CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2672, 31 May 1905, Page 15

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

*/ Mokdat, Max 22. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at naif-past 10 o'clock a.m. 1 THE GBAHD JUBX. " The following gentlemen constituted the Grand Jury: — George Lyon Denniston (foreman), Andrew Turnbull Anderson, James Neil Brown, John Charles Cannon, George Robinson Cheeseman. Alexander Cowie, Frederick George Cray, William Fraser Edmond, Arthur Hadfield Fisher, John Gray, George Robertson Sercus, George Lawrence, John Loudon, Peter Miller, James Hugh Nimmo, Adam Paterson, Reid, Bardley Culling' Reyno-ds, S James Colin Ross, William James Tonkin. his honor's charge. His Honor addressed the Grand J,ury in the following terms: — Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — The charges against members of the Police Force which have so astonished and shocked the community constitute the main feature of the cases you will have to consider this morning. I don't think you will find any difficulty about these particular cases. At this stage, at anyrate, "there Is no need for me to make any further comment upon them. As for the other cases, they are of the class which usually comes bafore you, and none of them are of a particularly serious character. There is a case of assault and robbery, there are two cases of housebreaking and two cases of stealing from the person, and there is a case where one man is charged with the forgery of two cheques. • I ■do not think you will find any difficulty about , them. It may be that in one of the cases .the evidence is .comparatively slight. Your Imsiness, however, is not to finally determine the case, but simpjy , to satisfy yourselves there is sufficient in the evidence to call upon ihe accused to answer, the charge. If you will kindly retire to your room the bills will be laid before. you.

" TRUE BEDLS. Trne bills were brought in in the cages of " Robert MTjftien, charged with housebieaking •and theft; John Condon, charged with theft; Marry Hart, charged with forgery; John Hanna, charged with theft ;' Harry Boult and William Watt, charged with assault ■ and jobbery; Oliver Henry Osbome. charged with breaking and. entering and theft; Edward Quill^ charged with theft and receiving ; and James M'D.onald and Thomas Moses, charged with breaking and entering. The Grand Jury returned a no-bill in the case of David Headley Simpson Inglis, charged with breaking and- entering and theft. Accused* c6uld not be discharged, as he was serving two months' imprisonment on another charge. The Foreman of the jury said they had no presentment to make, and the jury were discharged.

HOTTSUBBEAXTNG AND THEFT. Robert M*Laren, alias Johnston, was charged ■with, on or about March 10. at St. Hilda, breaking and entering by day the dwellingtiouse of Richard Burrows and stealing therefrom a greenstone brooch, a lady's watch, a lady's watch-chain with pearl cross, and a Silver watchguard. Accused pleaded " Not guilty," and was not represented by counsel. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser), in opening the case, said that accused was charged* on three counts — first, with breaking and entering; secondly, with theft; and thirdly, with receiving. The facts were very simple. Richard Burrows lived in Young street, St. Eilda, and on March 10 his wife left the house" in the afternoon, returning About 2.30, and then taking off her brooch and sitting it in a- drawer in the diessing-table. She. opened the window slightly, this being ton the. ground floor in the front of the .house, and 'readily accessible from the garden. Mrs Burrows then went to -th« back part of the bouse, was busy there during" the -afternoon> «nd went tocher zoom again about 6 o'clock, »nd, going to the drawer with the intention of putting on her broooh, she found it gone, with the other articles of jewellery mentioned in>the charge. The window had been pushed light up, and evidently the thief had got in through it or reached through it and taken the articles. Evidence would be given by ■mother resident in St. Kilda who saw accused an the neighbourhood on the day in question, and by a second-hand dealer to whom accused sold some of the stolen articles. Elizabeth Alice Wilson, living at Young Btreet, St. Kilda, 40 or 50 yards from Burrows's ho-use. deposed that on March 10, about 3.30 in the afternoon, a man came round ihe *sid«, of her house on his hands and feet, and she saw him getting through, her bathroom window. The men gave his nam« as M'Laren when she spoke to him, and said tie was looking for some person's house. Witness identified accused as the man. Accused went away in the direction of Mr Burrows's house. William Cuttle, secondhand dealer at South Dunedin, gave evidence tFat accused sold Mm- the watch and brooch in question, giving "the name of George Johnston. Evidence for the Crown was also given by Sarah Borrows and Detective Connelly. Accused, given the opportunity to speak to ' the jury, had only to say for himself that he !had never been before the Supreme Court before, and he hoped that too serious a. view would not be taken of the charge. His Honor, having summed up, the jury retired at 12 o'clock, and returned after a quarter of an hour with a verdict of " Gviiity." His Honor deferred sentence. POUGBBT. Harrj Hart, alias James W. Harris, pleaded " Not guilty " to the charge of, on April 19, at Dunedin, forging and uttering a cheque for £3 on the National Bank, the same pur-port-ing to be signed, by P. Hayman and Co. The accused was not represented by counsel. The Crowu Prosecutor said he thought the jnry would find the evidence in Ihis caso a'jsolute-ly, conclusive. On the elate in siueft-

tion accused went to David Robertson, painter^ of Stuaxt street, and asked him for a cheque, stating that he had bought a horse and wished to send the money to the seller. He received a blank cheque on the National Bank, and the same day accused went to Messrs Fyfe and Curmng's, in George street, and bought a hat there for 6s 6d, tendering a cheque for £3 on the National Bank in payment, this purporting to be signed by P. Haynmn and Co. While inquiries were being made about the cheque accused said he hoped he would not be kept waiting long as he had a horse and cart waiting for him. and he left the shop while the man at the counter was occupied, and took the hat he had bought with him. The oheque would be identified as , the . same that was procured from Robertson i in blank. Accused disposed of the hat to a ! secondhand dealer subsequently. Evidence was given by David Robertson, Robert Wallace (assistant at Messrs Fyfe and Cuming's),, Emily Nixon (second hand dealer), Ernest Priest (accountant, Messrs • P. BTayman and Co.), and IXstective Cooney. This closed the case for the Crown. The accused elected to give evidence. He said he was a dealer and traveller, selling softgoods, jewellery, and all classes of merchandise. Ten weeks ago he received some goods from England. He went to Tima.ru, where lie spent eight days He then bought a quantity of goods there, together with a horse antl van, and engaged a man named , HoPis to go to Waimate io sell the goods. Hollis and accused worked the district to Dunedin. They also visited the DunedinClinton district, and- when accused left Clinton for Dunedin he had about £19. He i arranged to sell the horse to a man -whom he 1 met in the train. He went into an hotel with this man, and, as h«' could not stand intoxicating 1 drink like some people, he soon lost his senses. When he woke up next morning he missed his money and his bag of samples. That morning Hollis drove in from the south, and as he v»as going on to Wellington at once, accused took charge of the horse and trap. Accused went on to make a long statement about getting a valueless cheque from a man to whom he had sold half a dozen watches, and buying a hat in a shop near the Excelsior Hotel, giving the cheque in payment. I/atsr in the day he found the man who gave him the cheque, and demanded from him the inon«y for the watches. His friend left him, saying he would get the money and meet him in George street. Accused went down George street and met him, and his friend handed him a cheque for £3 on some firm in townAccused spoke about buying a hat, and his friend told him the best place he could go to in town for a hat was Fyfe and Cuming's. Accused told him that if there was anything wrong with the cheque he would leave it and nave nothing moTe to do with it, because he did not want any trouble over it. He went into the shop and bought the hat, and told the shop assistant not to keep him waiting, as he had a horse and cart standing outside. He went to the doof to see if the horse was there, and saw it going down the street. Naturally, he thought no more about the oheque, but went after the cart. He could not overtake it. He was frightened to report the matter, because he thought the cheques might not be' right. Later on, while talking to a man named Williams, he was arrested. He knew nothing- of the person who gave him the cheques. He received them both in good faith. He had no need to tender forged cheques, "as his business provided him with money. In addition, the cheques were signed ■by people of his own persuasion, and it was the last thing he would think of doing to ■ aid and abet the- bringing of the people into contact witJi the court. By the Crown Prosecutor: The police informed him subsequently that they could find no trace of Hollis, or that witness was the owner' of a -horse and cart. He had served a sentence -of 12 months' imprisonment in the Auckland. Gaol for forgery in 1902. He was discharged in December, 1903. There was a miscarriage of -justice in that case. He was on innocent man. This matter, however, did not affect 'the case. ! His. Honor said it affected the case very I materially. ' In » k nswer to another question, accused said . that he was charged with secreting goods in the prison ground at Auckland, and received » a sentence of one v month for it. He wished a " man of his own persuasion in the gaol to get the goods, because the gaol authorities had been ill-treating' him. On the Ist July, 1903, he was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for being an habitual drunkard — that is to say, he had been convicted of drunkenness four , times within six months. The accused made I an irrelevant statement about an Auckland policeman putting his hand into his pocket while He was asleep, and -was at last ordered "by his Honor to keep silence. The accused persisted in talking in .the same strain. His Honor: Keep silence, or I shall send you to gaol and keep you there indefinitely until you can behave yourself. We cannot have these things going on in the court. The accused said that these questions were being put "to him to prejudice him in the eyes of the jury. It was not British fair play. ' The Crown Prosecutor: Did you receive a ; sentence of 12 months for stealing a bicycle? The Accused : It has nothing to do with the case. Did you receive a sentence of 12 months in November, 1903, ior stealing another bicycle in Christchurch? — I not know anything about it. Will you please proceed with the case now before the court? Did you receive atsentence of three months' imprisonment for theft in Christchurch in December 12, 1904? — The accused's answer was quite irrelevant. t The Crown Prosecutor: I will take it you do not answer the question. The accused, in answer to his Honor, said he had some witnesses to call. Detective Herbert was the first witness called by the accused, and answered a number of somewhat pointless questions with regard to the proceedings in the lower court. John Morrison Innis, boarding-house keeper, said that the apcused behaved himself all right while staying in his place. The accused never complained to him about losing a handbag. Mrs Hart, the next witness, said she did not know the accused or anything about the case. Years ago she saw him in her shop, but her recollection of the occasion was very faint. The accused said he did not wish a lady to give evidence against her will, and he would excuse Mrs Hart. His Honor said he did not know why Mrs Hart should have been called. The witness then left the court. David Robertson, recalled, and Hyam Brasch, accountant, Messrs D. Benjamin and Co., gave unimportant evidence. The accused then addressed the court, speaking for over two hours. In the course of his remarks he introduced aknost every question under the sun, making "the most inapplicable and misleading statements, and at a quarter past 6 was warned by his Honor that there was a limit to a speech of such a wandering nature. That limit, said his Honor, was reached when the court was of opinion that the accused was trifling with the court and the jury. His Honor asked what was the opinion of the jury? | The Foreman of the jury said they had had enough.. The accused was simply repeating his statements. His Honor: Is that Jhe general opinion of ' tke iuxxl

The Foreman (after consulting) : Yes, your Honor. His Honor, addressing the accused, said: You are simply wearying the jtiry and prejudicing yourself. I do not want to stop you, but it is within my rights to stop you if I think you are trifling with the court. That is my opinion, and it is the opinion of the jury. The Accused: I do not wish to do that. His Honor: You can go on for five or six minuie3 longer. You have already said the •same things several times over, and I do not see what more there is to say. The accused went on for seven minutes more in the same rambling manner, when he was again warned that he was wasting time. He ■was allowed six minutes longer. "If you cannot finish in that time," said his Honor, "you will not have the right to say any more." The accused occupied the next 12 minutes in again asserting his innocence and repeating that he had not been able to get the witnesses he wanted His Honor then stopped him, remarking: I shall not hear you "further. You are deliberately, for a purpose I cannot understand, trifling with the court and the jury. You have now been heard at length. There or four times you have said the same things twice over. You have been asked to condense your remarks, and you have simply repeated the same thing. I regret I cannot hear you any more. Have you anything fresh to say — and if so, what — in your defence? Th« accused said all he wished to add was that he was innocent. He had been the victim of circumstantial evidence, which was likely to happen to anyone in his business as a dealer. At 6.40 ip.mi the court adjourned until next morning at 10.30. Tuesday, Mat 23. His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10 am. FORGERY. Harry Hart, alias James W. Harris, pleaded " Not guilty " to tho charge of, on April 19, at Dunedm, forging and uttering a cheque for £3 on the National Bank, the same purporting to bo signed by P. Hayman and Co. , The hearing "of this case was resumed. The Crown Prosecutor (Mt J. F M. Fraser) said he thought the juiry oould have no doubt concerning the guilt of the accused. He was afraid he must ask the jury to treat the long story told by the accused as an entire invention. The tale about the partner, the horse and i cart, the bag of samples, and the theft of money j v/as, he submitted, invented by the accused. The police had been unable to obtain any trace of the horse and cart or of the partner, and it was inconceivable that they oould have disappeared in the manner in which the accused said they did .without some trace being found of them. The case was an illustration of the patient hearing that every prisoner received in the court. His Honor, in summing up, reviewjed the evidence, and said that when such a story as that put forward by tha accused was told to the court it wa3 right that the Crown Prosecutor should test it and ascertain whether it _ was worthy of credence, and, in order to do so, j the Crown Prosecutor had asked the accused about his previous convictions. The. replies given to these questions were not satisfactory. The jury retired, at 10.54 a.m., and returned at 17 minutes past 11 with a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor deferred passing sentence. 1 Later in the day Harry Hart was further I charged with, on' April 19, forging a cheque for I £4 on the National -Bank, the same purporting to be " signed by D. Benjamin and Co. Accused said lie pleaded,^' Not guilty" to ■ forgery, but would plead " Guilty " to writing j the cheque. The Crown Prosecutor: I accept that. j Prisoner gave his age as 30 years. His Honor: What is known of aeousefl? The Crown Prosecutor said that Hart apparently arrived in the colony in 1901, and his chaiarter was reported as bad. In Feb- , ruary, 1902, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment at Auckland for forgery and false pi«+ences; in July, 1903, he was con- ! victed of being an habitual drunkard; in November, 1903, at Christehuroh, lie was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for theft of a bicycle; in January, 1904, he received a similar sentence for a like offence, also at Chnstchuroh ; and in December, 1904, for theft at Christchurch, lie was sentenced to threo ' months' imprisonment. His Honor said the actual offence of which the prisoner had been convicted, standing alone, would not have been a specially serious one, but his previous record showed that he was a person of criminal tendencies, and it was necessary for the aafety of the I public that a sentence comparatively severe should be passed. Accused would be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, -with hard labour. ASSATTbT AND BOBBERY. William Watt and Henry Boult were charged with, on April 18, at Dunedin, assaulting one Henry Price. The accused pleaded " Not guilty." Watt •was defended Toy' Mr D. D. Macdonald, and Boult by-Mr B. S. Irwin. The Crown Prosecutor said that Price's story was this : He was a labourer, residing at Pine Hill. He came into town on the 18th of April last. Before that date he knew both the accused. He met them in Dunedin on the date in question, and was in their company all the afternoon. They wefc all drinking toI gether, raid late in the afternoon they reached Branson's Hotel in Great King street, where they were refused drink. Price realised at that stage 1 that he had better " split up tl& company," to use his own words, and after giving one of the men a few shillings he le"u them. He went to the urinal, and' as he was going into it he received a blow in the face. He turned round, and saw both the accused attacking him. In the struggle that followed Price's watch chain was broken, and was subsequently found on the floor of the urinal. The complainant reported the matter to the police immediately afterwords- "When the accused were attested they made certain statements to the police. Boult was arrested on the l&fcii April in Stafford avenue. He said, " I was with Price. I admit having assaulted him in. the urinal at Branson's 1 Hotel. The reason I struck him was that he accused me of having robbed him." Even assuming that Price accused Boult of robbing him, he had no right to assault him as Oie did. When Watt was arrested he said that when Price went towards the urinal Boult followed him, and when the prosecutor called out " Police!" Boult ran away. Watt admitted that he also ran away 3 but said the reason he did bo was that he was a prohibited person. Henry Price^ the prosecutor, in giving cviI clence, said! he did not know to which man he j gave money in Branson's Hotel. He did not know which of the men struck him on the temple in the urinal or which of them grabbed a<t his watch chain. He did not strike eithei of the men, though he kicked one of them. He had previously accused Boult that day of robbing him of £7 or £8. That happened when ■witness was staying at Boult's placo at one time. i In reply to Mr Macdonald, witness said he gave evidence in a case of sly grog-selling against Mr O'Dowd, of Tapanui. Ha did not state in that case that lie had received a sentence of six months' imprisonment in Invercargill for aggiavated assault. He admitted [ he was sent to goal for a month, for theft.

Mr Mscdonald : Were you not convicted very often for drunkenness? The witness would Etvt answei tue question. Mr Macdonald also asktd the witness if he remembered Mr Justus Willitms, in the Tapanui case, remarking that lie (the witness) had been convicted of an aggravated assault, larceny, and drunkenness, and lhat when information in a case was given by a man of that class it was well it should be corroborated. The witness replied that the assault took place in Invercargill. Mr Macdonald: You admit now that you did serve six months for an aggravated assault 9 „ Witness: I was fighting for my owr p' at the tinae. ' Detective Cooney also gave evidence. Mr Irwin, speaking in defence~of Boult, said he thought the jury would com© to the conclusion that the whole matter from stait to finish was most trivial. The jury were simply asked whether the two accused, without any lawful excuse, assaulted Price, and the Crown relied on the evidence of the prosecutor and the statements made by the accused to Detective Cooney. After hearing the evidence, he submitted the jury would conclude that" the only evidence against the accused was contained in the statements which the men made to Detective Cooney. Price was wholly unreliable, and his evidence was unworthy of credit. Evidence would be called to show that the prosecutor knew little of what went on that day, or was deliberately telling falsehoods in order to obtain a conviction. Price said he -went to the Terminus Hotel ana engaged an expressman there. The expressman would be called and -would say that was not true. Boult's story was that he and Watt met Price in the Bowling Green Hotel and afterwards went to the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, where they were refused drink. After leaving the hotel Price and Boult had a disagreement, but the matter was sett.cd, and the men then went to the Law Courts Hotel and also to Branson's Hotel. As to the robbery, Boult said he was on the pavement

« . Trifh Watt when, Price- went into, the- urinal. .Watt: " went towards., the* urinal, and, coming fcacfc,,s»id~to Bbult, ""He* is-" talking, about; you (taking: hia- -moneyl"' Strait went to. the■urinal and. met Erice just, inside the door, and' asked- him. it he: accused! him.: of robbing- Kirn. Price- did not. answer. Boult was about to call Wait, wKert Price siruclc him* aaid Bbult struck back, with' the- result that' there was- »■ Bcuffle. ' Evidence was then called on behalf of Boult. . . " William Harieyjc esßreEsmanv said' t&at on 'Jfp.ril 18- Price engaged' him. in: south Princes-, •treefe Henry- Bouiifc;\ one 1 -, of' tEe arccusedj said he? Sad' never Been- mr any; trouble' before.- Hef mew the. prosecutor 16 yeara . ago on Moa v Klart Station. Before* coming to- Dunedin two years' agp witness,' was-- « resident: of ; Tkpanuf. _ TKe witness's story of phe? events- of April 18' corroborated tire- opening: statement of his counsel. By thee Crown Wtasesavdtotr. "When Detective Cocmeyr arrested him he did not say he had ttßßaulted: the prosecutor.; Be* did: not; use? the word: " assault:"' Hfe- didJ not: think: of telling: the detective that Sricee had: struck- him first:. JTrancis- •Conn;, espressmaai, was- called;, but: did' not 1 appear: : TXx iTwiintEsn. odtizessed'. the iury/.oir behalf t^'Bottlt, He* saicf. Prices character' wa3 such Giat. ther jnry: woidcP-De' justified', mi sayioff thict: t&e^r woulcL-note hangf a. cat on. his 1 evidences Bhult;, on. the-- other hand 7 ,, had' never -.Before'. been. m. thet'^coarj? cfliaxgerK watlL aiy^qflencei ffiinl^Hi siafcameniff ware. worißy oil credesoe,. nailer- PriceTs, werei not.. BSoulKa sstorey c wasthoroughly^ conHiatent^. scoS- was, unshaken, iic CEoaB-examiiiaJion. when- arrested' he candidly admittedt he? had. atrnclc. Edce,- andi he had' exj^lained the. ftfi*n^'ni«fa»iT#»ng under wHich. He* hadi starack. thei maau. Hi& whole con&uct: was that. ok an.honesi, upright man.. The Grawn> Prosecutor: submitted- that the 2 case was? artet of. the> ordinary class of shepherding a drunken man,- until something was got out of him. Eoulfc had', himself: admittedthe assault. Mr Macdonald- addressed 1 the^ jury on Behalf of Watt. Had the Crown established beyond till reasonable doubt that, the- two- men. were? guilty.? They had called, as their principal -witness s- man named Henry Price to. estate lish the criminality of ' the- two men. Whsrfrsort of a^ man was- Price-? Tier jury- could see' for themselves, what his character was. and that' ■wasi the- sort of" man on- wfionr the Crown xeliedt It would Be- ». disgraceful thing to Hang a dbg- on; the' evidence: of such a- man. '£& far as Watt waff concerned' there was 5 scarcely any evidencer afc all: Price did not' accuse him, and the- utmost th'a£ could be said •gainst- Him was that He ran asvay: His Honor, in summing upj said the case-, pntHng; ■&.&■ worsfc- construction jupron: it^ was -b* trivial onei The- weighte'ofi" evidence seemed ft)-; show th«i? it was-" BouJ^srqTrarrely r and hia only: .1* wa« 63finsulfe.tp: Eeeihow Wta*t could tav« been: connectsd' with the offence? tizuess thee blovp "admittedLy " struck by Boult was wlrackr in. pursuance o"f some common intention of Boult and. Watt. - The jury retired-- ak 2.30 p.m., and. returned in_ half, an -hour with- a verdict of " Not goilty " in. respect to bath accused. XHr.ifJ.l EHOM THE PERSON-. John Condon was charged, with, on or about April 15, at Dunedin, stealing from the person of John Pringle a silver watch and a go";d-and-jsiJver chain. Mr Irwin appeared for the accused, who pleaded " Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor said that th-fl was £ne of a class of cases somewhat comme'n, in

' which a man got drunk and had his property stolen. In this" case the- prosecutor rta a wharf labourer, residing in Dunedin, and it was clear that on April 15 the prosecutor (Pringle) was the worse for liquor, and. he had only a faint recollection of. the event. He remembered being in.- the direction of the ITerminus Hotel that night, and he recollected having his watch and chain. While he was standing on the footpath near the Terminus four or five men got round him, and! one of them snatched away his- watch and chain, breaking the chain. So far as Pringje knew, that was the end of the- occurrence. Two days later the watch in question was presented to and pawned to Mrliatimer, a pawnbroker, and later on that day accused returned to- his shop- with 1 another man to whom he had sold the pawn ticket, and this, other man redeemed* the- watch. Accused's story- about ' the 1 watch, then was that he. got it from ChxistehurciL To the detective who arrested him accused said lie got the watch, from ! another man. It was fair to assume that I accused was in .a hurry to get the watch out of pawn to destroy evidence against him. The second count charged, him. with receiving stolen property: Evidence was" given by John Pringle, George . Latimer (who identified, accused-- as having j pawned^ wiim him, the. watch, produced), John William Jones, and by Detective Livingstone .(who said accused admitted oagpring the. watch ..but denieaL- stealing- ifs)2 ! 3s r Irwon, for. thc-defence, aaid; accused was I a young -man- who.' had; netser been'- before! a j court before, exes^t, it respect to a. recent ! charge of^ vagrancy. The- fact' was that he 1 came from the country to -town' a few days before the offence took place. He had a considerable amount of money- with him, and be appeared to have been drinking about torn? with, men wher were possibly, unknown to him, not of the best character — one of whom was the- short, dark man described by accused to Detective- Myingstone, whom. the- latter, had been unable? to > find, and from, whom accused said he had' got the watch. Evidence- as to how the watch came- into accused's possession would be given by Patrick Kennedy, who actually knew that the watch was stolen before Condon did. Accused had acted as an innocent man' all through. Patriot "Kennedy, seaman, deposed that on th& nigirfc- of April 15, in Lower- Rattray street, he yua fighting- with a- German, sailor, and Conuon- was- holding- his coat. A few yards farther up- the street there was a disturbance and a rush,, and he saw two men whom he knew casually by nick-names — one of them as " Whiskers " — running- away. On. the following: Monday morning, at the comer of Vogel street, witness met Condon and " Whiskers," and the latter said he was going to pawn his watch, .and he asked Condon to go up ths street and pawn it, and Condon agreed, witness accompanying them. Condon and witness went back to the others, and the owner of the watch, got the money. They had several drinks, and later on. in the day " Whiskers '* asked Condon to go and sell the pawn ticket for the watch, and accused did so. That night the man. described" as ' Whiskers " admitted to witness that he had taken the- watch on the Saturday night at the time when witness had noticed the rusli referreS toi and had suggested that if there- was any trouble about the watch it should be put on to accused. Witness admitted in cross-exair.ination having been, convicted for drunkenness and assault and having surrendered himself for vagrancy. He declined to ansvrer questions as to his career before he came to New ! Zealand.

The accused alscr gave evidence similar to ,tliat given by the previous witness. He denied stealing the watch and knowledge of its having been stolen. Mr Irwin, addressing, the jury, submitted the story told for the defence was more probable than that tol<J for the prosecution, and' that the- evidence for the Crown, supported tEa defence. There was not a particle of evidence, he submitted, to connect accused with the actual theft: there was merely his voluntary statement that he was in the locality. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the story told by accused, and by ther witness Kennedy was of art i'mprobabl& character, and that the evidence of the laiter must be received with a good deal of suspicion. Even if accused was not the actual thief, the evidence pointed strongly to- his Having, received the watch knowing, it to liave been stolen. The jury retired at 4.45 p.m., and after aTetirement of 10 minutes brought in a verdict of " Not guilty," and prisoner was discharged. SENTENCE. Robert KLliaren, found- guilty the previous day of breaking- and entering and 1 stealing' jewellery from a dwelling-house .at" St. Hilda-, was brought up for sentence; Prisoner gave hisr-age^ aa- 23 years. . \ The Crown. Prosecutor stated that MfLaxea was a native:- of Scotland-, and 24 years of" age-, and- s labourer- and' stonemason; According, td the police 1 information he- was; in December; 19tJ3, at Hobart,. sentenced fo six. montlis* imprisonment for vagrancy; and in July; ISO* 1 received:' a similar at Hobart for falsepretences, receiving a> sentence- of fchreemonthB >< imprisonment at Dunedin. this ysar: on two charges of theft. Accused was sentenced' to two years' un--grisomnent, with Hard labour. -flr4 5 p.m. the; court was adjourned till 10;30"next -morning.

] Thursday, EFay 25". * AIiLI3G23I> TH3SXT. John Hanna. was- charged) withj, on or- about tha 15th: March., 1905) at Dunadin, stealing, from the person of John M.'Williams. one 11 rolledrgohi- watch and: gold, pendant. On. a- ' seconds count' ha was- charged- witir receiving; the watch and: pendsuiir, knowing them to ha.V6. bsen atalen. The accused! who was* defended by Mr B. Si ' Irwin; pleaded' " Sot guilty." 1 The Crown Prosecutor, (Ma; J. F. M. Praser) , said, this was- the case 1 of a. man losing: *• watch and chain and* a> valuable-- pendant. He- , went to sleep in on hotel, and when, he- woke: ,up th& watch and. pendant" were gone. Some? time afterwards he met a man. in an hotel wearing the pendant. There was no trace of the watch. Tha explanation of the accused aff to how he came by the pendant was not satisfactory. The- prosecutor asked him where he got it and what his name was, andithe accused) refused to tell him. The accused then left ther hotel. The prosecutor followed.' him, and ■when he again, refused t-o give- his name- theIJrosecutor called a parsing constable- and explained the casß- to him. The constable advised the accused to give hisi name; but ha again refused. CJn being- charged, with tha offeree at the Poiiua Station' the accused remarked that he had obtained the pendant from a man near the- Arcade for 3s 6d. Evidence was given, by John. M'Williama and Constable Hatheson. Mr Irwin submitted thai the case for the prosecution was extremely weak. It would, be ' shown by the evidence that the: man could, not • possibly have stolen the article, as- on the evening of the theit lie was at » place of ajnuse-

ment with a friend. "When questioned in. the hotel by the prosecutor he refused to give up the pendant, though he was willing to give his name and address. The accused's conduct was throughout consistent with his innocence, and it was to his credit that there was nothing known- against his character.

James Kilby, hotel porter, eaid that on the.night of the 15th March he was at a, place of. amusement with the accused. It wag either Fuller's or the theatre at which Nellie Stewart was appearing.

Charles Wood, carter, said that when questioned by the constable the accused gave his name to him, and informed him where he had obtained' the pendant.

John Hanna, the accused, said that one night near the Arcade he bought the pendant from a ycung fellow, who told him he was hard up, and wanted money for a bed. Witness gave him 3s 6d for it. He did not know at' the time that it was a good stone in the pendant; he thought it was greenstone.

Mr Irwin addressed the jury, the Crown Prosecutor waived his right to do the same, and his Honor summed up.

The jury? without leaving the box, returned a verdict of. '"Not guilty," and the. accxisod was discharged.