Supreme Court of New Zealand

Colonist, Issue 795, 9 June 1865, Page 1

Supreme Court of New Zealand

HALF-YEARLY ASSIZE AT NELSON.

[Before His Honor Mb. Justice Johnston.] TtrESDAT, 16th May, 1865. The half-yearly sittings for the trial of criminal cases began to-day. The gentlemen undernamed formed the Grand Jury:— Nath. Edwaeds, Foreman. J. W. Baenicoat, J. Beit, H. Bait, A. Collins, O. Curtis, E. Davidson, H. B. Httddleston, F. Huddleston, W. C. HODQSON, G. W. SCHBODEB. A. SCLANDEB9, H. H. STAFFORD, A. W. SCAIFE, W. H. TURNER, J. Watkins, A. G. Jenkins. His Honor the Judge, in addressing the Grand Jury, made the following allusion to the death of the late Superintendent: — Before proceeding to the special business of the day I cannot refrain from alluding to the loss which the Province of Nelson has, since I last addressed a Grand Jury in this place, sustained in the person of the late Superintendent, snatched by an untimely and sudden death from the discharge of important public duties, and from the enjoyment of domestic happiness and of the respect of his fellow citizens and colonists. I cannot, on this occasion, forbear from offering my tribute to his memory, from acknowledging the uniform courtesy and consideration which, during my judicial career, I always experienced at his hands, and the anxiety he always evinced to assist and promote the administration of justice ; or from expressing a hope that the services of his life and the loss eniailed by his death in the discharge of his public duties, will be remembered with due gratitude by this province, over which he for so long a period and so creditably presided. Nor is his the only loss we have to deplore. Another worthy citizen has within the last few days (and since he received a summons to be among you to-day) bee" removed to his rest. And there is one more familiar face which I have been wont to see in that box which I miss now and shall not see again. Surely, gentlemen, these visitations of the Almighty will not be all lost upon us, but will" teach us so to number our days that we may apply our hearts to •wisdom" and help to make us more humble and sober-minded, and more and more anxious to perform the duties of life, both public and private, as we shall wi*h we had done, should we ourselves be suddenly summoned to render our final account. His Honor then touched briefly on the cases, the consideration of which was to form the business of the day. He said that although the cases for trial ■were more than usually numerous, yet there was no reason for coming to the conclusion that therefore there had been any increase in the ratio of crime in Nelson. This was not the case. The calendar contained twelve charges, of which three were from the Province of Marlborough, four from Canterbury, from the Hokitika gold-fields, and five only referred to offences committed in Nelson province. It had been found convenient for the saving of public expense, and also for the saving of time, to fix the trials of persons charged with offences at Hokitika at Nelson, which was the nearest place where a Court was held ; and therefore the five persons taken in custody at Hokitika were brought 'here. The system regarding criminal proceedings, according to New Zealand law and practice, differed from that in England, inasmuch as the Court in any one district had jurisdicton over the ■whole colony; so that it was competent for colony mitting magistrates to send persons for trial to any province where a Court was held, and which was nearest or most convenient; and this practice was found serviceable in assisting the administration of justice. The judge then made some remarks on the nature of the cases for trial, referring more especially to the charge of embezzlement against the prisoner Murdoch, who was accused of appropriating Bank of New Zeaknd notes to the value of £3700. He pointed out in what respect larceny differed from embezzlement. Larceny was the taking away of goods or money belonging to another; embezzlement was the taking aw.iy or appropriating of goods or money by a person in whose hunds they had been placed, or who had charge of them on behalf of his employer. In the case to bo tried, the relation of master nnd servant or master and clerk could not bo made use of to alter the charge into one of nonaccounting for moneys of which an accused person had the custody, because in a case of embezzlement, not accounting is merely evidence of felonious appropriation. Moreover, it" wns not necessary to prove beneficiary appropriation in such a case. If the money had been lost or stolen, burned or otherwise destroyed, without any fault of his, and in a manner which'the accused could not prevent, then he would be relieved of his responsibility, but no such evidence had been produced. After a few brief allusions to the nature of some of tho other casce, his Honor closed his address, and the Grand Jury retired. True bills were found in several cases The first case tried was one of LAttCENY. diaries Hoiois JEnderh/ was charged with stealing gold watch and chain, the property of Georgn Henry Myers, a sheep farmer residing in Nelson. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and a jury was empanelled Mr. Pitt, acted for tho prisoner. The jury found a verdict of guilty, and the judge in passing sentence said that prisoner had evidently been rapidly descending in the social scale. Sentence: One year's imprisonment with hard labor. trNLAWFITLLT ENTEBINO THE POST-OFFICE. James Robertson, a digger, was charged with having unlawfully entered the post-office with a felonious intent. Tho prisoner, after entering the dock, looked around him with a vacant and bewildered aspect; and made some strange gestures, his eyes exhibiting an unusual brightness, On the indictment, being read over to prisoner, before the Registrar of Court asked him to plead The Judge asked prisoner whether ho knew what all this was about, whether he understood what had been read, and what he was in the dock for. Prisoner replied in a low-voiced manner that he knew quite well; that lie was accused of entering tho post-office, with intent to commit a felony. The Judge then said that the prisoner must, plead ; and he asked him whether he was guilty or not guilty. Prisoner, who still exhibited a singularly vague and bewildered manner, said he was guilty of entering the post-office, but not with a felonious intent. The judge said that he could not allow the case to go on without first having a medical examination of the prisoner. He could not forbear to take the plea, because prisoner gave a distinct categorical answer to a categorical question, and there was therefore prima facia grounds for believing that the man understood the nature of the charge, but his manner whs so peculiar that lie deemed it absolutely necessary to take medical evidence on the subject of his sanity. The case was thereforo delayed, and the prisoner was removed from the dock, which he seemed rather unwilling to leave. His appearance was that of a person of unsound mind. NON-APPEARANCE OF PRISONER. William Smith, a digger, charged with committing an indecent assault on a girl, and who had been admitted to bail, failed to appear, and his recognizances were estreated. CHARGE OF XAECENY. Philip Lawrence auctioneer in Blenheim, was charged with stealing a £5 note from Thomas Moston Humphreys, clerk in the Resident Magistrate's office at Blenhiem. Prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Pitt, pleaded Hot guilty. Thomas Moston Humphreys deponed that prisoner called nt the magistrate's office to pay certain fees, amounting to about 15s. or 165., and tendered a £1 note for the purpose ; but as he did not know the amount, he took the pound note and placed it in a wafer tin on the counter, and asked him to call again for the change. Prisoner did call agnin shortly afterwards, but witness had not seen the principal clerk in the office, and therefore could not tell the exact amount, and so he said that, prisoner had better t«ko his note again, and he handed him a note out of his • This was about eleven o'clock. The previous afternoon witnesa had two five pound notes in his cash-box, and had seen and handled them, and locked them up just before closing, and had not touched tho monej afterwards until the prisoner 9&m« in, He did not look at tbe note which he gave

prisoner, and it was only when lie saw the pound note Btill in the wafer box, where he had placed it, that he thought of having given a wrong note. On examining his cash he found that one of the two five pound notes was gone. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Pitt, but nothing further came out. Charles Henry Moffatt, solicitor, Marlborough, was in the office at the time the note was handed to prisoner by the last witness. Prisoner took the note and narrowly examined it, holding it close to his eves up to the light; and then he put it in his pocket. Witness saw that it was a five, pound note —saw this distinctly. It was a five pound note of the Bank of New Zealand. By the Judge: Do you believe that at the time the note was handed to'prisoner he could see that it was a £5 note. Witness :I could not say that he could. The Judge : Now, Mr. Adams, how can you Bupport. the prosecution ? In this case there may have been gross immorality, gross fraud ; but, non invito domino, there is no evidence to prove that prisoner in the act of having the note handed to him, saw and knew that it was a £5 note, and in that case I do not see how you are to sustain the charge of larceny. There is a case of a charge of sheep-stealing recorded, in which a man drove a sheep not belonging to him among some of his own by mistake ; but after he discovered his mistake, and knew it was not his he wen* and sold it. This was held to bo larceny ; but the case is different, the man took the sheep, but the prisoner had the note handed to him, given to him in fact. lam of opinion that the indictment for larceny cannot be maintained. To make it larceny it must be felonious taking, and it is not shown that the prisoner knew it was a £5 note when in the act of taking it. He was entitled to receive a £1 note, and he received it as such; it matters not whether it was a couple of seconds or five hours after the act of giving and receiving that prisoner discovered the note was a£s one. The act of taking was completed, and it was not felonious taking; although from Mr. Moflatt's evidence it was pretty _ apparent that the prisoner must have known, yet it was not clearly proved. No doubt prisoner had done a very wrong and very immoral thing, but I do not think that according to the law it amounts to larceny. His Honor then directed the jury to find a verdict of Not Guilty, which they returned accordingly. The Judge to prisoner : Mr. Lawrence, don't you fancy that you go out of this Court with your character vindicated. Prisoner was then set at liberty. IAHCENT. Thomas Taylor, a young man lately from Auckland province^ pleaded guilty to stealing £28 from Peter O'Dwyer, farmer in the Province of Marlborough, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the Picton Gaol with hard labor. Prisoner left the dock smiling. ASSAULT AND EOBBEKY. Michael Clark and James Connell, two discharged military settlers from Taramvki, were indicted for assaulting Erancis Wakefiold Hyne, and robbing him of £47 in gold. The particulars of the case, as gathered from the evidence of Hyne, who is himself an ex-military settler, bavins; been a sergeant in the force, was that lie came to Nelson on 30th April, and met the two prisoners about seven o'clock in the evening, and drank with them in several public houses, and_ also in two brothels, where the prosecutor had a variety of liquor, including port, sherry, and beer, and got, as ho said, " pretty jolly; " but he knew what he was about. The three continued together, prosecutor standing treat, until between one and two in the morning, when he went down the Haven Eoad, accompanied by tlie two prisoners, prosecutor havine; an arm of eacK When at a place between the Victoria Hotel and the Anchor Inn Clarke went behind prosecutor and put his arm round his neck, nearly choking him, and Connell stole his purse and money, tearing away the inside pocket, of his vest, iv which the purse was. Af fer that Clarke came back, and struck witness a blow in the eye, which gave him a black eye. In cross-examination of the prosecutor it came out that he had been convicted of blj grog-selling in Taranaki. Other evidence showed thnt the prisoners and prosecutor were together on the evening in question until late, and "that next morning he had a black eye, a-d his vest was produced, showing the pocket torn away. Mr. Pitt, for the defence, addressed the jury, arguing that the evidence of the prosecutor was not worthy of credence, as he had been drinking freely, and could not be trusted as fo what took place. The Judge shortly summed up, the jury retired, and after a short absence returned a verdict of guilty. Prisoners were asked if they had anything to say in hnr of judgment, Jind made no reply. His Honor then addressed them, giving them a severe reprimand. They had been convicted of a very heinous offence; and but for one circumstance connected with the case he should have given prisoners a much larger period of penal servitude, for this case was a case of highway robbery, very much like garrotting, which lately caused such a panic in England ; nnd had he (the Judge) supposed that the prisoners had laid a trap for the prosecutor he should have givon them a very heavy sentence. It appeared however, that prosecutor had sought them, they had not, sought him. There was no doubt that they took advantage of the folly of Hyne, and it. was perfectly clear that when they' started on that walk down the Haven Eoad they hnd a sinister end in view; and he hoped he wns not giving too lenient a sentence in giving them two years' penal servitude. Had there been evidence that they had waylaid the prosecutor he should have given them four or six years' penal servitude. The prisoners were then removed, and the Court adjourned at five o'clock.

Wednesday, May 17.

The Court re-as6embled to-day at ten o'clock. CHARGE OF lARCENY AT HOKITIKA. William Green, a gold-miner, was plafed in the dock on a charge of having stolen, on sth April last, 55 ounces of gold, of the value of £190. from the store of Richard Cox, storekeeper, at Callaghan's Gully, TTokitika. It appeared thnt the prosecutor had ft quantity of gold in his store (which was a framed tent). The gold lay in a dish under the counter, and prisoner was seen sitting on the counter, and observed by a brother of the prosecutor pulling up the oilcloth coyer of the counter at the place where the gold lny. The prosecutor, in his evidence, stated that he urged the prisoner to give him the gold, stating that he wanted only to get his own, and if he gave him back the gold it would be bettor for lr'm. A debate arose as to the admissibility of evidence bearing on a confession of guilt by a prisoner, obtained on such a statement being made by the prosecutor to the party accused. The Judge pointed out, from authorities which ,he quoted, that this was quite inadmissable, as it partook of the nature of a threat or a promise, indeed it amounted to that, and would excite in the mind of a person accused the emotion of hope or fear. The evidence was rejected, p-ud so was a portion of that of a constable, who overheard the conversation which took place between prosecutor and prisoner. Mr. Adams then suid that that evidence having been rejected he could not carry the case further, as on this mainly depended the conviction. The Judge, in addressing the jury, said that although the course taken might cause a miscarriage of justice, in nllowing an offender to go unpunished, yet it was better that a valuable rule in law should be maintained ; and therefore he would instruct them to yefcurn a verdict of acquittal. The jury gave a verdict of Not Guilty accordingly. The Judjjo, in addressing the prisoner, said that in

all probability he did commit the offence, and no doubt had accomplices, who he hoped would yet be found. Considering the state of the country, and the fact of the newly-started diggings, collecting so many people, he should certainly have visited an offence of tho kind charged much more severely than a like offence occurring in a settled district of the country. Diggers were flocking to the diggings, and were opening the resources of the colony, and it was proper that they'should be as much protected as possible by the law. He wished it to be clearly understood b* the prisoner, and by all diggers, that where there was much property, necessarily but poorly protected, he would consider it his duty to visit any infraction of the law , especially regarding the theft of gold and the use of weapons in breaches of the peace or assault cases, far more heavily when committed on the diggings than !he would in older and more populous districts. The j police deserved all tho support and backing up that i could be given to them in their endeavors to check crime on the diggings, because every man who went to the diggings went when there was necessarily a good deal of lawlessness ; and it was no use their finding gold if they could not keep it, and were not aided j in keeping it by the strong arm of the law, as administered by constituted authority. Prisoner was then removed, to be retained in custody until the Grand Jury was discharged. CHAROE OF LARCENY. John William Bennett, a digger, was_ charged with receiving a silver watch, value £5, a chain worth 10s., and a locket worth 205., the property of Thomas Cameron, a digger, at Three-Mile Creek on the Hokitika. He pleaded Not Guilty, and was defended by Mr. Pitt. The original bill of indictment, as submitted to the Grand Jury, contained a charge of theft of those articles against the prisoner, with the usual second count of feloniously receiving them knowing them to be stolen ; but the Grand Jury ignored the first count, and found a true bill on the second. A question here arose whether the second count contained anythiug to go to the jury upon, inasmuch as only in tie firßt count or presentment of the jury were the articles alleged to be stolen particularly specified, and the time of the theft set forth, while in the second count the date and articles were only referred to as the "aforesaid" time, and the "aforesaid ' goods and chattels, without being again specifically stated and described. The question was, whether the ignoramus of th« Grand Jury made the first count as if it really never had existed ; or, as the Judge said, cut it out of the bill of Indictment altogether. If so, the result would be that there was no charge against the prisoner. Ultimately, after a long argument, the Judge ruled chat the ease should go to the jury, and Mr. Pitt could afterwards, in bar of judgment, bring up the objection ; his Honor added that had the objection been mooted before the prisoner pleaded, it would have been competent to quash the indictment altogether. Mr. H. Adams them stated the case for the prosecution, remarking that there was uo proof that the articles had been stolen by anyone else than the prisoner, upon whose person the -watch was found. Tho judge said that possession of a stolen article, of which the possessor could give no account, implied larceny. The evidence of Thomas Cannon, and of a constable, proved the identity of ihe watch and the finding of it on the person of the prisoner, but at a subsequent stage the Crown Prosecutor said he could not produco evidence of feloniously receiving, and the jury, directed by the Judge, returned a verdict of Not G-uilry. Prisoner was removed, the Judge remarking that Mr. Adams might prepare another indictment for larceny, or let the case go altogether, just as he may be advised. ENTERING- THE POST OFFICE. John Rohertson was again brought up ; and the Prosecutor intimated that after having marie enquiry into the state of the man's mind, he would withdraw the charge. The jury acquitted the prisoner. ANOTHER THBFT AT HOKITIKA. Edward Kennedy, James JBalcer, and Frank Smith, all miners from Hokitika, were charged with stealing on 2nd April. £4< 15s. from John Scholes, a laborer, at Hokitika. All the prisoners pleaded not guilty. According to the evidence Kennedy met Scholes the prosecutor, and was treated to drink by him more than once, the latter paying for the liquor on each occasion out of a purse containing £5 in notes and gold. Scholes got a little the worse for drink, and Kennedy took him to Smith's tent, got him to lie down, tucked him in under the blankets ; and there he slept- for nearly two hours. On awaking he missed his money, and accused prisoners Kennedy and Smith with taking it; and afterwards saw Smith lie down on the bed, and take out of his pockeb a purse like his and place it under him. On the prisoner Kennedy being searched by the police half-a-sovereign and 6s. 6d. iv silver was found on his person, although he had previously told Scholes that he had neither j work nor money. Scholes identified as his a pound j note which had a. peculiar tear in the corner, and j which he saw in the possession of the landlord of the Victoria Hotel, who gave it. to the police-officer. Margaret. King, a barmaid at the Victoria, deposed that on the afternoon of the day in question, she served prisoner Baker with liquor and got a one pound note from him. [Being shown the torn note she identified it. as the note which she received from Kennedy.] On being asked to point out. the marks by which she knew the note, she referred to the letter A on the back, and some writing under that letter as the particular marks. The writing was on the note when she took it. The Judge warned this witness to remember she was on oath, and put the question twice when she repeated that the writing was on the note when it was given to her by Kennedy; and on a third time being asked with great, emphasis by the Judge, she said "she might, be mistaken, but fancied that the writing was on the note when she received it." Maria Anna Smith, barmaid at the Albion Hotel, Hokitika, deposed to Kennedy having gone into the hotel, and giving witness half-a-sovereign to pay for liquor. This she repeated. The Judge referred to her deposition taken before the Magistrate at Hokitika, and caused the witness to read part, of which she did, and still adhered to the statement that it was half-a-sovereign that Kennedy gave her, and repeated the statement. In the deposition she swore that it was a pound note and not half-a-sovereign. The Judge further stated that the writing on the note referred to by the witness King, was the initials of Mr. Revel, the Resident Magistrate at Hokitika, which could not by any possibility have been on tho nof.e when King received it from Baker. This di - -! cripanoy and that of the witness Smith, showed that there was no case against Kennedy and Baker. Mr. Pitt shortly after addressed the jury on behalf of tho prisoner Smith, pointing out tho half-drunken condition of the witness Scholes, and the difficulty of identifying a chamois leather bag, which was what nil miners carry, in the semi-darkness of a tent when evening was drawing on ; and he claimed a verdict of not guilty. The Judge commented on the worthless nature of the evidence of the two barmaids, nnd the jury after a very short absence returned a verdict of not guilty, thus acquitting all the three prisoners. The Judge ordered their removal, and that they be detained in custody until the Grand Jury were discharged. The Court then adjourned till next morning.

THURSDAY, MAY 18.

The Court met this morning at ten o'clock. THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND EMBEZZLEMENT CASE.' David Henderson Murdoch, formerly teller in the Bank of New Zealand at Picton, in the Province of Mailborough, was charged with having on or about

Ist September, 1864, embezzled £3,700, in bank notes, the property of the Bank. There was an alternative charge of theft. On application by Mr. Kingdon the Judge ordered that a portion of a sum of £45 found on the prisoner when approhended, should be handed to Mr. Kiagdon to meet the expenses of his defence, the amonnt to be such as Mr. Sharp, the Registrar, should deem sufficient. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and a jury was empannelled. Mr. H. Adams, with whom was Mr. Pitt, conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. Kingdon appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Adams opened the case for the Crown. Christopher James Wifcney Griffiths : I was in the employment of the Bank of New Zealand from January, 1861, or January, 1862, and left the Bank on 19th of August last. I was the first part of the time in Nelson, from which place I went to Picton. A little under twelve months after I joined the bank I went to Picton as teller, and had charge of the cash. The cash consists of all notes and coin received by the teller, and from the notes so received the notes which belong to and are issued by other branches of the bank, are selected every Monday out of cash, in order to be sent to the branches from which they are issued. The rule was to send off these once a month, but they were generally sent oftener. About that time being short of Picton branch notes, the notes of other branches were issued from our branch, and remained in cash for that purpose. I balanced my cash every night, specifying the several amounts in gold, silver, and copper coin ; and in one, five, ten, and twenty pound and other notes. (Shown Teller's Cash Book.) There are entries of branch notes on Saturday, 6th August, 1864, showing that in my possession there were £3695 of these notes. On that date the Manager counted my cash and verified the accuracy of my°entry by putting his initials to it. I took the branch notes out of cash on Monday, Bth August. On that day there was another £5 branch note came in early in the morning, and I added it to that sum and took it all out of cash ; and debited the whole to the different branches, making £3700 so taken out. These notes on the Bth of August I made a list of on a half-sheet of foolscap, dividing them according to branches, and arranging them according to value of notes. I wrote down the names of the branches, and opposite them the whole amount of the notes debited to each. In reply to the Judge, Mr. Adams said he had made application to prisoner's counsel for this list, and Mr. Kingdon acknowledged that such application had been made. Examination continued : I did not give the numbers or the values of the notes of different denominations separately. The notes on this list amounted to £3700. I handed this list to the Junior Clerk Pickering, in order that he might make out the debit slips, which he did. These debit slips are kept in the bank as vouchers. They say debit Wellington, debit Auckland, &c, so much. I entered the contents of these slip 3in the teller's cash-book. I then handed the vouchers to Mr. Dickenson, the accountant, who passed them through his cash book. I know ho did so, because I recognise his handwriting. The voucher! were then placed on a file find passed through the Branch Letter. (This book was shown, and the entry of £3700 verified, as was also £177 of other brnnch note* received on Bt,h of August, and debited to Wellington.) All the £3700 of notes were made up in bundles, each note being laid out flat, unto.dsd; in bundles of different, branches, in the order of their respective values. Tho bundle was about 7 inches high, secured by India-rubber bands, I think lire m number. Outside the bundle I Vl™ ed a label> P art of the cover of a cheque book. I believe I wrote on, the■•lahel tho words "Branch notes £370,. »ud attached it to the bundle, which I then placed m my teller's cash box. I kept the bundle in my possession until I left the bank on the 19th of August. Ihey were not forwarded to the different branches, because we had not time to make the narration, and the usual period of transmission had not arrived. [Narrating notes the witness explained meant the taking ot the number and value of each individual note_ of the branch notes.] I had resigned my situation, and by arrangement with the Manager-, I was to lenve on tho 19th of August, instead of giving the three months', as I wished to leave sooner. The pmonor was to succeed me on that any. He had been agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Wakamarica, whence he cavno to Pieton. I balanced my cash on the atternoon of the 19th after business honra Prisoner was in the bank that day, and wrote up the cash book lor me not the cash balance book. I balanced my r «as" a"« made an entry in my c.ish balance book. J-he amount then in my hands was £12,593 l'^s- fd > which was in addition to the bundle of notes, ihe prisoner saw tho cash, counted it, and initialed the entry. I then handed the cash over- to him, and gave him the keys of the cash-box. I personally handed over tho (£3700) bundle of branch notes to the prisoner, and I believe I did so heforo I handed over the cash. I took the bundle out of the cashbox and gave it to the prisoner. [Witness here made a sketch plan of the office, showing where prisoner sat.] Prisoner took off the elastic bands and comTnenrad to count the notes. The label was still there and ho'must have seen it. Under tho hands I had put the list of the notes, -which T had made out early ou the Bth, and tin's list he had by his side while he counted the notes, and he ticked off on this list the amount of each branch as h3 counted it. He counted the cnah after he had counted the notes, and he put the cash in the cash-box. There were one or two hundred pound bags of gold, and some five pound bags of silver, which he did not count that night, but took them as su<*h, reserving them to be counted next morning. Ho found everything correct. I was there next morning. I did not see whether he put the branch notes in the cash-box, but I did not have the notes or cash again in my possession, after having given (hem over to tho prisoner. I gave him the key of the cash-box. The manager was not present when the cash was handed over, but. I handed it over at the request of the manager. The manager diA not see the transaction. I saw prisoner putting on the elastic bands. My impression is that he put the bundle in the cash-box, and I bslievo he fixed the label on also, because I did not see it lying on the table. The notes in cash were made up differently from.the branch notes not in cash. The one pound notes were made up in parcels of twenties, folded across lengthwise, showing tho one in the corner. Five of these parcels wore put. together, making up a hundred, and secured with a baud, and the fives were similarly folded and made up in bundles of a hundred. Tens and twenties were mnde up in the same way, and made up into hundreds also. All these notes of current cash were doubled up lengthwise, with the printed side outwards. There was no bundle of notes made up so as to be mistaken for tho £3700 bundle. My cash was inspected by the Bank Inspector on 2nd August, and the Inspector made up and signed this memorandum in the cash book of that date—" Counted and found correct." The last clearing of branch notes taken- out of cash and not. put, in again, previous to the Bth August, happened on lOfch July, and these £3700 had been accumulating in cash until Bth August. After leaving the bank I went to reside with my mother and step-father, Dr. Muller, who is Resident Magistrate at Blenheim. I remained in Picton about a week before I went home. I was employed by a surveyor to draw some plans for him. . • Cross-examined by Mr. Kingdon—l cannot tell why the Directors of the Bank issued the order that the notes were to be sent to the different branches within a month of the time they were narrated. Such a number ofnot.es would take a couple of days to narrate. The ledger would show on the 11th July that Dunedin was debited £238. The first letter in the letter book, showing that branch notes were forwarded, after 19th August, was on 2nd September, £1425. These were debited on 28th August, I believe in the handwriting of the prisoner. Wb«a

he finished counting the £3700 I asked him to initial the paper. Mr. Kingdon: What receipt, what security, did you get when you had handed over the notes ? Witness : He signed the list. Mr. Kingdon: Why did you not get a receipt for the notes ? Witness: I did not think it necessary. The Judge: He was shortsighted enough to suppose that the man who came after him was an honest man, and that he would require no receipt. Witness : He initialed the Jist. Mr. Kingdon: When the rest of the cash was counted did you take a receipt ? Witness : No ; nothing more than his initials in the teller's cash book, which remained in the bank, just as the list did. The Judge said it was competent for Mr. Kingdon to say to the jury that it was a very loose way of I doing business. By tho Judge : My salary was £76. The average amount of current cash and notes under my charge was from £10,000 to £12,000. The actual amount at this time would be about £16,000. I had given securities to the bank for £1000. In Picton I slept in tho bank, and had my meals in the Ship Hotel. Board and lodging of a bank teller would cost in Picton about £100 a-year. The Judge : That is about £25 a-year more than your salary ? Witness: Yes, your honor. The Judge: What were day laborers getting at that time in Picton ? Witness: I heard of laborers getting 10s. a-day. The bank manager got £300 a-year. Murdoch was to get about that sum, £250 or £300. I was not discharged by the bank. I wrote to the Directors, asking for an increase of salary, and saying that if not agreed to they would hold my letter as a letter of resignation. They refused to increase and accepted my resignation, and made me a present of £25. Murdoch had been agent at the Wakamarina, and was supposed to be a superior officer. Henry Blundell: I was a clerk of the Bank of New Zealand at Picton. I was present on the 19th of August, and I saw Griffiths take out a bundle of notes out of his tin cash box and place it between himself and Mr. Murdoch. The bundle was about six inches high, and fastened with India-rubber bands. The notes were laid out flat. I saw Mr. Murdoch take them and begin to count them. While he was counting the notes he had at his right hand a sheet containing the names of the branches of the bank, and the amount of notes opposite each. The paper was to the best of my recollection half-a-sheet of foolscap. He ticked off the amounts as he went along. While counting the notes Prisoner asked G-riffiths why he had so many branch notes on handj and Griffiths replied that the Picton branch had run short of their own issue, and that these were required. A day or two afterwards I heard prisoner complain that he had too many branch notes in his cash box, and that he would ask the Manager to take some of them over. [Witness described the manner in which the notes were arranged, which description exactly corresponded with that of previous witness.] Examination continued : I succeeded the prisoner as teller on 2nd September. He handed over his cash iv notes, gold, silver, and copper. He did not hand over to mo a bundle of branch notes amounting to £3,700. Between 19th August and 2nd September", the time the prisoner acted as teller, no portion of this £3,700 was reversed or put back as cash. There is no entry of such a transaction in the teller's cash balance book or in the teller's cash book ; and if the notes had been put into current cash, there would have bern an entry to that effect. By the Judge : When notes are despatched to and received by the other branches, they are acknowledged by these branches. By Mr. Adams : When prisoner handed over the cash to me nothing was said about branch notes. When I received the cash from prisoner I did not give him any receipt other than initialing tho cash balance book. When he weub away he was going on leave, and my appointment then was only temporary, ffe went away ou the Saturday and came back the following-Thursday. He did no fc take possession of the cash. I asked him if he was to take the cash back, and ho said no he was not, as he was not to stop there long. He gave no reason. After he came back I noticed that he was n ot behaving with proper respect to the Manager; an( j i ] lear< j tJie jf ana . ser say to him "You may consider yourself suspended." Murdoch turned round t 0 us in 'the ofSee, and said "That's just the very thing'l wanted." He then wrote out his resignatio n . This witness corroborated the evidence of the previous witness respecting tho manner in which the notes of different kinds' were made up. Cross-examined by Mr. Kingdon : I did not know what caused the unpleasantness between prisoner and Manager. I had not left the bank on the 19th until wo all went out together at tea-time. The Ju-lge to witness, I hope Mr. Blundell they give you a better salary than Mr. Griffiths got. Wituess: Yes, your Honor they do. John Pickering, examined by Mr. Pitt: I am a clerk in the Picton Branch of the New Zealand Bank. I did nofc see the cash handed over by Mr. Griffiths to prisoner. This witness deposed that he saw a bundle both before and after Mr. Griffiths left, with a piece of cardboard attached to it; and fully corroborated previous witnesses' evidence in other particulars. Benjamin Alexius Dickenso.i, accountant, in the Bank at Picton : It was my duty to write the letters which announced the forwarding of branch notes to the different branches. I received £1200 of notes to be sent to different, places and these were debited on the 29fch August. I got no other notes from the prisoner between the Bfch of August and the 2nd of September, for dispatch, nor from any one else, nor did I receive uny narration or notice of £3700 of such notes from the prisoner, and no such notes could have been dispatched in the proper course of business without ray knowing it. _ A fortnight after joining the bank prisoner said to me he did not think that Griffiths could have lived on his salary, ns his (prisoner1 a) own was not sufficient for him. In the course of business I would necessarily see letters from branches acknowledging receipt of notes dispatched to them. During the date between Bth August and 2nd September no letters had been received from other branches acknowledging receipt of notes which had not. been advised as forwarded, and these notes, . the £3700, had not been so advised. On the Bth August, the teller debited £1104 to Nelson ; this sum was part of the £3700. Prisoner's salary was £250. He had an account with our branch ot Picton when he was at Wakamarina. He had overdrawn his account about £36. _ After the prisoner left the bank I wrote a letter to him with reference to the missing notes. It is dated tho 27th September and signed by Mr. Warren, the Manager. The letter was produced by Mr. Shallcrass:— " No. 3-117.] " Bank of New Zealand, "Picton, 27th Sept., 1864. " Mr. D. H. Murdoch, "Wakamarina. " Dear Sib, —On Bth August sundry debits were made to our branches for notes, which it appears were handed over to you by Mr. Griffith when you took the cash at this branch ; none of these notes have gone forward, and the accountant states that they were not handed over to him. " I shall be glad if you will explain the above to me without delay. " Yours truly, "J. T. Warren, "Manager. There was no letter of explanation or otherwise received at the bank. There was a letter written to Mr. Griffiths, and afterwards Mr. Griffiths-went to the bank and gave explanations. By the Judge: During the time that Mr. Murdoch was teller he did not at any time complain of having lo»t the bundle »f aet«#.

Robert Shallcrass, sergeant-major of police, deponed to having taken the letter produced from the pri« Mner'f person, along with others, on 21st October, after having apprehended him. Cross-examined by Mr. Kingdon: The prisoner after he was apprehended passed, the post-office, and got a letter, which I believe was the letter produced. He got it after arriving from Sydney. i By the Judge: I was present during all the ex. animations before the Magistrate, and I never ones heard prisoner say that the bundle of notes had been taken op lost out of his cash-box. James Watkins, Manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Nelson: I received a debtor aiid creditor accjunt between the Nelson and Picton Branch. In this account there was a sum against the Nelson Branch of £1104 debited on Bth of August. I received the letter, enclosing the debtor and creditor account, on the 18th of September, but never received the notes debited on Bth August. John Sharp, Registrar of the Court, and Clerk to the Magistrates, read over the deposition of Mr. Warren, the Manager at Picton, who is ill and unable to attend. This deposition made before the Resident Magistrate was published in full in The Colonist of October 20, and in the November Summary, and need not here be repeated. It added nothing to the other evidence, and the only point in it deserving notice, inasmuch as it was founded on by the prisoner's counsel, was that part where Mr. "Warren said that Mr. Griffiths should have taken • receipt from prisoner for the £3700 worth of notes. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Adams did not address the jury. Mr. Kingdon then addressed the jury for the prisoner. The case he said happened most unfortunately for the prisoner, who was away from the colony when the charge was made against him, and he had no opportunity of giving explanations, and he was apprehended immediately on his return. This return from Sydney Mr. Kingdon set forth as tending to show prisoner's innocence. He had left Picton because of a quarrel with the manager there. They were both young men, both warm-tempered, and both had been managers, and therefore they could not agree very well. As far as the books of the bank went, the charge was really against Griffiths, and not against Murdoch. This was the only point there was in the speech for the defence, and Mr. Kingdon dwelt upon this with great force, and also on the point in Mr. Warren's evidence, ..respecting the duty of Griffiths to take a receipt for the branch notes. He appealed to the jury for a verdict of acquittal. The Judge then summed up. He did so strongly against the prisoner. Everything he said had been done that could be done for the prisoner by his counsel. The duty of the jury was by no means a difficult one. The question was, did the prisoner or did he not receive these notes? If he did then there was no doubt he was guilty, because not accounting for money placed in his charge really amounted to larceny or embezzlement. It had been suggested by the defence that Griffiths and not Murdoch was the felon, and the tendency of the course of cross-examination of the witness Blundell was that counsel suggested that he too was guilty. Mr. Kingdon: No, your Honor, I never dreamed of accusing Blundell. The Judge said the tendency of the cross-examina-tion was to that effect, and he was glad that Mr. Kingdon had not intended to add this accusation. He defended Mr. Griffiths from the accusation, and referred to the clear, frank, and ready manner in which he gave his evidence. Referring to Mr. Griffiths' salary, he snid it was one which no day laborer would accept here. It was a pittance not sufficient to pay for his food and lodgings, not to speak of clothing, and those other necessities of an educated gentleman, and he spoke of the temptations of a like kind which young men in the public offices of the Colony, in the civil as well as military departments, who are thus subjected to temptations with quite inadequate remuneration. Young men, however high their character and position, ought not to be placed in such circumstances. After referring again to the evidence of Mr. Griffiths, he said that the Counsel for the defence had the power of putting him to the torture of cross-examination as severe as possible; and had there been any suspicion that Griffiths had no friends to assist him to pay his ordinary costs of living, the defence would have made use of the opportunity offered for cross-examination, which opportunity was really thrown away. What the jury had to decide was, was the story of Griffiths the story of a perjurer, or was it of a truthful probable nature. If Griffiths was not a felon and s perjurer then Murdoch must be guilty ; and if they did not think that Murdoch was guilty, then they threw a heavy stigma on the character of the witness Griffiths, whose evidence was largely corroborated by that of the other witnesses. There wore no doubt certain slight discrepancies, differences in the accounts, such as there always is to be found in the truest story; but the main facts agreed. The Judge closed his speech by a reference to the loose way in which the business of the bank was conducted, in allowing the transition of this large sum of money from the hands of one young man to those of another without the supervision of a superior officer. One thing remained for the jury to decide—Did the prisoner get the notes into his possession or did he not; if he did then he was guilty. Tiie Jury then retired, and after an absence of about an hour and a half, brought in a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The announcement of tins verdict, ■which was made by Mr. Charles Hill, was received in the body of the Court with applause, which the Judge instantly suppressed, ant] he threatened to commit any man he could find who was guilty of suck a most indecent exhibition on such an occasion. The Court was then adjourned.

Friday, Mat 19. The Court re-assembled this mornine at ten

o'clock. DOTJBI,E INDICTMENT OP PRISONERS. The Judge referred to the law a 9 respects the trial of prisoners a second time, under a new indictment, for the Bame offence, at the sama sitting of the Court, and there was, he said, an erroneous notion which seemed to be entertained by some that such a coursa could not be followed. As a matter of practice it is unusual to prefer two distinct bills for the same charge at one sitting, but he thought there was nothing in law to prevent it. The Grand Jurors found a true bill agninst John Davis, and were shortly after discharged by the Judge, who thanked them for their attendance, expressing regret that the necessities of the public service required that bo much of their time should bo occupied with the business of the Court. DISCHARGE OP PRISONERS. The Judge, alluding to a belief that he said prevailed respecting the proper time for discharging prisoners, who had been acquitted by the petty jury, made some remarks to the effect that it appeared to be the opinion of some that the Court had not vho power, after a prisoner had been acquitted by. the petty jury, to detain him until the Grand Jury was discharged. This idea he also declared to be erroneous, stating that the bench had power to detain prisoners in custody until the business of the Grand Jury was over, in order to ascertain whether or not there might be new indictments to prefer against them ; and after having discharged the Grand Jury he ordered the acquitted prisoners to bo put in the dock, remarking that was the time to discharge them. The prisoners, Green, Kennedy, Baker, Smith Bennett, and Murdoch, who had been acquitted on the previous days, were then placed in the dock. The Jud&e asked Mr. Henry Adams, the Crown Prosecutor, whether he had any fresh charge to prefer against the prisoners. Mr. Adams having replied in the negative, the Officer of the Court, by order of the Judge, who handed a manuscript to the Usher, made the following PBOCLAMATIONV "If any one can inform his Honor the Queen's Judge, or the Attorney-General, of any treason, felonies, or misdemeanors, done or committed by the prisoners at the bar, or either of them, let him come forward, and he will be heard, for the prisoners now stand on their discharge. " God Save the Queen and his Honor the Queen's Judge." Addressing the prisoner Bennett, who was indicted for stealing a watch at Hokitika, and also for receiving the same, and on which indictment the Grand Jury ignored the count of stealing, and the petty jury acquitted the prisoner on the subordinate count,— The Judge said that it was at one time proposed to prefer another indictment against this prisoner, but Mr. Adams had resolved not to do so at present. The evidence showed that he (the prisoner) had clearly bwn guilty #f m tf«a«« i?Uk> wk»«Ji lit, )m4 %\

first stood charged, and though he had been acquitted for the second charge* he could still be tried for this oifenco at any time, and probably might even be , arrested before he left the town. The prisoners were all discharged, the Judge afterwards remarking that he did not know that the proclamation was necessary. THEFT OF GOLD EINGS AT HOKITIKA. ; Respecting this case, The Judge said there were no depositions taken before the Magistrate, who had acted very carelessly. There was a bundle 'of papers purporting to be depositions ; but they were nothing of the kind, for they were not signed by the committing magistrate. If these things should occur again, he -should feel it his duty, in exercise of the summary powers of this Court, to punish a magistrate who was guilty of such a failure of duty. There was said to be some ex.cuse on account of hurry, but he could not admit that as an excuse ; and if there had been a good excuse, there had been sufficient time for the Magistrate himself to come up here andoxplain it to the Court. James Jennings was charged with stealing three gold rings from Jorgen Peter Christenson, a Dane, a jeweller and goldsmith, residing at Hokitika. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The evidence of the prosecutor, of Mr. Wilkin, proprietor of the Belfast Hotel, and several others went clearly to establish the charge. Prisoner had gone into Mr. Christenson's shop, and been somewhat unruly, pretending to buy rings, and endeavoring to get hold of sundry goods which were lying displayed on the counter. He had three rings on his fingers at one time, and these prosecutor manngeii to get from him, upon which the prisoner left the shop, saying that he should keep what he had got. By-and-bye prosecutor missed three rings, and went in search of the prisoner, whom he found close behind the Belfast Hotel, stooping, with the soil disturbed. Here two of the riugs were found by the cook of the hotel. These two, which were handsome rings of the prosecutor's own manufacture, were produced and identified. The Judge, in examining them referred to their handsome workmanship. The jury, without retiring, found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labor, in Lyttelton gaol; Mr. Rodgcrson, the gaoler hero, having represented that the Nelson gaol was full and could not accommodate more prisoners. The Jud'^e repeated a conviction he expressed at the last sittings of the Court, that there was a great necessity for a general system of prison discipline and the establishment of a general central prison for offeiulors sentenced to penal servitude for the whole colony ; for until that were done, it was impossible to carry out a sentence of penal servitude ; to suppose tills oping done in such a place as Marlborough was a rednctio ad ctbsurdum. This was the last case on the calendar, the charge against John Davis being departed from in consequence of the absence of witnesses, Alexander Bliiek and James Else, whose recognizances were estreated. i John Alfred Langford, a juror, was fined £2 for not appearing in Court. In Bennett's case, Mr. Pit!; asked the Court to order the restoration of the watch which had been taken from him by the police. The Judge very decidedly refused. He would not move in the matter. PAYMENT OF PETTY JTTROHS. Mr. Wastney, one of the jurors who tried the last case, addressed the Judge on the subject of payment of the petty jurors for their services. Many of the cases tried had been cases from the Province of Canterbury, and the jury was of opiuion that a great loss of time was thus caused to many jjoor men, who were thus obliged to try the causes of another province. The Judge objected to proposal of payment, stating that the jurors ought to be proud of the honor and privilege of serving their country, and they were bound to do so irrespective of province. He instanced the case of Otago, where jurymen he said had been detained in Dunedin for six weeks; but in that province an arrangement had been made, by which a jury could not be detained longer than six days. He expressed himself favorable to a plan by which jurors who had to come a long distance should be paid their travelling expenses. He held the proceeding of the jury to be quite irregular, but he would nevertheless order a note of the question raised to be made by the Registrar of the Court, and transmitted to the Attorney-General. The Court then adjourned until Monday, when ' civil business would commence. j

CIVIL SITTING, Monday, May 22nd.

Prior to the commencement of business to-day. DETENTION OF PEISONEHS. The Judge, alluding to former remarks of his own on the subject of the proper period for discharging a prisoner acquitted by the petty jury said, regarding the prisoners acquitted during the late criminal sessions and discharged on Friday, that had any application been made for the discharge of these prisoners on their acquittal, and the Court had been informed that no other bill was about to be presented, they ought to have been dischai'ged at once. He did not wish it to go forth as having been laid down by him as the law, that a prisoner should be detained in custody after acquittal if there was no other charge against him. But the practice in England was that in the absence of any application for discharge, the prisoners acquitted by the petty jury were detained in custody until the discharge of the Grand Jury, unless the Crown Prosecutor should intimate that he had no other charge to prefer against them. DAMAGES FOE DEITING- AWAY HORSES. OSMAN V. PAAP. The damages in this case were laid at £200, as representing injury to a horse and mare valued at £100 each, and loss of work, cost of servants, &c, caused to the plaintiff by the defendant havingdriven away the plaintiff's horses. The issues laid before the jury were— 1. Did the defendant ou or about the 27th December, 186-i, seize and take one horse and one mare belonging to the plaintiff, and drive away the same, as in the plaintiff's declaration alleged ? 2. Is the plaintiff entitled to any damages by reason thereof? and if so, what sum ? Tho defendant's counsel admitted the allegation of the first issue. Evidence went to show that the horses, whose value was stated at £100 each, had been considerably deteriorated by having been driven away, that they were absent 28 days, and that seven days more would be required to bring them into condition. Damages for loss of labor and deterioration, £48 15s. ; to which verdict defendant consented. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. H. Adams ; for defendant. Mr. Kingdon. The foregoing action was the only jury case in the civil department of the Court. EXPENSES OF JURYMEN. Before discharging the jury, The Judge said he had been making enquiry as the matter of hardship it was represented to be to the jury to come, some of them from a distance, without being paid. He found that even with the present state of the population of Nelson, each juryman was called on only once in nine years. And he confessed it rather shocked his feelings to propose the payment of jurors for their work, of which they ought all to be proud. Mr. Wastney said the jury did not think of getting payment for their services, but merely that there expenses, sometimes considerable, should be met. The Judge was glad to understand that this was all, and he thought that payment of expenses was a reasonable request, and he would make a representation on the subject. In future, when there was a heavy criminal calendar, he would advise the summoning of a separate jury for civil business. The jury was then discharged.