SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2413, 7 June 1900, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, May 28. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at I 10.30 a.m. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury found true bills in the following cases : — Robert Davis, attempted rape ; Joseph Jackson, forgery ; William Stanley Bourke, theft; Andrew Howard, theft (two I charges); John Moffatt, theft; Mary O'Neill, theft ; Elizabeth Rackley, theft ; William Campbell and Joseph Barnes, attempted theft; Thomas Ritchie, assault, causing actual bodily harm; Annie Nisbet, perjury, John Knox, assaultj causing actual bodily harm ; Alexander Hamilton. Eddington, Henry Hughes Eddington, and Robert Burns, manslaughter ; Alexander M'Kehzie and Ellen Chancy, housebreaking and theft; John Price, Charles Price, and Joseph Smith, assault and robbery; Frederick James Page, housebreaking and theft. NO bills. In the following cases no bills were found : — Esther Davis, hotisebreaking and theft; Timothy Hanrahan, manslaughter ; Alexander ! Hamilton Eddington, Henry Hughes Eddington, and Robert Burns, murder. j ATTEMPTED RAPE. | Robert Davis, charged v/ith this offence at ! Frankton on the 12th May, pleaded Guilty, j gave his age as 21 years, and had nothing to ; say. j Mr J. F. M. Fraser, the Crown Prospecutor, said that nothing was known against the prisoner before this. His Honor, in inflicting a sentence of five years' hard labour, said : As nothing has been known against your character before, and as you have pleaded guilty, I shall not inflict the additional ptinishment of flogging which the law allows to be inflicted in cases of this kind. FORGERY. Joseph Jackson, charged with forging the name of J. Gamble to a document purporting to be a cheqtie for £4 2s 6d, pleaded Not guilty to forging, but Guilty to uttering. N The Crown Prosecutor accepted the plea, saying it was practically the same offence. Accused, who had nothing to say, gave his age at 25 years. The Crown Prosecutor said the accused was described as a labourer, and a bad character, the associate of thieves. A year ago he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for forgery. Accused was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. STEALING A BICYCLE. William Stanley Bourke (19) pleaded Guilty to stealing a bicycle, the property of John Gebbie, on the 7th November last. He said that he was very sorry, and hoped the sentence would be a light one— he would never do wrong again. The Crown Prosecutor said the police gave accused an indifferent character, while the records showed two previous convictions for theft. His Honor sentenced accused to nine months' imprisonment. ' ' THEFT OF A GUN. Frederick James Page, charged with breaking into the dwelling of William David Murray Glaister, at Mornington, on the J.9th March, 1899, and stealing a gun, gave his pge as 19, and pleaded GuiltyMr Hanlon asked that accused be admitted to probation.* The probation -officer reported favourably, and the gun had been returned. The Grown Prosecutor said that nothing was known against the accused excepting that when 15 years of age he was fined 2s 6d for defacing a fence. Practically there was nothing against him, and he bore a good character. His Honor said he gathered from the probation officer's report that Mr Macquoid would employ accused at 3s a day if he were released. He would be released upon probation for 12 months, conditional on his paying £G towards the expenses of the trial, in instalments of 2s 6d per week. THEFT. Andrew Howard pleaded Guilty to stealing (on or about April 19) a bicycle, the property of Gavin Wilson, of Sanciymount. The accused was also further charged with having, on March 24, stolen from the dwelling house of John Gebbie, Stafford street, one overcoat, the property of George Sheath. There was also asecond count charging the accused with receiving the stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. / Accused, who was undefended, pleaded Not guilty to the second charge. The Crown Prosecutor said George Sheath (who was a shepherd at Barewood station) came to Dunedin, as many other people did, to see the troops off to South Africa. He brought with him an overcoat, which he had purchased in November last from the Zealandia Waterproof Company. He hung the coat up in the Provincial Hotel, where he was stopping, and he missed it on the Sunday morning. On the previous Saturday night a Mrs Williams, ! who was a second-hand dealer, purchased from the accused the coat produced. This coat was sworn to by Sheath as being the coat he purchased, and the man who made the coat at the factory would say that he supplied Sheath with a coat of the same class. The case then turned upon the identity of the coat, and the identity of the accused. The coat was undoubtedly stolen, and it was in the possession of the accused directly after it was stolen. The accused was, therefore, called upon to explain his possession of it. Evidence for the prosecution was given by George Sheath, Albert Edward Ussherwood, Jane Williams, and Detective Cooney. The accused did not wish to give evidence, and had nothing to say in his own defence. His Honor having summed up, the Jury retired at 12.18, and after being absent for 10 minutes returned a verdict of " G\iilty." The accused, upon being called on, gave his age as 22 years. The Crown Prosecutor said accused had been sentenced to four months' imprisonment for theft at Invercargill on the 9th May, and also to seven days' at the same time, and stibsequently to nine months' imprisonment for theft at Dunedin. During the time he was out on bail in connection with the theft of the overcoat he stole the bicycle. He was a companion of Moffatt' s, and the police reported that his [ general character was bad. ! His Honor sentenced accused to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. STEALING A WATCH. John Moffatt was charged with having, on or about March 28, stolen a watch and chain from the person of Sydney Hislop. There was a second count charging the accused with having received the stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen. Accused was undefended, and pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said that Sydney Hislop was a watchmaker residing in the NorthEast Valley. He came into -town on the 2StL March, and went into the Globe Hotel with a man named M'Neill, and had some liquor. M'Neill left Hislop sitting in a back room in the hotel, and, although Hislop &aid he did not think that he had more liquor than was good for him, he (the Crown Prosecutor) thought the jury would come to the conclusion that he just took so much that he dozed off, and went to sleep in the room, and when he woke up and came out into the street he missed his watch and chain. It was about half-past 12 v.'iien iie wjeg Mita the lifttgl,, and kg waged £ Lq

watch at 2 o'clock. Then, between 2 and 3 o'clock, the accused went to Mrs Engstrom, a

second-hand dealer in Walker street, "and wantel to sell the watch and chain. Mrs Engstrom, however, would not give him what he wanted for them, and he then went to a, Mrs Williams, another second-hand dealer in Stafford street, and sold them for 10s

Evidence for the prosecution was given by Sydney Hislop, Mary Hannah Engstrom, Jane Williams, and Constable Connolly. Accused, who elected to give evidence, said that about 1.30 o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon he and another " party " were going down Princes street South. As they passed the Globe Hotel Mr Hisiop came out of the building, and seemed to be under the influence of liquor. He staggered up against accused, and said he was sorry he could "not shout for him and his friend. He, however, gave him his watch and chain, and told him to try and get some money on them. He went to the Ballarat Pawn Office to pawn the things, but it "was closed. He then went to Mrs Engstrom's, but as he could not get anything for the watch and chain there he went to Mrs Williams' s, where he got 10s. He afterwards tried to find Hislop, but couid not do so. Cross-examined: The name of accused's friend was Edward Myers. Ho last saw him in gaol. Accused was then awaiting trial, and Myers, who was also in gaol, had since been remanded to Wellington. After an absence of five minutes, the Jtiry returned a verdict of " Guilty." Mr Fraser (the Crown Prosecutor) said the accused arrived in the colony from Scotland in 1881. He had been thrice convicted of theft, was an associate of Howard, who had just been sentenced, 'and had been joined with him in. an offence at Invercargill. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: The offence of the accused is of much the same gravity as Howard's, and his previous career has been identical with Howard's. It is not exactly desirable, as they were mates before, that they should get out of gaol on the same day, so that the accused, instead of being sentenced to two years, will be sentenced to imprisonment and to be kept at hard labour for one year and eleven months. STEALING FEOM A DWELLING. Mary O'Neill was charged with having, on the 3rd May, stolen from the dwelling house of John B. Sinclair, at Dunedin, an overcoat, an iimbrella, a parasol, and a pot of maidenhair fern. Second and third counts charged accused with larceny, and with receiving stolen property. Accused pleaded Not guilty, and was undefended. The facts as opened by the Crown were that the goods mentioned vere stolen, and a portion of them sold by her two days afterwards. When charged with the offence, the accused said she remembered selling the goods, but did not know how she had come by them, and must have been drunk. The jury need not be told (the learned Crown Prosecutor said) that drunkenness was no excuse crime, and that .drunk or sober she must answer for her offenco. , Evidence for the prosecution was given by Jane Williams, J. E. Sinclair, and Detective -Bodham. The Jury, without retiring, brought in a verdict of "Guilty." Mr Fraser mentioned that the accused, who gave her age as 47 years, had a very bad character, and was almost continuously m gaol, there being no fewer than 40 previous convictions recorded against her. His Honor: She does not seem to be very well. Ido not know if that is so. Mr Phillips (the gaoler): She is generally very weak, but is worse now, having just come off a big drinking bout. His Honor: Looking at the previous career of the accused, I think the best thing for the community and the best thing lor herself is that she should be sent to gaol for a considerable time. If she cannot do the work required in the gaol the medical officer will see that she has not to do it. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned for the term of three years, and kept to hard labour. STEALING PROM THE PERSON. Elizabeth Eackley was charged with having, on the 22nd of May, stolen from the person of Kobert Vallance, at Dunedin, the sum of £17 in cash. The accused pleaded Not guilty, and was undefended. Mr Fraser (the Crown Prosecutor) opened the case, the facts cf which were that Robert . Vallance, soon after arriving in Dunedin, was met and accosted by the accused, who got him to " shout " for Tier, and then, after asking him for money, took his pocket-book out of his pocket and ran away with it. The sum of about £16 was in the pocket-book when taken. Accused, when arrested on the following day, had only a small sum of money upon her. Evidence was given for the prosecution by Robert Vallance, William Henry Higgins, James Kennedy, James Bunting, and Detective Boddam. 1 The Jury retired at 3.35 p.m., and in 20 minutes returned with a verdict of " G-uilty."' The accxxsed, when called upon, gave her age as 26 years. Mr Fraser said there was a long list of convictions against the accused — 43 in all, — and the police gave her a very bad character. His Honor sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING FROM A SHIP. William Campbell (27) and Joseph Barnes (32), two seamen, were charged with having, on the 16th of May, stolen goods and chattels from the hold of the ship Aberfoyle, then lyingin the port of Dunedin. i The accused pleaded Guilty. Mr D. D. Macdonald, who appeared for the accused, said that the case was one that did not show any great moral terpitude. The facts : were that the accused, who were seamen, went on to their vessel under the influence of liquor, and when in that state they told the watchman they were going down the hold to get two bottles of brandy. The wa+^maa remonstrated with them, but they went quite openly and took the liqiior, but did not take anything else. It would be admitted that the prosecution had nothing eke against the accused. Mr Fraser said that the offence, having been committed in the harbour, was not so serious, in the opinion of bhe officers, as if it had taken place at sea. The master did not want the men again sent on the vessel. His Honor sentenced each of the accused to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. ASSAULT. Thomas Ritchie was charged with having, on the Ist of April last, at Idaburn, assaulted Ellen Sammon with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. A second count charged him with causing actual bodily harm, and a third count charged him with common assault. The accused pleaded Not guilty, and was undefended. Mr Fraser (the Crown Prosecutor), in opening the case, said the accused was a man employed near Kyeburn, and the prosecutor was a respectable married woman, 80 years of age, and the accused was charged with having violently assaulted her. The evidence was that these people lived in huts not far apart, and that on the Ist of April accused returned from Hill's Creek with liquor, and later on went from his h\tt to the prosecutor's, caught her by the neck, put his hand over her mouth, and then violently struck her with a shovel. The woman's head was badly cut and her arm was broken in two places. All the acciised said after this was, " Novr t«& will do ; you have Sftt Hi S&K*" ike S£<«S9 ef complaint seemed

to be that Mrs Sammon very properly objects' to liquor being taken to the place. Whei( arrested the accused said it was all a drunken spree. Of course, if that were so, it was n^ excuse for such an assault to say that it wa^ the resiUt of a spree, and no amount of provocsrf tion could at all justify it.

Evidence for the, prosecution was given bi Ellen Sammon, Mary Drysdale, lsr M'Knightf ! and Constable Lennox. I The accused elected not to give evidence, andy : in addressing the jury, said the prosecutor had broi ght the charge against him out of spite? because he had charged her with stealing th^ jar belonging to the publican. He asserte^ that the prosecutrix was very quarrelsor^; that she had assaulted him, and that the *3U juries must have been accidentally caiised bf his taking from h.6v a, shovel which, she held ; above her head and threatened him with. | His Honor, in summing up, pointed out thai the only evidence they had as to the charactei of the prosecutrix was that she "was quiet and respectable, and that what any man ought ta - do if threatened by a woman of 80 was to get out of the way, and certainly not to use violence! even in self-defence, but to get out of the way. The Jury retired at 5.-10 p.m., and at 6 o'clock returned with a verdict of " Guilty" on the second count, of causing actual bodily harm." The accused gave his age as 54. and asked .that it should be borne in mind that he had bee iin gaol for'two months awaiting trial. He urged the court to. be lenient, and said that if the prosecutrix had told the truth he would not have bean charged. .Mr Fraser. in reply to his Honor, said th« police gave the accused a, bad character. There were 25 previous (Convictions against him, commencing in lS73,Vand the convictions were for offences including violent assault, larceny, being illegally on premises, vagrancy, and drunkenness. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: It is ' fortunate for you that the jury has taken a merciful view of the case in only finding you guilty on the second count. Looking at your previous career, there is ro reason why the maximum penalty for the offence of which you have been convicted should not be passed. The maximum penalty is three yesrs, and that 13 your sentence. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned for three years, and kept to hard labour. The court adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until halfpast 10 this (Tuesday) morning. Tuesday, May 29. His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.3 C a.m. MAN3L VUGHTER. _ Alexander Hamilton feddington, Henry Hughes Eddington, and .Robert' Bums werg charged that, on the 14th April, at Kakanui s they did-kill and slay Peter Cartridge. Mr Newton, of Oamaiu, appeared for th-s accused, wh-j pleaded " Not guilty." On the application of the counsel for the accused all witnesses were ordered out of court. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Frager), in opening the case for the prosecution, said the accused weie charged with the manslaughter o? one Peter Cartridge, in the township of Kakanui. The indictment being one ox man-sla-ugter, and not of murder, the duties of the jury were much simplified. Manslaughter was defined by the code as being culpable homicide, not amounting to murder —that was to say, that it consisted in the killing of any person, by an unlawful act, as in this case. It might also be described as involuntary manslaughter —that was, where any man by doing an unlawful act killed another. The jury were relieved of any necessity of inquiring whether it ' was the intention of the accused to bring about the act that resulted in the death of Peter Cartridge. It was not necessary for them to burden themselves with the weight of determining whether or not the accused intended to kill when they threw the stone. Merely throwing a stone at another was an unlawful act. If by misadventure that stone killed, the offence was one of manslaughter at law. As to whose hand it was that threw the stone that killed Peter Cartridge, that was not a question ihat the jury need determine —that was to say, rt v/as not' necessary to determine tho exact hand that delivered the fatal stroke where two oimore were engaged in an act which resulted in the death of the man. In such a case they were all responsible. The accused were residents of the township of Kakanui. The deceased, he believed, was a Russian-Finn —a maw of some 60 years of age, and also a resident of Kakanui. On the night in question the accused and the deceased, with some others, were more or less in conlnct, and some horse-play was indulged in. It would appear that Peter Cartridge was somewhat eccentric. He was a man rather easily roused to passion, and violent when roused —just such a man as a cprtain section of the comrmmity would delight in aggravating. Some stones were thrown by Peter Cartridge, and the accused followed him up and threw stones at him. He fell, one of the stones struck him on the head, and death resulted. The evidence would show that Cameron ' last saw the deceased about 11 o'clock on the night of the 14th f inst. He was then at' Cameron's place perfectly sober. He went thei'G about 7. o'clock, and apparently stayed till 11 o'clock, going away with John Minty. The three accused and some other young fellows were standing by the church at 11 o'clock at night. Cartridge went there, and they and he had words together. The deceased swore at the accused and threatened them. He then went away, and afterwards came back and threv.stones at some of the party. Three of the accused admitted that they threw stones at him, and the evidence would show that one of them said: "He is down,' or "That downed him." Evidently after the stone that caused Cartridge's death was thrown the accused went back to the church. Probably they had a consultation amongst themselves, and went home without going near where Cartridge was left. One of the young Mintys, however, found the deceased, and informed his father. After hearing the evidence he (the Crown Prosecutor) thought the jury wotild come to the conclusion that Cartridge's death was caused by a stone " thrown by one or other of the three accused. If so, then they would find a verdict in accordance with the direction that his Honor would doubtless give them. William Cameron, a settler at Kakanui, deposed that he had known the deceased Peter Cartridge for about 18 years. On April 14 deceased end John Minty went to witness's house at 7 p.m. Minty and deceased were gammoning to fight. Deceased was quite sober, and said to Minty, " I'll bash you," followed him to the gate, and then returned to the house. Minty and another man then wen* awaj'. Caitridge remained at the house til! 11 o'clock at night. Deceased was an Austrian., and was a man who would get excited if tor< inentod; if left alone, he was peaceable. To Mr. Newton: It did not take muuii ta rouse Cartridge, and he was roused by Minty* He used very strong language, and scarcely opened his mouth, when excited, without swearing. He would swear when talking to the best of friends. Witness never said that Cartridge was excited when he left his house., Minty made a habit of teasing Cartridge. Re-exammed: It would not be an eisyj thing to say how many people in Kakanui wer« in the habit of teasing deceased. \ Mary Ann Watson, wife of William Moore^

Wataon, and a resident at Kakanui, deposed that deceased was a man wiio was very passionate when roused; when not roused he was peaceable, but could be eas ly put out. On the night of April 14, about half-past 11 o'clock, when at home, she heard some people quarrelling in the road. She did not recognise the voices, but the sound was very neai — not more than 10 of 11 yards off. On getting up, she heard something like a groan, and then someone running towards the bridge. Subsequently, on looking out of the window, she saw, lying on the road, what she took to be a bag of chaff, but which proved to be the body of the deceased.

To Mr Newton: Deceased was a very quarrelsome man, and very loud-voiced. On this occasion she did not recognise Ms voice. She did not distinguish separate voices, but heard so much noise she concluded it nvust have been made by more than one person. Sergeant O'Grady deposed that he went to Kakanui, accompanied by Constables Hunt and M'Leod, arriving there at 2 a.m. on the loth of April. The place -where deceased had been lying was carefully examined. There was a pool of blood there, on a smooth part of the road, but no mark of blood 0:1 airy of the adjacent stones. On the efternoon of the same day he saw the three accused and five others on the road near the house of the deceased. After being cautioned, accused Burns made a statement, which waa taken down m writing. The statement was as follows: — "' I was ir. the township on the night of the 14th, in company witb. two M'Gregors, two Eddiugtons, Cleverly, Minty, and M'Leod, about- 4 p.m. We weie standing neav the church corner talking when Peter passed^ -I and sorae others said, ' Halloa, Peter.' lie replied, calling us dogs, and .some other names. vYe told him to go home. I was on the outside o c the party when he made a smash at me. I dodged him. He then went home, and came back with his coat off snd his sleeves rolled xrp. He had a stick in his hand, and made a run at the ciowd. fie did nou hit anyone. "W e told him to go home ; we did nob wai.t a row. He thesn left m the direction of his home. One Cleverly, the two Eddingtoas, J. M/Giegor, and I started to go home. He was in front. He said, ' You clogs, I'll smush yoiir skulls :n.' He commenced throwing stones, but did not, hit any of us. We thought we would frighten him. We p eked up a stone or t*-vo arid threw them at him. I niybelf threw one, with no intention lo hit him. I saw the others stoop down lo pick i;p stones, and I suppose they threw them. I only threw one stone, but had another in my hand. AYe were then standing between "I Q-re^or's two aates. "Pete.- was standing at i-Vit {in:e near "Watson's store, nearer to us tiviv where the blood w?s on the road. I threw the stone in the t?ireciio.i of v.-kere Peter was. 1 did no'j sfeo him fill, but Hariy !Ed.di'igton. said. "He is lying dov,n, ; not to go aloTij; that way — that he would c.ttch us. We then turned bick and jo'ned ILi-ty, M'Leod, and IS.. M'G-regor. "iVhen v*-o rot back Minty was there. Minty asked whc-' - o he was, and we Told him not to along thri «ay, as he v. as ]yiug down waiting. He said, ' J am going,' and he went. The two Eddiiigtozif;, Cleverly, and myself went xip the back way and went home. I stayed with Cleverly. Wo were in bed when Minty fold us Peter -was dead. The two M'Ge'orgej were at Cleverly' s hut this niornir.g.' Witness had seen Minty and Cleverly, but accused were roi present. When Bums had finished he sat down, oi:d witness spoke' to James M'G-regor, who said that he was with the others in the township, and saw Peter Bass. One of them, said, " Good night," and Cartridge walked over and used very bad language, »nd, b->inj advised to go home, ho replied that he would sni'ish. their skulls, but he -went away. The Eddmgfcous, Burns, and Cleverly followed him, and witness heard them say that Cartridge was throwirg stones. Accused told him (M'G-regor) that they had thrown stores, too. Alexander Bd^ingtoai also made a statement, which" witness took down in writing.

Witness here read bhe statement in question. It was to the following effect: — He (Eddington) was with the other young fellows on the night when Peter Cartridge massed them. One of the company said, " Good night, Peter." Cartridge replied, saying he would come back in a few minutes and settle some of them. Shortly afterwards Cartridge came back with his coat off and a stick in hi? hand, and •threatened them. He then went along the toad a bit, turned back, and threw stone 3. When near lu'G-regoi's place he again threw stones, and said he would split some of their skulls. They were then about 50 or 60 yards away, Alexander Bddington then threw a Ft one, and there were other stones throv-ji at Peter. He did not see Cartridge fall, and did not tell anyone that he was over. He went hoinp- J .he bsck wav with his brollier. Cleverly, and Bxims. He dir 1 not hear the expression uhat Cartridge was Ij'ing clown or that h.3 was o' r er. "Witness processed to say ihst Malcolm M'G-rogor also niacie & ptateraent, which witness took down in writing.

]\3r N~evr:on obi'ect»J to the admission of the statemexit a? evidence, on the that siich a statement could not be regarded a1?a 1 ? a tacit admission by the scclisjcl that the s^a'ement v/as correct. aii<? that they conk 7 not he exuectad to contiadict the statement whether it

was correou or not,

Mr Fracev ssid the objection wouUI more uroperly come in in asking the iurv to discount the evidence — not as an argument against the admiss ; a,i of thp evidence.

His Honor did not think he 'could exclude the statement. He should think that if the statement mat's might hs to incriminate the accused they niisht be expected to raise some probrt about it.

Witness then proceeded to read the statement, which was to some extent corroborative of that made by Alexander Eddington. He also read a. statement made by KpMieth M'Leod.

To alt Newton : The statements made by the accused were made spontaneously.

Constable limit also gave evidence,

George Cleverly, litae-burjier, who resided at Kakamu, said he was at the hotel, in company with several young fellows, including the tlu-38 accused, on the night of the 1-lth of April. They left the hotel about 10 o'clock, and went down the road as far as the church. They remained there talking for about sn hour. While they were there Peter Cartridge passed. As he passed aonie of the lads said " Good night, Peter." He leplied, "' Get out, you dogs," or something to thai effect. He then started to swear, and one of the lads told him to go home, and said they did not want to have any row with him. Peter said, " Wait a. minute," and then went in the direction of his home. He returned in about five minutes with a stick, and had his coat off. He came up to the lads, commenced swearing at them, and said he would 3rnash their skulls in. Two or three of the party told him to go home again. He started to go home, and witness and the other lads afterwards started to go home too. When they got to the bridge Peter Cartridge commenced to throw stones at them. They walked on for about 15 yards past H'G-regor's gate, when witness turned to go back. The three accused also turned back immediately afterwards. As they were going along the road, towards the church someone said Peter was lying down, and that they should not go that way, as he thought Peter was going to play some trick on them. They then went back to the church corner, and met some of the lads \yhom they had left there before. They told these lads not to go down in the direction of Peter, and then left to go home. Witness left the two Eddingtons at his own gate, and Burns stopped with him that night. The only Bton.es he saiv, thiown that night were £ueg£

thrown by Peter Cartridge. He, however, heaid the accused state that they had thrown stones He did not see them throw stones or pick any up.

To Mr Newton: None of the lads gave Cartridge any provocation that night before ha threw the stones. When Cartridge came up to the lads with the stick in his hand he was very excited. He was the first to throw stones. When he was lying down none of them thought he had been struck with a stone. Witness honestly thought that he intended to play a trick on them. James Wm. Minty, who was with bhe previous witness and a number of other young fellows at the corner of the church on the night of the 14th April, stated that when Cartridge came up to them and said he would smash them some of the party replied that he could not do it. Cartridge then said he would come back and show them He came back with a stick, and had his coat off. He flourished the stick about some one's head. He thought it wss Malcolm M'G-regor"s. Witness found Cartridge lying 011 the road on his way home, and saw the blood. He called his father. When he was going to tell the police about the matter he called in at Cleverly' s, and asked what he should say about it. Cleverly said to tell them that Cartridge started throwing stones at them very viciously, and some of them retaliated. Cro3s- examined : Deceased must have been in a violent temper., or he would not have taken such notice of what was said to him. fl Good uight " was not called out in a provoking manner r - Jamas Malcolm M'Gregor and" Kenneth M'Leod, residing at Kakanui, gave -similar evidence. Dr Jauiei Whitton gave evidence that he had been called to Kakanui on the morning of the loth April. ,He found Cartridge dead,, and examined the locality where the body had been found, but discovered no blood, excerrtiug just where the body had been lying. As the result of the post mortem, witness found a severe wound on the head of deceased, and some unimportant scratches on his hands. There was r.o fracture of the skull, and no blood clot on the brain. Depth was attributable to hemorrhage from the wound, contusion of the brain, and shoci to the nervous system. The wound might have been caused by a stone thiown at the , deceased, and the stones found there would have answered the uurpose, as some of them weighed lib each. He did not think the K hi]ury I could have beci craned by a stumbling fall on 1 loose stones. Such a thing would bo at any 1 ratp imyrobsiVile. I Cross-esami'iccl : If accused fell when moving rapidly that voti!-.'"! raake a "difference to the . violence of the fall. Jf he was going rapidly ■ ai:d fell on a round beach stone that would ! c?use such a wound as had been found on deceased. A man falling would be likely to strike his nose and forehead against a stone, , and there was a contusion on the deceased's 1 nose and the severe -wound, was on his brow. i "Re-examined: Witness found no stone within the radius <-he examined which could have caused such injury. A man fallin- with a stick • in his hand would be likely to drop it on ! ri&ing. i At thiir stage the -further hearing of the case 1 was nch'ourned imtil 10.30 on the following morning. I The court rose at 6 p.m.