CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Otago Witness, Issue 2804, 11 December 1907, Page 31

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Thotsday, November 28before His Honor Mr Justice Wilh»m*> ALLKGID EXTENSIVE THEFT. . 'VMaSLf Reared for the Crown, and iffiT among the property produced that wwToriginalTy in the lluW Stow* The «xpl«iataOT of all this was of the most simple, easiest, and plainest character imaginable This Harrington had a wife, a *»""»■ woman, who hed been brought up tobusinevß. When this couple were in Chrislchuich Harrington was employed with* firm there «nd Mrs Harrington though* she might very profitably employ herself and xnake a little money by running a little shop of her own, and she got stock and star ced • little ahop in Colombo road, Christchurch. That was at Exhibition time, and she did very well indeed. But she did not call herself Mr* Harrington over the shop, for very Kood and sufficient reasons. She kept the •hop in her maiden name. The object of this was if the people employing Harrington •were aware his wife waß running an opposition shop they might have said to Hamngtqa, "Xou had better go and help your wife. We don't want you here.' Harrington left his situation in Chnstchurch over some quarrel, came to Dunedin. and got a position in the Mutual Stores. Mrs Harrington then had two children, and for reasoi?* desired to be with her husband, and sold a portion of her stock to a woman carrying on business near by. She sold about £20 worth, and the rest of the stock she packed in boxes and brought down to Dunedin. "When this woman was buying the goods Mrs Harrinlgton had to give receipts, and these were left with the solicitor employed. Since this trouble arose Mrs HarriEgton hed written to the solicitor (Mr Bishop) and asked him to send her down the receipts ■h« had left with him. Mr Bishop had written back that he had kept the receipts all right after the money was paid, but that lie had not thougnt it necessary to keep them 1 any longer, and had destroyed them. They had Mr Bishop's letter. Mrs Harring4cn brought the boxes down to Dunedin. She paid 25s extra for cartage in Christchuroh and 16s extra on arrival at Dunedin. Th© expressman who carted the stuff from «he Railway Station to the Edinburgh Dining Booms would be called. A witness would •ay she had seen Mrs Harrington open these boxes, and that they were filled with this stuff. Counsel h*d a list in Mrs Harringion'B own handwriting of these things she pab in the boxes. As to the things that tad the private mark of the Mutual Stores on. them, Mrs Harrington always had an idea Of starting another shop, and she kept adding to her store from time to time. Under the existing circumstances it was dtvcb easier for her to get someone else to xoaJte her purchases for her, and he (Mr Barclay) would call Mrs Pay ton, Miss Stuart, and Mrs Steans, who would tell the court thai at Mrs Harrington's request, and with ittoney supplied by her they went to various *hop» in town — the Mutual Stores amongst others — and got these very goods laid before the court the previous day. Evidence was given by- William Patrick, Dwmea Stephen Sconllar, Francis John Conn, ■wKHwlmona Esplin, and William Patrick Harrington (the accused), William Dyer,

Ellen Margaret Stuart, Ida Harrington (wife of accused), and Mary Bailes. Some three witnesses have yet to be called.

FATLING TO KEEP PBOPER BOOKS,

John Robertson, late hotelkeeper of Alexandra, who had on his own petition been adjudged a bankrupt, was charged with having railed to keep such, books of- account as were lawfully provided should be kept to set forth and disclose his business and financial positions.

Mr Hanlon appeared for accused, who pleaded " Not guilty." Mr Maoassey said the facts were that accused -had been a hotelkeepex at Alexandra. He entered into possession of the hotel on the 7lh September, 1906, and remained in possession for a period of 34 weeks, after which the mortgagee took possession, of the property. That was on the Ist May, 1907. It would be proved that when accused went into the hotel he had £1100, and his debts when 'he came out of the hotel amounted to £656, these two sums making a total of £1756. He had accounted for £45 cash in hand, £15 had since been recovered by the assignee, and there had been a loss made on the sale made by the mortgagee of £550. That was the difference between the price paid by accused and the price realised by the sale by the mortgagee. There was also £140 over furnishing the house, and £100 for mortgagee's costs, so that out of £1756 £850 had been accounted for, and about £915 was unaccounted for. Accused bed been adjudged a bankrupt on the 7th July, 1907, and the books were handed in to the official assignee. An examination was made of the books. The only book produced to the assignee _ by accused-was a ledger, and that only contained entries of the boarders' accounts and wages paid No cash book was kept, bwt there was a bank book. This was not kept by bankrupt, but was made up by the bank. The average- loss was £27 a week. Mr Barr, the well-known accountant, would say that the books kept wei an absolutely incomplete record. No question of intention arose in this case of not keeping books. The act simply said persons in business must keep certain books, and where they weTe not kept, intentionally or unintentionally, an offence had been created. . Evidence was given by Charles Christie Graham (official assignee), George A. King (registrar of the Supreme Court), Thomas Edmund Roberts, and Peter Barr. Mr Hanlon said it was admitted that not many books had been kept, but it must be pointed out that publicans and persons carrying on this olaBS of business ddd not keep a first-class set of books, and as long as they kept something from which their position ecould be ascertained they made compliance with the law. But, as the jury had heard, if they failed to keep such books as would disclose a-nd "set out their position that was an offence against the law. Mr Barr seemed to indicate that what he wanted was a cash book, filed invoices from which a man s liabilities could be ascertained, and there should be a book setting out what amounts are Wing for board and lodging. The jury would 'have an opportunity of taking that book with it. Then it would find by the fates of invoices the various amounts owing by accused. It was for the jury to judge whether he had kept books sufficient to eatusfy the statute. The jury would see from # the n.e3 of invoices the amount due by accused. Further, Mr Barr had said he would expect some sort of a cash book to b© kept. Bankrupt paid practically all his moneys into the bank, and drew out what he wanted to pay away by cheque, and counsel put this to the jury: that if a man appointed a bank fci* agent to keep his «*count. and if he put all his money into the bank, and paid his aoounts by cheque, there was an accurate record in his bank book. Was that not counsel- asked, quite as correct ft cash book as he would keep himself? He had expert accountants in the bank who ade . t . 13 , b^ ] f up from time to time. Counsel pointed out that accused had been m W^ a }<>*£ time and had to get a certificate as to SEustE beta* he cfuld hold a hotelkeeper;* license. Under the circumstances he submitted' accused slrould be *«««^ d - a The Jury retired shortly after 3.30, ana at the end of 20 minutes returned with a verdict of •' Guilty." Sentence was deferred.

Fbiday, November 29. ALLEGED EXTSNSIVE THEFT. William Patrick Harrington was again brought before the court on the charge of Sing from the Mutual Stores goods to th The a evidence for the -defence was continued the first witness called being Florence Straus, one of the women who had purchased K oods for Mrs Harrington Jessie Dayton f*d James Henry Thomson also gave evidence, the last-named saying that he had seen in the Mutual Stores a piece of silk with a, red stain on it similar to the stain on the silk produced, after Harrington s John Armstrong, recalled for the prosecution, proved the date on which elasuc and combs, which were among the °.o'en articles, were passed through the Customs, and swore that the daily duplicate bills went to show that no e'astic or ccnib3 in hucli quantity had been sold to anyone during a certain period, and could not therefore have been sold to Mrs Porter, who had eince gone to Australia, as sworn by Mrs Harrington. Counsel then addressed the jury, and Mrs Harrington was recalled to speak as to certain of the articles. - His Honor summed up at 2 o clock, ana it was 3 o'clock before he finished. After referring at great length to the evidence, he said it had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had stolen some of the articles or had received them knowing them to have been stolen. The jury retired at 3 o'clock, and returned at 5.45 with a verdict of " Gui ty " on the second count— receiving property knowing it to have been stolen. Hi& Honor deferred passing sentence till next morning. THEFT OF INSITRA.NCE PREMIUMS. George James Cruickshank Smart was charged that he did, on the 2nd February last, at Dunedm, steal £20, received from "William. Alderdice on terms requiring him to account for the same to the State Fire Insurance Department. There was a second j count that, between the 17th and the 27th I August, 1906, he stoic a- cheque for £11 Is I 4d under similar conditions.

Mr Burnard appeared for accused, who pleaded " Kot guilty." Mr Macassey, in opening the case for tho Crown, said, in regard to tho first count, the £20 was paid to accused by Alderdice, who was a hotelkeeper at Clyde. Alderdice called at the office and saw accused, who was then manager of the State Fire Insurance at Dunedin He told Smart he had an insurance on bia hotel i n the Norwich Union, that it was about to expire, and that he proposed to reinsure with the State Fire Office. Accused suggested he might place the risk with another office, but Alderdice eaid no, that he 1 preferred to have it in the Government office. He paid accused £20 — £17 in notes and the rest in gold— as a. premium, and accused issued to Alderdice what was known as an interim receipt. This £20 was not credited to Alderdice in the books. There was no record of the transaction in the books. Nothing more was heard of the transaction until Alderdice came to the

office one day in August and asked why he had not got his policy, and it was found there was absolutely no record of the transaction. Mr Pope, who was then manager, saw accused, and asked him whether any business had resulted from -the proposal, and he said no. Further inquiry was made, and Pope saw accused, who said if an insurance had been effected it was with some other office. He said he would see Alderdiee and- fix it up. He saw Alderdice, and said theTe was some mistake. Pcpe saw accused again, and accused 1 then said the insurance was effected with one of these companies. Pope afterwards found that the insurance had not been effected elsewhere. The other was a peculiar 6ra inaction. Treahy, who had—paid the money over, was a hoteHteeper at Ngapara, and "in October, 1905, had two policies' — one for £900 on the building, and mother for £400 on the stock and furniture, making £1300 altogether, and the combined premiums under the two policies were £25 15s fid. In June, 19C6, nolicense was carried in Oamaru, and the insurance was reduced to £1000. The premium under the new policy was to h& £21 8s 4d. The two old policies were then in existence for the £1300, and when the risk was reduced to £1000 Trea-hy would have been entitled to a refund for the unexpired term of the- policy He would be entitled to a refund of £7 2s, and the difference between the amount he had to pay under the new policy and the amount he was entitled to as a refund was £11 Is 4d, and for this accused received a- cheque. It was a rule of tho office that moneys received had to be paid into the banking account, . so that it wai the duty of Smart to hand the money to the cashier. But he told Mr Dobaon, who was then cashier, he had » cheque for £14 Is 4d he wanted to cash, and asked him to retain moneys taken over the counter for this cheque Money was received m sma.ll Auras from people in cash over the counter. Smart handed the cheque to Dobaon, and received £14 la 4d from him. It woUld be shown that there had been «n attempt to hide " this transaction. Counsel explained what entries should have been made in the books, and said they were not made, and that the sum of £14 Is 4d was never oredited to Treahy at all. The insurance was further reduced to £850, and the premium on. that waa £18 Is 2d. The new proposal ipm signed, but Treahy never paid the £18 Is 2d because he considered he had paid *\U he was entitled to pay. Evidence was given, by William A-lderddc©, Frank Hawthorne Pope. "William Dobson, Patrick Treahy, Edward Archibald Hugh Scolon, and James Sheridan CoJlett. The evidence of another witness in the lower court (George William Greenish), who was unable to appear, was read to the jury, and completed the case for the prosecution. Mr Buroard asked if there was any evidence to go to the. jury on the second count. The cheque had been accounted for to Mr Dobson, and it was questionable whether accused could be said ir have ctolen the cheque. Hia Honor replied that accused had treated the cheque as hia own and not as belonging to fire State Fire Insurance at al)

Mr Burnard, then addressing Jhe ,'ury said accused was a married man, and had beer, unfortunate in having a struggle with the general manager as to the way a certain part of the business should be conducted The jury would expect that complete and satisfactory evidence would be given before it would seriously consider even the possibility of accused's guilt. The Crown must ehxm that on the dates in question accused took these, moneys intending at that moment to fraudulently convert them to his own use. His Honor pointed out that a man might receive money honestly without any fraudulent intention, but that if he afterwards misappropriated it the offence was theft under the Code.

Mr Burnard • If a man did not intend to convert money/ at the time then lie could not have intended to convert it subsequently.

His Honor: I don't think time has anything to do with it. I don't think a man's state of mind at the moment he receives money has anything to do with it. Mr Burnard, continuing his address, said the jury had to be satisfied that accused at some time intended to fraudulently convert this money to his own use, and until that was proved' accused could not be convicted There had been warfare between the general manager and accused, and! one bone of contention was the acceptance of a certain class of risk, such as the present. Accused had desired to do as large a business afl possible, and it was only natural be should have endeavoured to do so. If he had allowed Alderdice to go away he would have lest the rick. Accused had frankly admitted that he had received these premiums, and after the head office had accepted the risks he could have handed them over. He had said to Mr Pope, who afterwards took charge, that if he desired to take the risks he could hand the money over to him. As a matter of f a< t accused had always bean Teaov to hand the money over as soon as the .State Fire Insurance would take the risks. He would know the Government audit would l>e made every year, and that this mistake must he discovered If h« had taken the money intending to convert it to hifi own ute he must have known he w?.« running a very great danger of detection, and it wns extremely unlikely that he, as an insurance manager, would run the Tisk of this mistake being found out. He had not tri«d to hide matter* in any way, and had given a receipt, knowing that that "eceipt must ba evidence against him. His Honor said he did not propose *o sum ■up then, but would do so next morning at 10 o'clock After summing up lie would pass sentence on the prisoners now convicted The court rose at 6 30 p.m.

Saturday. November 30. theft of insurance premium's

George James Cruickshank Smait waft again brought befoie the court on two indictment^ charging him with the theft of two insurance premiums of .£2O and £14 Is 4d from tho State Fire Insurance —Mr Macassey appear^l for the Crown, and Mr Burn aid for accused. His Honor summed up, the jury retired at 10.25, and returned to the court at U.lo with a verdict of puilty on the second count (tho theft of £14 la 4d). The foreman H.timated that the jury disagreed as to the otiier count. Mr Ma-cassey said he accepted this verdict, and would not proceed further on trie first count

Prisoner gay = his age as 40 years. Mr Burnard asked that the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act be allowed to apply here. The police report stated that prisoner bore a good character, and that tbf-rp was nothing known against him. Counsel trusted, in view of the circumstances of the ca-e, the court would grant the man probation.

Mr Macas=ey said accused's genera l character had been gocd. He vas a native oj New Zealand, and was 40 years old. Hia Honor: Are these all the defalcations? Mr Macassoy: There are others attributed to him. but they are very Bmall. His Honor: I really do not think / -f.n allow the provisions of the act to extend to a caee of this kind. Where tke accused is not a mere clerk, and is placed in a highly responsible position as head of an important office. I think some punishment should be

meted out to him. Further, it would never do if every man was entitled to steal once without punishment. That is not Hie purpose of the act which allows probation to bo granted. I will take into consideration what has been said with reference to his character, but I think sentence should be passed. The sentence of the court is six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

EXTENSIVE BOBBERY.

William Patrick Harrington was brought up for sentence on a charge of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen This was the second count, the first being with having stolen goods from the Mutual Stores to the value of £115.

Mr Barclay, for the prisoner, said he vould like to see the probationer officer's report. His Honor: Probation is out of the- question. He gave evidence on behalf of himself, and the "jury disbelieved him. I never give probation in tbeee cases. # I will look at the report for other purposes, if you like. Mr Barclay said that nothing whatever was previously known against the prisoner, and there was produced during the trial his recommendations of discharges from various firms. Learned counsel desired to point out that the jury ssenied to have acquitted tha prisoner on the first count — that was, upon the count of stealing the goods, or any of them. They had in some way arrived at the conclusion — he might be permitted to say, an unexpected conclusion — that prisoner received the goods knowing them to .have been stolen. It would be remembered that the jury returned and asked the question whether it was bound to specify the particular articles if it desired to bring the man in guilty of receiving them knowing them to have been stolen. From that it might be inferred the jury did not desire to find the man guilty of stealing or receiving all tho articles.

His Honor Yes, I agree with them. Mr Barclay: We don't know what he was found guilty of receiving, or whether it was for receiving something worth Is or £100. His Honor: That is true.

Mr Macassey said that the prisoner -was a native of Victoria, and arrived in the Dominion from Sydney in 1904 His character was described as indifferent and that he was somewhat addicted to drink. The offence, of. course, was a very difficult one to detect.

His Honor said his impression was that, while the jury had found — and he supposed i;asonably and properly found — that some of the things were stolen, -yet a great number of things produced were not stolen property at all, but were really the property of Mrs Harrington. It looked as if there had been a system going on to some extent, but not to the extent which the prosecution in the first instance suggested. As Mr Macassey had said, the offence was one that was easily committed but very difficult to detect. The sentence of the court would be that the prisoner be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Mr. Barclay : Will " you make an order as to the good.c? His Honor. No, they must fight that out in the civil court.

FAILING TO KEEP PROPER BOOKS.

John Robertson, late hotelkeeper at Alexandra, who had been found guilty of failing to keep proper books of account, on being brought before the court for tentence gave his age as 49 years. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for prisoner, said Robertson had been in Now Zealand for about 28 years. He was a married man with four children. Before he became a hotelkeeper at Wallacetown he was a schoolmaster in the employ of the Southland Education Board for about 10 years. He went into business as a hotelkeeper, and, like most schoolmasters, he knew little about commerce, or, indeed, any class of business. He had a considerable sum of money left him, which he invested. He afterward? took ft hotel at Alexandra, with the result that he lost all his money and became bankrupt. His character had always been good, and the evidence of that was that the magistrate in Southland had granted him a license as a fit and proper person to hold one. There had never been anything against him since he came to New Zealand, and he (Mr Hanlon) did not think it could be suggested there was any fraud in the case made out against him. His Honor: It is simply neglect to keep books.

Mr Hanlon said under these circumstances, and seeing there was no suggestion of fraud, and that the man had borne a gocd character, and had only been guilty of the bare omission of a statutory duty, the court would be justified in extending to him the Probation Act. His Honor <=aid that there was a difficulty pbout that. His view of the matter was this It was admitted that accused wa3 pn honest and unfortunate man. and that he became bankrupt, but the Legislature, had considered it proper that if a bankrupt, though he might be on honest and unfortunate man, neglected to keep books, he was puiltv of si misdemeanour and. should be pumehed for it. If he were to admit him to probation it would therefore nullify the effect of the statute. The statute contemplated that a man should suffer punishment in a case o£ thi3 kind. The offence was simply made a misdemeanour, and the punishment, he thought, that should be inflicted in such cases was the same sort of punishment inflicted upon a person committed for contempt of court or for the non-payment of money. That was. he should be "punished acd treated as a first class misdeameanan-t, and rtot suffer the same as an ordinary criminal. He would not be obliged to wear prison clothes, and bo on. Where an offence was simply for neglecting to keep books, his Honor's impression was that a* man should suffer a short imprisonment a<? a first class misdemeanant ; r.ot so much a1?a 1 ? a punishment to himself, but as a, warning to others. Mr Hanlon pointed out that a man who committed theft or obtained money by false pretences received no more than a senl«nce. His Honor- Yes, but he w.ould be sentenced, as an ordinary criminal, with hard labour. If I extend the Probation Act in this case it would mean that, notwithstanding that the Bankruptcy Act makes it a misdemeanour for an honest and unfortunate man not to keep books, yet where that happens a man is nevez to be punished except in very unusual cases. I wo\ild be glad to extend the Probation Act, but it would make the statute absolutely nugatory if I did. Mr Hanlcn: That places an honest men who makes a mistake in a much worse position than a dishonest man who is really a criminal at heart.

His Honor: That might be. It was decided the other day. for instance, in the cases of the slaughtermen, that if they were brought up for non-payment of their fines it would be the duty of the court to imprison them, even though they could not pay. I think, looking at the nature of this case, a sentence should be passed to show that a breach of the statute cannot be permitted. If I admitted the man to probation the clause of the statute might just, as well be wiped out. The sentence of the court will be one month's imprisonment as a first class misdemeanant. Mr Maca.gs«y remarked that nothing was known against accused, who bore a very good name as an honest man. There was no euggegtion of fraud egdnst him.

f arson. i Edward Ernest Maxey, who had been con* victed of arson at Kaikorai, on being brought up for sentence gave his age as 26 years.

Mr Burnard, for the prisoner, said he had under consideration a p.ea for probation.

His Honor

But it is not within the act.

Mr Burnard said he >ad a newspaper report of a cas^ that occurred in Wellington where Mt Justice Cooper and Mr Justice Button admitted to probation, men who were found guilty of arson. His Honor I don't know the particulars of the Wellington case, but it sterns to have been some trivial case of mischief. The Crown Prosecutor: They were boys. Mr Burnard: The prisoner is a man of somewhat -weak intellect.

His Honor: So I think.

Mr Burnard said that aboui. a year jgo Maxey fell through the roof of the Coffee Palace, and was taken to the Hospital with concussion of the brain. Since then he had displayed manifest signs of weakness. Tha probation officer's report appeared". to show that the only offences accused had committed were those of drunkenness, and it seemed thai the slightest drop of drink had such an effect on him that he did not know what he was doing. Perhaps the man might be medically examined.

His Honor: P think it very likely that he is of weak intellect.

Mr Macassey said accused was a native of England, was 26 years of age, and was a storekeeper. His general character was reported as not being good.

Mr Burnazd: Th*t character is based upon convictions far drunkenness.

Mr M*caesey: With thes* convictions for drunkenness, his -character could not be reported *s good. I have no knowledge of hit being of weak intellect.

His Honor said that it was not a case fox severe punishment. There was no dangei to life ot to property, except the propextj in question, which was. not a large amount. He thought that the best thing for accused was to sentence him to a short term of imr pris'-nment to keep him away from drink. He would also be under the supervision ol the medical officer of the gaol. The prisoner would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. This concluded the criminal sittings.

Friday, December 6. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) HOBSE-STEALINO

John Hunter, alias Robert Findlay, who had pleaded " Guilty " in the lower court on tha previous day to a charge of stealing a roan mare, saddle, and bridle, of a total value of £13, the property of James Jeffs, livery, stable-keeper, was brought up for sentence. The prisoner stated that he was a native of New Zealand, and 24 years of age. Ha asked for leniency because he had a widowed mother to support.

The Acting Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. 8. K. Macassey) said that the prisoner was it hotel porter, and his general character til bad. He had been convicted of forgery a( Invercargill in May, 1902, when he vrtu allowed out on probation.

His Honor sentenced the prisoner to si> months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL. Tuespat, December 3. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Mi'Culloch v. M'Culloch.

Petition by. John M'Culloch for ft divore« from Margaret Brown M'Culloch, on the ground of non-compliance with an order for tEe restitution of conjugal rights-

Mr A. R. Barclay appeared for petitioner. The evidence called showed that the parties were married at Knox Church on February 11, 1903. They lived together until on or about March 23, 1907, when respondent refused to further cohabit with petitioner. H« obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in July last, which was duly served on respondent. She, however, declared that she would not return to her husband, and had never since done' so. - There was no appearance on behalf ol respondent, and his Honor ordered a decre* nisi, to become absolute in three months.

XELLI V.

Petition, by Raphael Kelly for a dissolution of her marriage with John Kelly, sometimei known as " Kellie," on the ground of desertion. Mr A. R. Barclay appeared for petmoner. Rachael Kelly, in her evidence, said sh« was married to respondent at Glasgow en October 7, 1881, and they lived together - in Glasgow, then in Australia, afterwards m Chvstchurch, and finally in Dunedin fo« come sis months. Respondent left, ostensibly to seek work. An order for maintenance was made on June 12. 1902, since which date petitioner had received nothing fiom respondent, nor had she seen hinv smct that date, nor for 12 montbß previously. Confirmatory evidence was given by Mary Ann Walker. . . His Honor mad© the order for a decree nisi, to become absolute in three months.

MAJOR V. MAJOR. A wife' 9 petition for dissolution of marricge on the ground of desertion. Mr Macaseey appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent Henry William Major. Mr Macaseey said that the parties were, married in February, 1898, and lived at Caversham for nine months. The respondent was a, stoker at the gasworka, and told his wife that he had taken a position *s stoker on one of the Union Company's boats. This was regarded as an attempt to desert her. and respondent was poceeded against and sentenced to a month's imprisonment for desertion. The parties subsequently livad together for 12 months, when the respondent said he would have to go to England to receive a legacy of £500. The petitioner endeavoured to dissaude him from going, and asked him for evidence as to the alleged legacy. The respondent could produce no evidence, saying that he had destroyed the letter. He left the colony in December, 1899* The petitioner had written to the respon' dent's mother in London, but had heard no news of her husband.

Evidence was jjiven by the petitioner and her father (William Evans), who has supported the petitioner and her child since th« restwndent's desertion of them.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, to becom* absolute in three months.