seemed to spend the greater part of his time in his own home, to be frequently smoking, and to be fond of reading the newspaper, and to wish to live in retirement. Witness (continuing after the luncheon adjournment) said that when he was at- Gallic's he always took his meals with the family find saw nothing out of the ordinary about his mode of eating. ' If any of the children showed insubordination to their mother he resented it at once. He appeared to witness to be a kind, considerate father and husband. Lydia (Mrs L'udford) often disobeyed her mother, and when ;Mr Gallic would be put in a rage at such an occurrence, Mrs Gallic would tell her husband never to mind. Lydia quarrelled with the others a good deal. By Mr Fraser: Witness paid no particular attention to Mr Gallic in those days. Witness heard from Mr John Gallic, jun,, lately that he might be wanted as a witness. He 'did not ask witness what evidence he would give. Witness had spoken to Henry about theevi : dence which hadbeen given, but he had not discussed the facts of the case. Witness had no reason to have a strong feeling in this case; he only spoke on the side of truth, and no more for the Gallies;than for anyone else. Witness did not see that Mr Gallic was unable to carry on a connected conversation about 1870. Mr Gallic's articulation seemed to be far back in his throat ; he had a deep guttural voice. Witness left off school teaching on account of ill health. Mr Fraser: Where did you last teach inthe Otago Board ? Witness : At Milburn, three miles from Toko* mairiro. Mr Fraser: At the 'time of your resigning your position of teacher, had not your committee formulated a charge against you of indecently interfering with your female pupils ? Witness: On my oath I say no, and I ask your Honor if this is Mr Fraser : lamin a position to prove it. , His Honor : Unless the question is based on anything, it would be a f oolfch one to put, Mr Fraser (to witness) : There was an unpleasantness ? TUtness said there was. It was a bogus charge formulated by Mrs James M'Donald, wife of Mr - M'Donald, lime merchant, of witness' ; misconduct with female pupils. The whole thing was inquired into by the committee and i by private individuals. Witness was not called , to give evidence, as it was sonsidered there was ] no charge to answer. There was not one! in- j dividual in Milburn to-day who did not believe i that the charge had been trumped up, so much f so that when Mrs M'Donald was ill not a lady - of Milburn would visit her. . His Honor: I really doubt, from what has < come out, whether the question should have - been put at all, except to discredit the witness. < It has not discredited him in my opinion. ' | Mr Fraser,: The object was this, that if wit- j ness left his employment with a charge of this j kind hanging over him, I respectfully submit ( that it would be a fair matter for comment.- i To Mr Chapman: The charge, was absolutely < unfounded. Mrs Reid, wife of the schoolmaster ] at Milton, and the Rev. Mr Cbisholm were now < on the most friendly terms with witness. ] Witness, on leaving the box, said that he was t treated with respect by all his friends, both in \ Dunedin and elsewhere, and Mr Fraser was the I only exception. c John Gallic, draper, stated that he was a son of r j the late John Gallic, and was 35 years of age. r i His father's speech was* certainly indistinct, but a j witness could always understand him. Witness 1 [was 10 years old when his father was in the | asylum, and remembered going to see him there, f [ There was no difference in him either before or I after he was there. His father seemed to be f ashamed for witness to see him there, and asked f I his mother why she had taken him there. One ] day after he came out he and witness went fora t I walk to the races at the Silverstream, and I I stayed at a "friend's house at the Taieri. Wit- t ness' father always took an interest in politics, 1 and so did witness "since he was 16 or 17. De- c ceased was a supporter of Macandrew and an i opponent of J, L. Gillies. Candidates came to a the house for his support, and he used to go f away to vote. • MrStreet was frequently in the l house, which he passed on his way to his yacht. t They spoke about the lease of the property. Mr i Street' tried to get deceased to make it for 72 a years,* with a revaluation every 14 years. De- \ ceased would not listen to this, and thought 21 I years was long enough' for anybody. Witness I gave evidence -also as>to the 1 late John Hyde I Harris 9 interviews with deceased re the cancella- t tion of Hoyt and Chaplin's lease. - Witness B thought it was Mr Street who persuaded bis t father to give way in that matter.. Witness remembered the sale of a bit of land in Leith t street to Aitken,and Aitken and his wife calling h about that. • f ' His Honor: Are they living still? j Mr Fraser : Yes ; both living still, and on the h same piece of ground. 1 a 'Witness, continuing, said; When he heard 1 the High street property had again changed g hands from M'Landress-Hepburn to Watson, and § that Hepburn had made £1000 out' of it, he tl told his father. The latter made a reply he si should never' forget— viz.: "What a d d h shame, and I never Jia handle a penny of it'!" d After that Hepburn came down to try. and get c< an addition to < the' lease,' which" deceased ' would g "rtot give. " There were other negotiations which U did lead to Watson's getting an extension. *a 1

t; Witness discussed .the matter with' his father, • - add the- flatter did at last give way arid gtanfc i an extension for five years,' only on condition of 3 1 getting another £200." a Mr 1 Street theh' ri came down and "pooh-pbdhed the idea- of deceased getting such a sum for the' extension. Hejaltimately got only £150. "Witness remembered when he, was advising hia father tprgrant^tlm extension the latter said: "My boy, 1 when you\ get as old as I am, you will learn, never to giveaway anything worth mmoney*y y * for nothing.'** "Witness 'saw ;the lease signed and ; th'e money handed to' life father by-James Watsonj partly im cash and partly in: bills. Deceased handed the: notes to his "wife, ' and 1 kept', 'the bills,. While he had them in his hand he said towitness, " Look here my boy, never put your name to the back of one of these. It ruined my father." '^Deceased of t¥n 'asked witness to occupy^ the piece oi land fronting Leith street, and 1 he (witness)' agreed' to take it, providing he 1 could pay for if whenever- he was able. • Deceased, with his wife, walked up to Roslyri 'to see witness Bome> time af&r- his marriage, which took place in 1877. He brought witness two books which he wanted* a snuffbox, and a Nelson college report. Witness remembered his sister Annie's illness and Dr Hocken attending her.* Deceased stoofr a very decided interest in her illness, and was very much oat up about it. Annie and her mother appeared to be on the very best terms. .It would be a deliberate lie to say that deceased -could not carryon' a- connected conversation' with anyone*- Deceased always talked to witness just like any ordinary man would. He gave witness lots of good advice, thathad saved him many a pound. Witness never knew of his having any delusion, or talking nonsense, or saying silly things. Witness had never seen any such hanging of his father's lip or jaw as had been described. He remembered a, 'moistening at the corner of his mouth— a slight 1 dribble— which; he' would wipe- away. Witness had' been> fishing with his father dozens of times, had been to the Caledonian games with him, and to the cemetery, &o. Witness used to go with him to Knox Church for a long time: -• His -father stuck to that-church to ■ the last, and 1 bad not much sympathy with the •' extreme pietists," as he called the Baptists. Deceased was very much grieved about Lydia's going away— more 1 cut up over it than he was over Annie's death/ He often alluded to itafter she had gone away, and used to call it a disgrace. At- that < time it was not a marriage. Witness never knew when the marriage had taken place, nor did his father. Lydia went away in April 1871, and was married in June 1872 ; and they heard she was living at Waikouaiti in the* meantime. Witness more than once heard his father say he would cut Lydia off with a shilling, and leave everything to mother. He repeated it in the family group. Lydia and her mother did not appear to* get on at all.- The first dissensions -witness -ever remembered in the family were caused ' through Lydia. There was impudence and back-answer* ing on > Lydia's part, which 'deceased often checked by speaking- to her and boxing her ears. She was generally disrespectful to her mother. Latterly deceased did not like Ludford: ■ Witness had a scene with Ludf ord on one occasion. Mr Chapman: And it took the form of s carving knife, did it not? Witness: I threw a carving knife at him. His Honor : You threw it at him ? Witness : I did, I regret to say. His Honor ; Ha 1 Witness : It was at the dinner table, after Annie's death. Ludford, who thought his place was secure in the house, was interfering ' with one of my brothers, and when I interposed he called me a young imp, and said he would sorew my neck: My Scotch blood was, up, and I took up the knife 1 and let him have it. ' Mr Fraser : But Scotchmen don't; act like that. Witness: Yes they do; and you yourself are just one that would do it. Witness went on to say that as soon as he saw the blood he left, frightened at what he had done. He was abonfc 16 or 17 years old at the time. When witness came back his father said, " Never mind, he will soon be away now," referring to Ludford. It was a lie to say his father was kept without money. Witness never saw him without a purse with money in it.. He used often to speak in Gaelic to his wife. Witness did not know till after his death that he had made a will. The morning after his death witness went up to Mr Sievwright, who read the will over to him. He then went back to the family and told them about it. Margaret, Amelia, Henry, and Cassie were all there. Witness repeated as nearly as possible the wording of the will to them. If; was thoroughly understood by them that the whole of the property went to their mother. It caused them not the slightest surprise ; if it had been any other way it would. Up to the time that Mr Travers' letter was under consideration no member of the family every suggested & doubt as to the validity of that will. Witness managed' a. business for the New Zealand Clothing Factory for three years, after which ] he went to Uarfcerfcon on business' of his own. When he ■ to ■ Wellington in 1879, he neither - saw nor heard of his sister Lydia. .He enquired for Mr Ludford through the , Hon. Mr Dick, who was Colocial Secretary at .that time, but could not find ouh anything about her. He wanted witness to put the matter in the hands of the police, but witness wanted to go quietly about it. He heard that they had been living in a certain street. He inquired at various times while in Wellington about Lydia's whereabouts, but heard nothing of her or. her husband till Easter 1884, when he got a letter from Ludford from Wellington! Ft was the first he heard of his whereabouts since he left Dunedin. He asked witness in the letter to use his influence with mother to give them some help. Witness did not remember answering that letter, but he had occasion to goto Wei* lington shortly afterwards, and while there called on Ludford at the printing office where he worked. He arranged with him to go op and see Lydia at his house, and it was then for the first time he saw his sister since she left home. He stayed two or three hours in the house. His sister would hardly believe it was him. Lydia was very particular in asking after all the family. When he left Ludford came with him a short distance and said that he was hard up, and if witness could get mother to help him he would be obliged to him. He also em he had written to mother asking her for assistance. Witness went to his home at Carterton next morning. When. he left Ludford he to' tended to do what he could for hiffl< Very shortly after he returned home be got a telegram from his mother. Bo far he had not been able to find it, but could give a good reason for destroying ifc, When he got that telegram he came to Dunedin. Witness went to the oW ! house and found them all there. Two letteri and a telegram were shown to hira. They w^e Travers' letter and Ludford's letter and telegram. Ludford's letter, asked Mrs Gallfe ftj her sympathy and assistance, and mentioned that Lydia was not well. ' The telegram was « substance, " Take no notice of letter. All ft ta» take." Preferred to Travers' letter. lo^J did. not tell witness, in Wellington that he hw consulted a lawyer, or that a lawyer's letter hw gone. "The family wsere Biacamng Travel letter, and Cassio was more hitter than anyon« about it, Xbey«Uexpx«M«atbdrudign»tK»)

»t the letter. Mrs. GMlie asked witness what Bhe should do in '&& presence of Cassie, and witness advised he* to take no notice of it and threw the letter, info the fire, he felt so disgusted at the base ingratitude of the man. Witness went fcack to Wellington within 10 days, but nev^r -Ba W Mrs Ludford since till he saw her in court. He had seen Ludford once or twice, Y,nt never spoken to him. At tbfo stage the court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.

'The tearing of this case was resumed at halfjpatft 10 o'clock. •John Gallic (examination in chief resumed) «aid that he had subsequently communicated with Mr Ludford, but not with reference to this (Case. Ludford asked witness to take his •daughter for a while aa she was ill and he had mowhero to send her to, and this he had done. .Although he (witness) had had many a '"barney" with Cassie he considered he had 'always remained on good terms with her and tthat she would always listen to his advice. When he reproved her for her conduct at home iflhe would generally cry and promise to do ■better. After Cassie left home he saw her, and •on his mother's behalf offered her 15s a week, (but Bhe said she would take nothing but a lump rflum. He had not the slightest reoolleotion of : any inquiry being made by Mr Dick. He did mot mean to say that Mr Dick had not put questions to him, but he had no recollection of his • doing so. It was not until about three weeks ago when he was speaking to Mr Dick that he heard something about a scandal in which his (witness') mother's name was mentioned. He remembered going to Nelson College in 1867. He went with his mother, who also took her son .Henry. They were recommended by the principal of the college, the Rev. ■ Mr M'Lean, to HO to a certain boarding house, and they went there, and all occupied the one room. He saw Mr Walker once on the street when in NelBon.

Cross-examined by Mr Fraser : Witness did not see Mr Walker at the lodgings in Nelson. He did not know that Cassie was in very etraitened circumstances after she left her home, and was not aware that she had to sell her watch and .some clothing for maintenance. He had given her a little money, not because he thought she was in need of it, but becausei he knew that like other girls she could do with' an extra pound or two at any time. He met Cassie once in business hours, and she said she bad left her situation. Some time after this he met her again, and told her she would probably get a situation if she replied to a certain advertisement. It was then she said she was going to get married. Cassie was always dissatisfied; it was her nature. Mr Fraser : This is an extract from onq of Cassie's letters to Lydia — " They pass by me as if I was dirt if ever I meet them, I have just got foack to work again. I have been away about three months. They knew I was away, and they have not given me a penny. They could not have treated a dog worse than they have treated me." How do you explain that ? J Witness : I am net responsible for the actions of my family. That news comes as a great surprise to me. I Mr Fraser : This is an extract from another of Cassie'B letters' to Lydia—" In the first place, mother disHk^d 1 me for being so like you. < It seems mockery 1 %'say 'mother.' And .tbjen, again, I used to^take father's part when I saw the way lie was treAted." Can you explain How it is that foidf ( sMev wrote these words in December 1886?}.". Witness; It J was purely imagination on her part. She was not like Lydia at all.— Continuing, witness said he remembered one occasion lon which his sister Cassie was turned out, and' he took her to his house. While she was there there was no coolness between witness andjhis mother. He remembered no tiffs he had with his mother ; he always allowed them to go toy. He was not a man to bear malice towards anyone, excepting one man. Mr Fraser : And who is that ? Witness : You.— (Laughter.) Mr Fraser: And you bear malice towards me? Witness! Yes; for your ungentlemanly conduct. Mr Fraser : Oh ! you had better not let that interfere with your evidence. Witness: Oh, no. , Mr Fraser : Remember the standard you have to live up to, please. Witness :' Ohyes, I'll never forget it.— Witness continued : He knew Mrs Hill, as he had seen her going to the Baptist Church. He did hot know why Cassie left his house. He did not Iremember asking Mrs Hill to take Cassie in, but he might have done so. While at Wellington witness made money out of some New Zealand Shipping Company's shares, and he also bought some properties, and settled them, on his ■wfife, A petition in bankruptcy was filed against him because he declined to pay a judgment given against him in a law suit. Eventually he got money from his wife through the Bank of New South Wales on these properties. When he saw his sister in Wellington he did not hear a siqgle word about Travers' letter. His sister certainly did not ask him if her father recovered his mind before he died. i Mr Fraser : What happened at the interview ? Witness : If you want the scene, it was this : She came and put her arms round my neck, and said, ," Is it Johnnie, can it be Johnnie ?" — and Johnnie never said anything. There was a good deal of salt water flowing. Mr Fraser : Did you weep ? Witness : Probably I did ; but there was very little said. , Mr Fraser : Can you tell me how long you wept on each others' necks ? Witness: Frobibly for some minutes. I Won't say we were mingling our tears ; but I was considerably soft-hearted at the time. \ Mr Fraser: If your sister gives another account of the interview would you contradict her? Witness : I would not like to call my sister a liar; but I should say her feelings got the better j of her and that she did not remember what happened. Mr Fraser : Thank you very much. I will try to get her to let you down in the same way. , Witness continued : Witness' mother did not pay Harcourt ; that was another mare's nest that had been discovered. If Mr Bathgate said she had done so. he would say "he was another," but Mr Bathgate would not say that or. anything like it. .Witness had beard since that his mother' hadjwithout his consent made an offer of settlement, but it was not accepted. Witness was then cross-examined in detail on his evidence in chief. Mr Fraser : Have you ever said to any person that you could not step into the box and swear that your father was sane at the time he made the will? Witness: That I could not? No; I never said I could not. Shortly after 1 o'clock the farther hearing of the case was adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday. Tuesday, 2nd Avmi. The hearing of the oase was resumed at Donald Henderson, called by Mr/Chapman,

stated that he was a farmer, resident near Clutha. In the old days tie carried on an ironmongery establishment in 'Dunedin — between 1857 and 1870. He knew Gallic partly; He used to drop into witness' shop sometimes—up to about 1868 or 1869. That was about the last recollection witness had of him. Witness was not aware whether Gallic called in after he left the smithy. Witness knew of no peculiarity about Gallic. Mr Fraser said he did not wish to crossexamine the witness, who had given.exactlyithe evidence that he anticipated. The whole point lay in whether witness had seen Gallic after he left the smithy, and he had apparently Hot seen im. , i . <„ ; - .' The cross-eiamiuatipn of John Gallic, jun.', was resumed at 1 the stage at which it was left off on Saturday., Witness stated that he wished to explain, with reference to his evidence already' given, that he, did not pay the money .referred to by a profit made on shares, but, by sale of a property at Wellington. In answer, tpjMr Fraser, .witness said, that he did not put £1000 into Sainsbury, Ellisdon,. and Co.'s business, but his wife did. That money was,, not, {got from his mother, but by witness' wife. , It was' money raised by her 'on property settled; on her by witness after ,he left Carterton. . Witness did not remember, the , name of the boarding house keeper at, Nelson where they stopped when he was , a boy, but could poinj; out the house if he went to that place. He only saw Walker at Nelson once, and that was in .the streets. He would be much surprised to. near that Walker was stopping in the same house at the time ; he never saw him in . the house at meal time or any other, time. Witness sW Henry Miller one day last month, and asked him if he had heard ofi th.c case, and also if , he (remembered witness' "father. Miller did not pay that his business was always transacted with witness' mother, and not with his father. Witness did not say : " Surely you remember father being present—try and remember." Witness did tell Miller to call on Mr Sinclair (defendant's solicitor), out that was simply because Sinclair wanted to see him about the lease. Witness did not 1 say anything to Miller about his boing " three sheets in the wind" when he called to ,see his father. , Witness did ; not tell Miller to call on Sinclair because he thought he would be able to give valuable evidence in the case. , To Mr Chapman: Witness never saw his mother writing letters or anything else any more than his father. John Davie deposed that he was the manager of a financial company, and had been for many years a partner in the firm of M'Landress, Hepburn, and Co. The firm had transactions respecting the property in High street now occupied by Watson's Hotel. The lease was bought from Miller, and was for 21 years. The firm intended to build on the land, and thought they could get concessions that would allow valuation. Negotiations went on for some time between Hepburn and Gallic, and on one occasion witness; saw Gallic in the office with Hepburn. Afterwards the firm sold to Mr Watson, and Mr Watson negotiated for an .extension of the lease through Mr Hepburn. Witness did not know Mr Gallic personally. Cross-examined by Mr Fraser: Mrs Gallic was not present, with Mr Gallic in the room. His recollection was clear that only Mr Gallic and Mr Hepburn were present. James Watson deposed that he went into .business in what is known as Watson's Hotel in 1873. The business ;was begun with the purchase of the lease. There was no valuation clause in the lease, and a compulsory building covenant to spend £500 only. Witness' firm paid £1500 for the goodwill of the lease, and intended erecting large premises on it. They endeavoured to get a valuation clause inserted, but failed. Other schemes were tried, but failed, and at last they got, a concession, of I five years ,on condition that not less ,than £4000 was, spent on the property. In these negotiations he was not brought into contact with Mr Gallic at all. Mr Hepburn negotiated with Mr Gallic. Witness believed that 'he had seen Mrs Gallic once about it and that he had also seen Mr John Gallic. Witness re-, membered going with Mr Denniston to Gallic's about the lease. After remaining in the ropm a short time Mr Gallic came in, and Mrs Gallic and Mr John Gallic, jun., were also present. There was the usual transaction of signing the deed. He thought Mr Gallic spoke, but could not understand what, he said, as he seemed to have a^mumbling, stuttering speech. Nothing struck witness excepting the peculiarity of speech. : Gallic seemed to understand what was done. Witness had repeatedly tried to purchase the freehold of this land but without success. He had tried to purchase it within 12 months. James Cable (produce dealer) deposed that he had been in Dunedin for 25 years. The late John Gallic was very intimate with witness 1 father, and witness became acquainted with Gallic in, 1871. After the death of witness father Gallic dealt with him, and would sometimes call in. without having.any particular business. Gallic had a thickness in his speech, but witness had no difficulty in understanding him, and his conversation was sensible. Gallic generally paid cash, but in April and May 1874 witness found some entries against him. Gallic seemed to take an interest in general mattjers and used to talk about them, and often referred to witness' father. Robert Eeniburgh Murray deposed that jhe had lived in Otago since 1858, and most of that time had lived in Dunedin. He was absent from Dunedin from 1865 to 1867. Witness knew John Gallic before and after this absence. He met Gallic at different places between 1867 and 1879. He generally met him in Cattle street or Cumberland street. Gallic always recognised witness, and knew him on his return from Oameru. During this period witness had once or twice conversed with him. Galliehad not the freedom of expression of ordinary mortals, but witness was able to understand him. Gallic did not appear to be afflicted with anything more than a physical defect of Speech. Witness used to talk with Gallic about the events in the early history of the province. In the early, seventies witness noticed nothing that would indicate that Gallic was of other than sound mind. ■ , " Mr Fraser : Mr Gallic was rather a Radical in the early days, was he not ? Witness : That was to his credit. Ob, I don't mean like Sir R. Stout ; I mean a different kind of a Radical. I have a copy of the Otago Witness of 1858 ; it will be a treat for you to look over it. There is an account in it of a case against Gallic. Do you remember John Gallic beating the late John Jones ?— I did not see it,' but heard of it. He beat Mr Jones and beat the constable, and was fined £3.— Yes, that is to his credit. What I witnessed was another occurrence. Ah, yes; that. was the memorable occasion when he thrashed the bailiff. We won't go into that. You have a theory that all men are mad more or less in some way? — It is a question! of degree. I am mad ? — Yes, to a certain extent. Aud my learned friend is mad to?— Yes; different manifestations. You "found John Gallic wofally changed, on your return from Oamaru? — Just what time and disease would effect on a man. He used to drink a : good deal in the early days? — It was a general practice. I wasdis-

appointed in finding «it so. ;? but it ,w.as their only; consolation. I' suppose. r— Witness" 1 continued \ Gallic used , to ' -walk slowly, ■ He . could say" "nothing as to his^ove of money, but knew that Gallic did riot like anyjencroachment on his rights ,and defied the constituted authorities. Adam Gibson' (town clerk)* produced 1 municipal records ;1863; 1863 to 1865, showing that John Gallic had voted several times, and' twice in. 1865. Since that time voting had been , by ballot. ' . James Tait. (tailor) deposed that he had lived in Dunedin since 1870. He resided, in High street, within 150 yds of , Gallic's 'house from 1870 to 1875, and during .that time made Gallic's acquaintance. Witness often talked with Gallic. Before he was used to him he could nofcunderstand him well; but afterwards knew prqtty weir what he was saying. There were some little things in which witness/ could iioif always pick' out Gallie'sniean'ing; bat when 'blunderstood' what was said.'he found'it sensible. Gallic seemed right and 1 sensible?' the only thing pas" his speech was^affected." After 1875 Witness saw very little of Mr Gallic. < - Cross-examined: Gallic did not " flutter ' away from one subject to another with \ witness, but sometimes witness did not understand, him. . , / ! Mr .Chapman said he expected ;the' e'rqss-, I examination of John' Gallic; jun'., to last' at leiast two hours longer* and he was consequently not in a position to calTafry other witness. j His Honor: Have" you mafay more witnesses? Mr Chapman : Well, we have a great number more, but are going to try to reduce them. jWej are to have a conference this evening, and shall knock off as many witnesses as we can. We have a great many lilted, but are not > going; to call anything like all of them. We 1 propose; to rigorously purge the list. [ Mr Fraser : Can you give me any indication ; when your case will close ? , < ,Mr Chapman : I cannot in the face of the ijwo ' days' cross-examination of one of my witnesses., Mr Fraser: I'm not cross-examining them, much now. ( His Honor: Perhaps you will be able to give some estimate in the morning, Mr Chapman? ' r Mr Chapman : I niay be,' but it is rather difficult. ' , ' The further hearing of the oase was then adjourned until 10.30 a.m. the following morning, and the court rose at 4.30 p.m.

SHAND V. BBLD. v , i Claim £200, damages for' impounding the plaintiff's sheep. . . j Sir R. Stout appeared for the plaintiff, James Shand, West Taieri ; and Mr F. R. Chapman , for the defendant, Isaac Reid. i The statement of claim set forth that on the Bth of May 1888, the > defendant wrongfully drove away and removed 1100 sheep, the pjro- , pertyof.the plaintiff, from, the Traquair hun•dred, where the sheep were' lawfully depasturing, and impounded the same in a yards at, Round Hill, and kept them there for., two. dpys without any food ; that the defendant afterwards- turned- the sheep out amongst same lambs, the property of the plaintiff, which wjere depasturing on the, plaintiff's lahdj and j;he plaintiff had in consequence to muster und draft all the sheep and lambs depasturing, on the said land ; and that !by reason of these nre 7 mises the sheep and lambs were injured and deteriorated in value, and the plaintiff incurred expense in mustering and drafting the samp. ( The defendant" in his statement' of defence gave a general denial to the allegatioes in the statement of claim, and for a further defence said that -the plaintiff's sheep were trespassing on the defendant's land; and the defendant necessarily mustered them in order to separate them from the sheep" depasturing there, 'J}his mustering, it was alleged, was done in a suitable and proper manner, and that -the' defendant, after requesting the plaintiff to take charge^ of them, which the plaintiff refused and failedj to do, and returned -them to the plaintiff's land, detaining and' driving them no more" than yas| reasonably necessary to effect the aforesaid object. By way of counter claim, the defendant claimed £50 damages for trespass, and alleged thatabdut the Ist and 7th of April 1888, and! on other days, the plaintiff broke in and entered the defendant's land at Traquaif, "and trespassed thereon and depastured the same with shefep; and that the said sheep, which were in excessive, numbers, trampled down and injured the grsjss ; and that the defendant was put to expense in mustering the said sheep, and in driving the same off his land and on to the plaintiff's laud. To this counter claim the plaintiff pleaded a general denial. Sir Robert Stout: opened the case for' the plaintiff, and after stating the facts as alleged in the statement of claimjsaid that the law affect-ing, the matter was that if -a man could prove that another person's cattle" or sheep trespassed jon his land and injured it, he could sue the owner for trespass ; but he had no power, if the land was unfenced, to seize the sheep, or to keep them a^all/atid iF-he"did"d6 so, then he was liable for any damages, the owner of; the sheep sustained by his so doing. The real question for the jury in the present.case, the learned counsel submitted, would be, .what was the amount of damage the sheep had sustained ? , i Evidence was then given by James Shand (plaintiff), Thomas Ewart (plaintiff's manager), Alexander M'Killop, C. R. B. Huddlestojie, William Heenan, Robert Robertson, and David Grant. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr . Chapman submitted that there had been no evidence of mustering the hundred. That was the charge in the statement of claim. His Honor thought the jury might suppose that part of the hundred was mustered. , Mr Chapman said that Reid's land was one block, with the exception of one section, which he was not allowed to take up. Shand knpw very well that Refd had taken up this land. He was aware that Mr Snow went to Reid about, purchasing it. What Shand's man did was this : He did not actually drive his .sheep on to Reid's land, but he did the next thing to it. Immediately adjoining Reid's land was another section which Reid-had not taken up. That section was I traversed by the creek that ran close to the I boundary of Reid's land. Shand's man put the sheep across the creek on to that little bit of land, and' they swarmed over it into' Reid's land. Reid at once mustered his land, bat took care to avoid mustering the little bit of ground that was. not his, and as a matter of fact left some of. Shand's sheep on it. He got the use of Heenan's yards because the sheep had to be taken somewhere ; - and 'while they* were' oh "" the march the manager was notified of what had been done. The answer to the case was that with all prudence these sheep were taken down convenient to the place at which Shand could take delivery. Shand would not take delivery; -the manager would not take delivery ; and finding that no one would take delivery, the Reids took these sheep to the nearest gate pn> Shand's land, and turned them in. There; might have Seen, some claim for damage if they had not been; placed in a proper place. As to" the, counter claim, though land were^ujife.n^.ed, a man was entitled to recover compensation for actual damage. In law a man must keep his sheep at home. The" following witnesses' were then called for ; the defence:— lsaac ; 'Reid, William Reid, James | Ferguson, and Neenan Reid. ' .-■- -

Counsel, on bo^thside^ addressed, the^ury, , s ■ L '-Mis Honor/ thjen, summed/up the case, and in, doing so^said* tnat both parties.had been in the wrong. _ The .defendant? had beemwrong in driving the sheep .to. Round. Hill, which he had, no ] business, to do, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover any ! dama'ge he had suffered by reason of fche'defehdant's 'conduct. On the other hand it had been proved thatrtbA plaintiff's sheep trespassed on., the defendant's land, and, the defendant", was L entitled to recover any actual damage sustained by the trespass. , : The , Jury.returhed-a verdict giving £27 10s damages to the plaintiff and £3 damages to the defendant,..,. , , _ '. „ . . . > . •> \ , .;Sir R. Stout asked, his Honor to certify for a juryMdfpijS!upje)aie;CpurtcoßtSj, -. , . < c Mr .Chapman sub'pii(;ea,'thafc the case was one Ithat. ought to have "been tried in the Magistrate's' Court. it ."His Honor' said i'fie was ['disinclined to certify, for costs as it 'was siiiijjly ajcase i',of^trespass, but if the parties '.would have hadto'gotio.Lawr'ence to 'settle their difficulties' that- would alter the -case/ as it was cheaper to bring the'ease/to Supreme Court than to 1 take/fttto thVMagistrate'ssCourt at Lawrence. ■ In order to find put ,whet&er-or, not .the case .must .havebeen heard in, Lawrence ;ifinot, brought to the Supreme Court, hewould reserve decision on the question of costs. , t , . ,- „ \ ",The court adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 10.30 this (Friday) morning. CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, Apb'uj 1. , (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a common jury.) , His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock. - , , HIS HONOR'S CHAEGB. , His Honor in charging the, (Grand c . Jury ( said : Mr foreman ancl'ge'ntlemen of ,the Grans Jury ,— I do' not app^r^end ' you will be detained, long. There are not many cases to consider, andnbne 'of a.'serioiis characte*'. ' There is a' case of indecent assault; there. is' a case of breaking into and stealfng'from a shop; and a case where four men ate' charged with stealing from the person. There is also a case of obtaining, money and goods >by false pretences. The false pretences bf which the. money and goods, were obtained was tb.o presentation, of ,a. valueless cheque' by the, accused. The. only peculiarity .of, the 4 casp is this : That when jshe apcusec^gave the .cheque by" which the money and goods were obtained jhe hada very small balance indeed— l thiuk it was only 6d— at the bank on which the cheque was presented. I need hardly say it' is hot . necessarily a false pretence if a man, thinking ,his chfeque will be paid, gives bis cheque on anoverdrafb.and it; is dishonoured. If, however, a man has no. honest expectation of the money being paid, it is a false pretence. The evidence in this, case is that accused^had "previously dfavvn'otner cheques on this account} all of which were dishonoured;'and the inference, from 'the' depositions is that he had no honest expectation' of this one "being Honoured: ' There is a case of the exposure of a, child— the mother is charged with exposing a child'under the 1 age 'of two years,' by which the-healfeh of-thechild was endangered. ■ It appears that in June last a child was found in Mr Hallensteiri'B garden, wrapped up. Nothing was known of how it, came' ,tp' be placed there until February of' jthis 5 year; ' In', February 'of this ' year the accused f came voluntarily to the police- station 'and said^'that' she was the mother of the child that was left in Mr Hallenstein's garden, and gave a detailed account of how it came there. S v he says it was put there by a woman' named ' Mrs Jarr'ett and without her knowledge, and there is nothing to show that this ' statement' zi the accused, which is indeed the only evidence as to how the child came to be placed there; is untrue: That being so,' unless there is something further, it was not the accused] it was this woman Jarrett, who was the guilty party. It appears, however, in the statement of the accused that she said "She (that, is, Jarrett) told me she had left the child at Mr, Hallenstein's door. This was on Saturday night." If the mother of the child knew on Saturday, when the child was at Hallensteifa's, that the child had been left in Hallenstein's garden, and the mother abstained from going 1 to see after it, and let it lie there, that in itself, I think, would be sufficient proof of the allegation that' she bad exposed and abandoned the child. | If she was told that the child was placed in; an exposed place, and she could have gone ; to I rescue it and abstained— being the mother of the child j and it being her duty to rescue it— l thinkshe would in law be guilty of abandoning the child. I do not know I- have any further remarks to make. Gentlemen, if you will be kfnd enough* to' retire to yoUr room the bills will' be laid beforeLYP.u.... f The Grand Jury found no true bill m the cpae '.of Emma Brookland, charged with child abandon1 ment. > FALSE PRETENCES. John Graumann (29) was indicted for that 'on ( the 13th March of the present' year he obtained goods and money from Frederick Montague by means of a, .valueless cheque purporting to be' of the value of £4. Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed. The Crown Prosecutor said that prisoner arrived in the colony from Germany in. 1874, and was a hawker by occupation. On the 15th June 1886 he was convicted, on two charges of false 'pretences, atr^ for that received a sentence, of two months' hard labour'; on the 4th November 1886 he was sentenced to two months for false pretences ; on the 27th April 1887 to six months on a similar charge ; and on the 9bh May 1887 to nine months, also for false pretences. His Honpr (to , prisoner) :. Although the amount you have obtained in this case is comparatively Email, I am bound to take into consideration your previous record, and to pass a .substantial sentence. . The sentence of the court is that you be'keot to penal servitudojin the 1 colony of New Zealand for a term of three years. BEEAKINGINTO A SHOP. : Michael Penny; a 'boy of 13 years, pleaded Guilty to a charge of having, on March 14, broken and entered the shop of Chai. Johnson, in Maclaggan street, and stolen therefrom 11s 9d in money. , t Sir R. Stout (who had been requested by the prisoner's father to appear for the boy) called attention to the youth of the prisoner, and suggested that lie should be ordered to, come up for sentence when called on, so that it might depend' upon his own conduct whether ,be escaped punishment or not. The boy's fatties was a stoker,' and so was not often at home, s|nd the boy was not under his control. The boy had been also charged with stealing goods from the shop, and for this had been convicted and discharged. . His story was that" he had been induced to commit the crime by another boy. The prisoner had admitted both offences, and that was something in his favour. . His Honor, after, examining the grandfather of the boy and the prosecntor, said: I think that on |he whoje Jt. js desirable that- the child should be sent to the Industrial School. I see there is a' clause in the Act empowering the licensing of a child out if it should seem' proper to dp so ; and,* if it seems advisable" he" should; be licensed to' his grandfather, that can/ be. done.

I ,The order will be that he be, committed to the I industrial School until he. attains the^ago of 15 ? years' (he now being bi; the age of* 1% years and ' 4 months), (to, be brought up in the religion of the Church of England. „ , j ,> INDECENT, ASSAULT. • James Jones was with. an indecent assault on the 2nd of January. A second count charged the prisoner with common assault. ; Sir R. Stout appeared for the. accused and said that he pleaded guilty, to the charge of common assault, but not to the other offence oharged. . The Crown Prosecutor said he accepted the plea at the request of the father of the. girl, who did not want the matter further rinvestigated. Aa the , assault was, not a bad ' one, he , (Mr Haggitt) thought that the, girl's' father acted wisely in making this request. The learned Crown Prosecutor also mentioned .that Dr Fitchett, who was the legal, adviser: of the girl's father, concurred in the opinion that the proper course, under the, circumstances; 'was to accept the plea of guilty on the second count. - Sir R. Stout asked that the accused should be allowed out under the First Offenders' Probation Act. He made the application on two grounds— first, that nothing. was, known; against his character, and, secondly, that he was suffering from phthisis. He had a certificate to that effect, and could also produce medical evidence. His Honor; said that if it was.not'a'case of indecent assault, from the depositions there seemed to be very little in it. At a later hour Dr Brown gave evidence that the prisoner was suffering from consumption* and that the disease was now fairly developed. ; To. send the prisoner to gaol would hasten his death. There was a chance of bis recovery if left in the open air, but the chances were decidedly against it. The prisoner on being. called upon gave his age as 18. • '.' His Honor : Since this morning I have looked over the depositions again, and although this morning I had some doubt of the propriety of the course pursued, yet on the; depositions lam satisfied that it is a,reasonable and proper, one. The depositions show at the worst that no harm was done, and I- also think that on the. face of the depositions there is reasonable ground for supposing that even what is stated there, is possibly exaggerated. As the case is at the.worst not, a serious one, and the relatives of the. prosecutrix do not wish to pursue the matter further,. I do not think I ought to raise any objection to the course which has been taken of the Crown accepting the plea of common assault. That being so I have to' treat it as a commou assault. Looking at the evidence of Dr Brown, who swears that the accused issnffering from a fatal disease which began last year, and now is well developed, and thatsendiug hin to gaol would . aggravate it, I see no particular necessity for sending him to gaol \ think probably, the best way would be that he should ,be fined£s and sent about, his business, instead of invoking the machinery of the Probation Acfc. That will be the sentence of the court~tha« he be£ned£s. .-■'' • The fine was paid, and the Reused discharged. . t ROBBER? FROM T-Sfß PEHSON. "Andrew Dawson, John Horan, "James Myall, and" John Cunningham were charged with having, on. the 16th of March last, stolen a pocket book and,-:^>3s. ,in money from the per- . son of George Brown Douglas. A seootid.. count charged the prisoners with reviving the money, knowing it to be stolen. The prisoners all pleaded Not guilty. Sir Is. ,Stout, appeared for Horan and Cuu-* ningham; ,Mr ; D. D. M'Donald for Myall; and Mr Gaillaway for Dawson. Oh the application of Mr Macdonald all the witnesses, were ordered out of court. Mr Haggitt opened the case, at length detailing the circumstances L on whioh it was alleged the robbery took place. The preliminary inquiry into this case was recently reported in these columns, and the facts as opened by the Crown were briefly as follows .—On Saturday, the 16th of March, the prosecutor and. a friend named Caßsidy went to the Princess Theatre to see the boxing match between Murphy and some other person connected with the P.R. whose name did not transpire. Afterwards they were together in Wain's Hotel, and were joined by the prisoners. The conversation turned upon what they had all been witnessing, and ultimately the prosecutor agreed to back Dawson to the extent of £5 for a match with Murphy. Douglas .wanted, to deposit the money with Mr Waiu, but. it was suggested by one of the prisoners thatit would be better to deposit it at the Ship Inn. The party then went over to the Ship Inn, and the £5 was deposited l with Mr Owen. There was then talk about drawing up an agreem.entj.a.nd while Cassidy and Dawson were .drafting the , agreement; the prosecutor and Hoifan, Myall, ; ahd Cunningham went into the bar parlour to ' get' a ' drink. The three prisoners kept close to the.^prosecutor, who suddenly felt his pocket book- snatched, from his pocket, and saw it passed from one tq the other by hie prisoners. The prosecutor realised that he was being robbed, and "said, " That game wont do. None of you will leave here till I get my pocket book." In a few seconds the book was returned, but it was found that three £10 notes and one £5 note had bsen taken out of it. The four prisoners left the hotel together, and were seen leaving it and going down Princes street. As they went down the street, Daw6on was overheard asking what had become of the something or other, and one of the other prisoners said Jim had it. > What was known of them subsequently wws that they ( went about together during the night, that Myall changed a £5 note with a jockey, in Stafford street, and afterwards another £5 note in an hotel, having previously tendered a £10 note, and, that they had pretended that they were sailors belonging to the ship Peru. On Sunday morning Horan was arrested, and £14 was found upon him, which he said he had won ac the Palmerston races. Very little money was found on the other prisoner* who .were arrested afterwards, and he (the learned Crown Prosecutor Bnggested) that they had had time to dispose of their share of- the plunder. These were briefly the facts on which the jury were asked to conclude that the prosecutor had been robbed by the persons now accused of the The following witnesses were then called, and gave evidence for the Crown :— George Brown Douglas (the prosecutor), William Cassidy, Robert Hardy, Alexander, Owen, Thomas Cornish, James Lang, - William Sharp, John Harrold, Roderick M'Kenzie, and Detective M'Grath. . Sir R. Stout put in a seaman's certificate showing that up to the date of this offence the accused Cunningham had borne a very good character. The learned counsel then addressed the jury,' contending that on the indictmenfrand evidence it was not possible to find the prisoners guilty. There was nothing' in the evidence to fixtherobbery-uppn^any one of the prisoners, and if that was not. done all must be, acquitted. ,Qn the second count :there was no evidence at , ail,*and no two of the witnesses agreed upon any material fact. ' !3 Mr-Macdonald and 'Mr Gallaway also ad- - dressed the jury ;and his Honor .having summed up, the jury retired at half- past 7 o'clock, and in a quarter of an hour euurned a yerdiov of

v Guilty " againßt all prisoners— Dawson being convicted on the second count, and the other, three prisoners on the first count.

The prisoners having been called on, i Sir Robert Stoufc said thai there were witnesses who could be called to give evidence of ; good character for Cunningham, and that the ' person with whom Horan had lodged would give evidence in Horan's favour. Mr Haggitt, in reply to his Honor, said that Cunningham was a pugilist and a " spieler." Sir E. Stout denied that Cunningham was a "spieler," said that the description was "most unfair, and asked that the police be called to prove it. Mr Haggitt also said that Dawson was a' native of New Zealand, a pugilist and a "spieler," and that he had been convicted of stealing from the person in Napier and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. fir Gallaway thought that no notice should be taken of these indefinite charges. His Honor: The police say that he is a " spieler " ; that is something. Mr, Gallaway : It is not a criminal offence. It has nothing to do with the police as lo»g as he is an honest " spieler." His Honor : An honest "spieler " ! I should like to see one. I did not know there was such a thing. Mr Gallaway: Ob, yes. What I have to say of Dawson is that he has a wife and two children and an aged mother in Auckland, and that he is their sole support. Sir R, Stoat submitted that both Cunningham and Horan, as first offenders, came within the letter of the Probation Act. Detective M'Grafch was called to prove the police report regarding Dawson, and admitted that he was not a " spieler '; ; but said that he wasjan associate of "spielers" and prostitutes. He had known him to associate with prostitutes in Wellington. His Honor : When did you see him in Wellington ? Witness: About three years ago, your Honor. His Honor: But you were speaking of last year. You really ought to be more careful. Mr Gallaway mentioned that Dawson was by occupation a slaughterman. His Honor said: I attach no weight to the report of the police that Cunningham is a 11 spieler," but at the same time I am perfectly satisfied that though the offence is one that comes within the letter of the Probation Act yet it is not the kind of offence to which the terms of the Probation Act should, excepting in some extremely exceptional case, be extended, and I am satisfied that this is not such an exceptional case. I take it for granted that he had a goed character as his certificates show up to the time of which they last speak — that is the 2nd of December ; but from what has come out to-day, it seems to me apparent that he is not the class of man to whom the act shonld apply. I do not think there is any reason for supposing that to extend the benefit of the Probation Act to him would in any way benefit society. When a man goes to a public house in co^uany w ifch a number of others, two of whom have bc*n previously convicted (of course there 18 n0 doubE*j,out Myall's previous conviction), and robs a man, Mjd then goes from public house to public house drinking with them, it is evident that whether some time ago he was a man of good character or not^he can hardly be said to be a man of good character now. However, this class of offence, as I have said, is one to which, in my opinion, the Probation Ajjt ought not to be extended. It i s an offence which is very common in Dunedin and elsewhere, for nearly every session there are eases arising out of drunken men being robbed in public houses, and that is a thing which ought to be put a stop to. I shall take it for granted, in fact it has been proved that there is nothing against Cunningham, nor against Horan, and it seems to me that their cases are in fact the same. So far as Dawson is concerned he has been previously convicted and convicted of a similar offence. The sentence of the court against you, Horan, and against you, Cunningham, is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for the term of 12 months, and kept to hard labour. The sentence against you, Dawson, who have been previously convicted of a similar offence and received six months' imprisonment, is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for two years, and kept to hard labour; and the sentence of the court against you, Myall, who have been previously convicted here of a serious offence of assault and robbery and received three years, is that you be kept in penal servivitude in the colony of New Zealand for the term of three years. This concluded the criminal business, and the court rose at 8.30 p.m.