SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 1763, 25 June 1877, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. TIMARU— -Monday, June 11. [Before bis Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. There ■were present F. do C. Malrt, Esq., Registrar ; B. Woollcombe, Esq., Sheriff; and the Crown Prosecutor, J. W. White, Esq. GBAND JCHY. The following composed the Grand Jury, ti'z. : — Missis E. J. Stericker, A. E. Brown, E. A. Hargreaves, W. S. Duvidson, W. M. Sim», J. A. Gomnck, W. Evans, E. Acton, Robert wood, F. H. Barker. T. T. Brownell, W. B. Howell, W. C. Beswick, W. Bradshaw, S. Barker, J. H. Sutter, J. Landsborongli, W. Williamson, E. Elworthy, aud C. W. Buller. Mr W. C. Berwick was chosen as foreman. itis iionok'B chahge. nis Honor m addressing the Grand Jury said that although he believed he had excellent reusons to congratulate them on the prosperity of this district, he could not do so m respect of crime. It win a notorious thing that prosperity broughl crime with it as well as comfort. The sorts of crime more particularly rife here were often encouraged by sudden affluence. Industrious men, who had been working m the country and earned a considerable amount of money, would come into town and spend it recklessly ; or else full into the hands of unscrupulous persons, who would clear them out of it all. This not only demoralised the man himself, but tended to create crime m others. Therefore it was especially desirable that statesmen and philantrophiats should use their utmost endeavors to discsver some means of checking this kind of ovil. He was not ma. position to know anything about the Snving3 Banks m the district ; but he thought perhaps that if instead of paying men all their wages m cash, pirt of it ctuild be piid by giving them an interest m Savings Banks or some such institutions, it would go a long way towards preventing the money being spent recklessly. If there was any value m such a suggestion, he hoped public opinion would take it up. The calendar before them contained a great variety of cases ; but with the exception of one— viz., that of rnpe — they weiv» not perhaps very grave ones of their particular kind. He was glad to find only one case of forgery on the list. He had had reason to mention m other place* m the colony, that forgery was becoming more prevalent, mainly through the carelessness of tradesman and others. He would be glad to see some indication of the decrease of this kind of crime. With regard to the caso of rape, it was one of a cliss of crimes.in which the aid of the Grand Jury was of the utmost importance. It was a very difficult charge t» establish; while at the same time it was most important that the chastity of females should be preserved from the attacks of those who were inclined to commit outrages upon them. The Grand Jury would have an opportunity of testing the evidence of the prin-ipal witnesses by cross-examination, *nd consider whether a prima facie case was established against the prisoner. If it was they would bring m a true bill agiinst him. If it appeared doubtful whether the offence had betn completely committed, they had still better bring m a true bill, and leaTO it to the petty jury to find him guilty of an attempted rape, if they thought fit. There were several cases of larceny of different kinds on the list, but none of them required "any special mention. There were also two cases of embezzlement. This class of crime was becoming very common m the colony, even amongst Boards. One of the present cases w.ib against the clerk of the Waimate Road Board The difference between larceny and embezzlement was, that whilst the former consisted m taking away from and appropriating to one's own uj e the money of any person, the latter consisted m stopping it getting into the rightful owner's hands at all. The distinction was not a very important one, but it. was as well to keep it before their eyes. The cas of sheep-stealing would require a goodd--al of eon sideration, bat it was one with which the majority of them would doubtless be able to deal by their own knowledge or experienc. The lust cases on the list to which he would refer, were the two of libel. They were doubtless aware thfct the English laws took erery precaution to uphold a man's fair name ; and f rendered any defame; of a person liable to

oi Til damages, and, m. many instances, ! ; criminal puni-hment. The ground en i i whuh the law of criminal libel was ! ba«ei was that de'ama'ion of character was i likely to lead to breaches of the pc.iee be ng : committed. This, however, »as rather the lechnica' basis of the law. While it wn very ■ lesi able tlmt n d lijcnt, fear es?, uprig 1 t and truth-loving P^ess should b- u->hel f mid • enoourag d ; it was nevenheltss a*>s lately , n^ces-ary to put a eh ck up 'ii tha' portion of > it which pandered to the lowert tastes of the j people from sordid or other m tives. It *v : one of the greatest privileges of a jury m v free ejuntry to protect the Pr<?ss on ono side, and the people on the other. The duties of a jury m these cases were very clearly defined. The great statesman, Charles James Fox, had brought m an Act which left it for the jury to d-cide whether or not a libel had been c unmittcd, but it also reserved to the Jurige a right to express an opinion. He, and other judges, had adopted the mo le of simply telling the jury what corns ituted libel and what did not. The definition of a lioel was not laid down by any inflexible rule, but he would tell them- that anything defamatory, — written, spoken, or conveyed by eizn?, pictures or otherwise, which was likely to brim; a person into disapprobation with his fellow man was libel, and an indictable offence. It was no part of their duty to consider anything iv the nature of the defence. The two cases under notice were brought, one against the writer of the article, and the other against the proprietor, who was also editor of the paper — the Waitangi Tribune. The ltw of publication »as that any person voluntarily allowing defamatory matter against unother to be published m his paper, was liable. So also was the publisher, even though he might not know what it contained. There were no copies of the depositions m these libel cases returned with the indictments, and so he had nit se^n the evidence. He was, however, not sorry for thi«. us it left his mind perfectly free. Under a modern English statute, adopted m New Zealand, they might either bring m an indictment of publishing the librl, knowing it to be false, or vice versa. The Gran.l Jury then retired. TKUE BILLS. Tr«e Bills were returned against, tho following : — Wm. L"chier, embezzlement ; Win. Powell, larceny ; John Wil-on, larceny ; J. W. Fleming, forgery and uttering ; James Keclan, larceny from the person ; Jnmes Davis, larceny from the person; Cornelius Toll, larceny ; Edward Ryan, larrvny from the person; J. T. Pain, embezzlement; William Mitchell, larceny; R. C. U. Cuming, libel; R. A. A. Sherrin, libel ; and M. Friedlander, raoe. No bill was found against Dugald Blue for sheep stealing. EMBEZZLEMENT. William L-chner was indicted on three separate charges of embezzling certain monies belonging to his employers, Messrs A. and C T. H. Perry. Pii«oner, who was undefended, pleaded guilty to all the charge?. His Honor asked prisoner if he had any witnesses to call as to character. He s-iid he nnd one, hut on the name being called m Court, no one appeared. Ilis Honor then aoked that Mr Perry, the prosecutor, might De examined. Mr Perry, having been put on oath, stated that the prisoner had been upwards of twelve months m the employment of witness' firm. The embezzlements extended back to November last. The prisoner entered their employment as engrossing clerk, and was afterwards, m consequence of tbe book-keeper leaving, promoted to his place. He had several highclass certificates, and witness had no reason to doubt that they were all genuine. They had not yet been able to ascertain exactly the amount of money embezzled, as the sums received by persons were for rents, and although they had sent out fresh notices, they had not yet received replies to them all ; He could n»t, therefore, say what had been already paid and whit not. Prisoner w»a a married man with a family, but he belieyi'd there win some difference between him and his wife. They paid him a salary of £3 per week. In reply lo prisoner, Mr Perry said tlint they had found him attentive lo his duties. The entries m the books werelalsified. His Honor asked prisoter if he hod anything to say m mitigation of sentence. Prisoner said he had been pressed by creditors, that he had found his salary iusulh'cient to support himself and family. This, too, was the first occasion on which he had ever been charged with such an offence. In passing sentence, hi« Honor pointed out that it was not as if he had been guilty of a single act of embezzlement, under some sudden or temporary pressure, but that he had carried it on systematically for months. He wouhl sentence him to what, under the circumstances, was a lenient sentence — two years' imprisonment m Timaru gaol, with hard labor ; the sentence to be concurrent on the three charges. LARCENY. William Powell was indicted for breaking into a counting-house with the intention of stealing a cheque, and also with the theft of the cheque. He pleaded not guilty to the hou°ebreaking, but gailty of simple larceny. He was sent to prison for six months, with hard labor. HOKSK STEALING. John Wilson, alias Joseph Burns, was arraigned on a charge ot horse stealing. He pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empinelled : — Charles Neville, Alfred Austin, John Elder, Henry Jas- Cotton, George Green, H. Jackson, Richard Findlay, Daniel Wost, Thomas i Parkes, Ja*. Findlay, Timothy Murphy, Richard B. Sibley. Mr Daniel West was chosen foreman. James Watkins, of Rangitata, deposed that on the 4th March the prisoner paid him 10s for a mare to go to Geraldine. ne wan to leave it at the Crown Hotel stables, Geraldine, the same day. Witness saw prisoner next day at the Wa«hdyke, when he said he had sold the horse. He took him into custody and handed him to the police. Jamss Costlow, groom to the previous witness, said he gave prisoner the mare to go to Geraldine. He promised to bring it back at aix o'clock the same night. He next said that ho would »end the mare back by anotner man. The mare was not brought buck. Henry Peckham, living at Qeraldine, said he saw the prisoner at the Washdyke, and there purchased from him a mare with saddle nnd bridle for £5 10s, for which he gave a receipt. Prisoner said he purchased tbe mare at Christchurch. After the evidence of Sergeant O'Malley had been heard, the prisoner made a statement on his own behalf, which was to the effect that he did not remember selling the hone at all, as he was drunk at the time. After a short deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor sentenced the prisoner to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labor. POBOEBT AJTD UTTERING. John William Fleming was charged with forging and uttering, on March 6tb, a certain cheque. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to eighteen calendar months with hard labor. The Court then adjourned for half an hour. LABCEKT. Edward Ryan was charged wilh stealing, on April 28th last, a sum of money from the person of John Hickey, at Wairoate. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. The following were empanelled as a iury: —Thomas Macbin, James Wethcral!, Andrew Maltman, Henry J. Cotton, Charles Neville, John Elder, John Broraahan, Adam Miller, A. Blanchett, James Brehaut, William M. Gentlemun, Ri' hard Barton Sibley. John Hickey said that on April 27th he was at Waimate, and received two £10-note*, one single pound-note, and three shillings. He then went to MMdleton's H..H to pay for a week's board, and gave a £10-note to : the waiter, James Morris. He got nine £1 notes m change. A mate of his gave him a j

£5-note for fire single ones. He put the money m hi* pocket-book, ani saw it there ufc 10 o'clock next morning. He s-iw prisoner at that time, lie spent son.c ir.on-?v on the 28!h, !.ut cou'd uot say bow much. Jam*-* iio-ris, waiter nt Middl. ton's Hotel, Wainmte, find h,- saw prosecutor rntl prisoner ther ■ t getlier on th ■ 27th an 1 L'Sth April. He ci?lk' i a t'lOnote for th form- r. giving him 'm £1 o:.?. In counting he money he put In* fimierthrougli one. That produced h- believed *m the ejme. When h- first saw pri-- ncr and prosecutor tbev w- re together on .i form ; afterwards I.c slw them aloiif m thf taproom. Proseeu'or whs asleep on a s fa, and pricier was sitting near him. On the night uf the 28th prisoner aave witness three p«p r parcels to take charge of. Prisoner previously told him that he had been playing billiar.is with »n-----other man's money. By this, w tness concluded he had none of his own. O:i the 28th prisoner paid for his dinner. John Dunne, laborer, living at Waimate on the 27th April, said he went <o .Mid Jleton's Royal Hotel, when Hickey pnid for his board. He gave Morris a £10 note, ami he got nine single notes m change. He slept m the same room with Hickey, and always saw him take his purse from his side coat pi> let. Gave the prisoner 2s for his dinner, us he Slid he was not well oft". He saw prisoner lying on the floor, ns if he had fallen off the sofa, and called Middleton to witness hin tike tho purs* from his pocket. There was nothing m the purse, lie accused Ihe prisoner of robbing his mate, and prisoner sii I ho would summon him. Prisoner said, '• If you want t > know where I got my money," he Yiiil, " I won £14 at billiards." Prisoner gave him 5s because lie had given him 2i before Thomns Keating, laborer, living at Waimato on 27th April said lie had seen the prisoner tit Oamaru thivc w.el>s before, and he nsked for a lo;in of 3s to p;iv his fare by trjin to Waimato. Gave him « note, ns ho had no other change. Timoih.v O'Connor, shoemaker ul Waimate, said on the 16th April he served prisoner with a pair of boots, for which he did not pay, but another man was responsible. James Reid, of the firm of Gnitt and Reid, of Waimate, said he saw the prisoner about 9 o'clock at- his shop, and ho bought some Ihinss, which were clone up m three separatebundles. He paid for the goods now produced and identified. William O'Connor, sergeant of police stationed at Waimate, said he nrrcted the prisoner on the 29th of April at Waimate, and told him he was charged with stealing money He asked prisoner if lie had any money, and he handed him a purse containing about £8 or £9. In the purse he found one note for £5, and £6 m single notes, one haying a hole m it, and the one sworn to by the witness Morris. Prisoner hid not. been m any employment, butexpectel to get some. He obtained three parcels from the waiter at Middleton's Hotel. James Connolly, mounted eenstablo at Waimate, said ho nsked prisoner where he pot the money he had, and he said " Euchre, and find that. out-". The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was srntenced to two year* hard labor. The prosecutor's costs were disillowed, ■ LABCISKY. Cornelius Toll was charged with the larceny of a £10 note. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. C. H. Brown, laborer, living m Tiroaru, said that on tho 12th of March he and his wife left Melton's Hote', having money with them, Tho prisoner called to them, and said a man accused them of stealing money. There was. a man with him, who he said hid accused witness of steuling money. His wife said if prisoner would come to the house she would mend his lorn coat. He came and had dinner with ihem. Witness aDd wife had some words and went into their bedroom and Bhe tore the £10 note up to prevent witness spendi ig it m drink. She threw the torn note on the floor. The prisoner came into the room an I faid, " I'll do you a friendly action j I'll bare it mended." Prison^ r to ik the note with him. Mary Ann Brown, wife of last witness, snid she saw tl;e prisoner on Mare.h 12th, a a she wbb :oing h'.me. He had a <all man with him, and he said to th.- tall man, '' Which is th" man who ha* robbeii you of your m'.n'-y ?" She did not remember what he snid. Shn and her husband and pri-oner then went home. The latter stopped m the sittingroom, and they went into the bedroom. Prisoner afterwards came m there. He flaw the pieces of a £10 note on tho floor, which she had torn up. He offered to get it mended, but her husband told him to leave it alone. He took the pieces away with him. 81:e did not see him any more until lat<; m (he evening m the street,. He then had on a new suit of clothes. In the morning he had on old ones. Under cross-cxamina'ion by prisoner she stated ehe had invited the prisoner lo their house. Her husbind had not threatened to flog her but to kick prisoner out of the house. Mary Ann Lov< gate stilted that she was a married woman anil dined with Mr and Mrs Brown and prisoner on date m question. A quarrel afterwnrds took place between Brown and his wifo m their brdroom. Prisoner went m again and came out again. She nsked him what the quarrel was about, and he said Mrs Brown had torn up a £10 note. Prisoner had it m his band. She asked him to giro it to her, and she would return it to Mrs Brown m the morning, but he refused, saying he would git it mended himself. He then went away. Under cross-examination by prisoner, witstated he was m the house wheu the note was stolen. William Boyce Bullrr, accountant to the Bank of New Zeul»ndnt Jiinaru, said that on March 14th last, prisoner came to the Bank and asked for payment of a mutilated £10 note, stating that it had been torn m mistake while he was taking it out of his pocket. That produced was the same. Prisoner said the nole repres-nted some weeks' work, and if he did not get paid for it he would be broke. Witness gave prisoner another £10 note for the mu'ilat^d one. His Honor here p inted out that the dale stated m the indictment wa» the 12th March, and not the 14th as stated by Mr Buller. Prosecutor re-called said he went before the Magistrate two days after th« robbery. Mary Ann Brown recille-J, said it was two days after the robbery that th« case was heard. Arthur Blennerliasset said he was m tho employment of Mr O. Gabites, draper. About the date m question prisoner came into the shop and bought «ome goof's there lo the value of some £4 or £5 and paid for them m 'ingle notes. Constable Richard Sullivan said he arrested the prisoner on Wednesday, March 14, m the evening, and charged him with larceny of a £10 note. Prisoner denied all knowledge of it. He had heard prisoner ask another man early m the morning to po over to the Old Bank Hotel and pay for a ghss of beer for him, as he had no money himself. This concluded the evidence the prisoner •tating that he had no defence to make. The jury, without hesitation, returned a Terdict of Guilty against the prisoner. His Honor said he would let the sentence stand over until to-day, to enab!.* the police to find out something about th« '.' tali man " referred to m the evidence, and •->-; if he had anything t« do with the theft The Court then adjourned u:m\ 10 a.m. this day. Tuesday, Juke 12. The Court resumed at 10 a.m. There were present F. De C. Malet, Emj., Registrar; B. Woolleombe, Esq., Sheriff; nod J. W. White, Esq., Crown Prosecutor. BATE. Max Friedlander was charged with, on December 13th, committing a rape on the person.

of Sarah Form, a married woman, r.isidin^ at Geraldine. The prisoner pleaded not auily. The f.-llowing jiry were emp.vnielled : — Messrs L. Heaiy, It. Slavery, U. O. Co: ton A. Anston, C. Mas<ey, F White, J. E dt-r, J. Thompson, J. M. Ocntlemun, T. Machin, und R. B. Sib'ey. Mr John Thompson was elected Foreman. .MesH White nnd llaiiierslcy appeared lor the pros-cution, and Mr Joynt for the defendant. Sarah Fenn said she whs the prosecutrix, and resided at Gcraldine last De ember. She was a married woman. On Wednesday, lath Decemb r, *he went to Mr Mendelsun's sture to clean prisoner's room. This was between 12 mid 2 o'clock m the day. She took three children with her, the eldos 1 of which was seven years. Pris mer was m t'»e front stjr« and sh« i*k«d him if it was conrenient for her to do his ro.Jin. He said " jm," ami she went into the bedroom. After v short time he came and kro;-kc t at tho door, und ehc opened it an! let him m. She left it for a few minutes, and then rtturnorl. Piisoncr wus not there then, but cumo agiiin shortly afterwards. II<! gave her some dirty linen The children wer<j at the door at thm time. Prisoner oske 1 them if they would like some lollies. He fetched them some, and then to.d the biggest child to go and mind tho laby. They went away to tho storage room. 'Prisoner then asked her if blio Wi'iild havo a glass of wine, but she refused. Jle then pushed the door to, and pul!cd down the blind. She was tieiug up the dirty clothe* at that time. Prisoner then took hold of hor by the shoulders, saying lie was going to have something out of her. [Prosecutrix here proceeded to describe what happened, but s'aUd thai she could nut swear •whether prisoner nclually c 'inmittod the offence.] Prisoner then left tho room, and she went home. On the wuy sho called at Airs Gardner's, but as ehc and her htuband were at dinner, prosecutrix did not go m. On reaching homo she met a young girl named Emily Waller, who w.is staying with her. She told the girl whut hud happened, and then laid down for a time. On getting up she wrote a note lo prisoner and sent it to him. Her place was about a quarter of an hour's walk from this store. She receive. I tho written answer (produced) from prisoner m reply to lu-r notr. At night she left Iho house ■with Emily Waller. Whilo crossing the paddock sho saw prsoner rido up to her front door, but finding thero was no one m he vent uwajr again. Next morning ho camo again to the hvuse. He said to her "I thought I should have seen you at the JJoad Board office last night " ; und also, "It's done now, what's the use of making any bother about it." Ho als> said if she would" go to tho shop he would make it right- m nny way she lite 1. Emily Waller wus present at the time. She mude no answer, and he then went ivwoy. Her husband had been about twelve miles away all the week, and did not return till Saturday. She did not say anything about tho matter to anyono else but Emily Waller until the Saturday. She then spoke to the Clerk of the Court about it, and laid an m forma' ion aguinst prisoner. She had not eeen him to speak to since the day folio >ving that on which the offience was committed. Tho store faced the street By-Mr Joynt : She had been washing and cleaning for prisoner for a fortnii-lit before tho offence was committed. The store was at the lower end of tho town. Tho window of fie bedroom overlooked the yard and theMech .liics' Institute. Prisoner came into the room ou two or three occusions, nn each of which she went out. The lust occasion she did not go out. She tried to got away from him when he put. his hinds on her, but. m doing bo fell against th* bed, which was opposite the window. She soonmed out twice, but not very loud. She could not have got away from him by any means. Sh« wuukl swear ho took her m his arms, lilted her cli an off her legs, and threw her on the bed. She wat bigger than prisoner, but not so strong. She would swear sh« never took the wine he offered her on that day, or on any previous occasion. She remembered boing at the store one day when George Fox was there, but »he had no drink on that occasion. In falling against tho bed she hurt herself, and tt.at prevented her from using her arms to throw him off. She did not touch the beclafierwurds. She felt very much unnoyef), but di.l not cry until she got home. Sho took th« dirty linen awny with her when she went, and got it washed. She charged for it. Sho wrote to prisoner first and g>>t a reply. Sh<- sent the second note (mirked B.) on ihe following day telling him sh« would not go lo tho store any more, and that her husband said if she did not go on with the ense he would. The first note she wrote was m .pencil. The words were similar to those m that (marked A) produced, The handwriting was like hers, but sho did not remember writing it m ink. His Honor here cautioned the prosecutrix to be very careful what Bhe was lweariug. Sho supposed she must have sent it and not the one m pencil. It was. written shortly after she was atsnulted. (The note was then read and was to the effect that she gn*e prisoner a chance of answering it, or sho would prosecute him.) She received a reply to the iirst note, saying prisoner would see her that evening. She first saw her husband on the following Saturday, about rix or seven o'clook m tho evening" Georgo Fox was rt her honse one evening shortly after she took out the summons, fie had a conversation with her about the case. Emily Waller was not present then. She did not tell Fox on that occasion that Emily Waller knew nothing about the outrage unt ; l nfter prisoner had visited her house Ihe next morning. Her husband was not at home when Fox was there, as he had gone f'ack to work. This wos on Tuesday, 19th instant.

Emily Burnham said her maiden name •was Waller, and she had been married last January, and previous to that, fjr six we eks, sho l.ad been Hying with the prosecutrix at Geraldine. She remembered the 13th of December lart. On that dny projuoutrix made a complaint to her. She was crying and trembling nt the time. She saw accused come to prosccutr'x' house the fame evening. Ho came again next morning, and she heard him 8-*y to prosecutrix " I thought I should hare seen you at the Road Board office. What about it ? " and, " It's done now, and what's the use of. making. a bother about it ; como up to my store, and I'll make it all right." By Mr Joynt : She was inside Mrs Fenn's house- when the conversation took place. Prosecutrix and prisoner were outside. She could not see them, but knew what prisoner vras al'uding to. Prosecutrix washed tho prisoner's clothes herself. Caleb E. Sherratt, Clerk of the Court at Geraliline, said that prosecutrix [came to him on Saturday, 16th December, and laid an infomation 'against prisoner. He handed it with the summons to Sergeant O'Malley. James O'Malley, Sergeant of Police at Grraldine, said lie served a summons on prisoner on 16th December. Prisoner . taid he had heard of it the night before. After looking at the summons, prisoner said the date was wrong, and he would bring two witnesses to prove it. By Mr Joynt: He did not think he had seen Mrs Fenn previously. He did not remember meeting her on the day the outrage was committed; but she told him he had den' jo. ■ Sitmuol Mills, a saddler at- Geraldine, said he remembered having a conversation with prisoner on the subject of the present charge mDt eember. Prisoner told him he had received a summons from" the police. Witness and ol hers wp>o chiffing him at the time, and prison or said he had " done it before, and would do it again." . This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and the Court th«n adjourned for half an hour. - . ; On the Court- resuming, the .defence pro-. oc«d«d. * .-.-,..: i

Thomas P<-i.ke, builder and carpenter, said he lived at Ge aldi'ie m December hvt. He knew Mfitd.Jso i's storo at Geraldine. Op 18th ])ec-cfnb r last he was about a chain distant, from th ; st;re, m the open air. He knew tli^ wi uluw of th.s bedroom m Mendelson'B .Htore. JIo was preparing some shutters. 8.-twren 11 i.nd 12 o'clock on the 13th for half mi hour lie went to lunch. He came buck and rma nod at work till 4 p.m. He heard no Voices from the bedroom while he was at work. He lived ut the back of tho Lit'-rary Institute. He had licird laughing from the bedroom m MendeUon's store when he had been at work. The wall was of corrugated iron, and therefore more productive of .-ound. lie was at work making shutter.*, but «as making no noise with tools from 10 to 1J that would prevent dim from hearing any noise. He had charge of the Institute, and could make use of the yard. Saruh Gardner said sho was the wife of lillis Gardner. In December la»t they lived m Ger»ldine, betwien Mendelson's and Mr* I'enn'a. On one Mondt-y she •heard of a summons n gainst the prisoner. Mrs Fenn told hor of it. They had had their dinner when Mrs Fenn called. The things were not removed from the table. Her husband was there. She spoke to Mrs Fenn outside, and noticed no change m her. Mrs Fenn did nut complain of anything. She ha 1 something m a perambulator, but did not know what it was. They weio talking for some time, but she laid nothing about this affair. Their house was not far from where Mrs Fenn lived.

George Fox, carter atid carrier at Gcraldine, said that on tho Bth' December lust he had a conversation with Mrs Fenn. Mrs Fenn and he had a glass together, which was given by the prisoner. He hud had a conversation wii h Mrs Form about the case. The girl Emily came m and took part m tho conversation. When he went to Mrs Fenn, she said, " This is a pretty bother." He asked if it was right what he had heard, and whether she had been writing lo the prisoner, as thut was the report m the township. She said 6ho had not. lie asked her if she had written to prisoner at a'l, and she suid she sent a note by Rosey (her little girl) saying she would do what she s«id she would do. Besides that, she said, " Friedlander was down here the other morning to see me, nnd Emily knows that." Emily came m at this time, and corroborated what prosecut rix told him. The lai ter then (aid that priBoner turned round as she was coming from the garden, and bid her " Good morning," that she did the tamp, and prisoner then raid, " What is this about going to the Road Board Office to get a summons ? Come to the store and I'll make it all right." This concluded the evidence for tho defence. ■ Mr Joyut then addresied the jury m a long and üble speech, dwelling on the unreliable, contradictory, and incredible nature of the prosecutrix' evidence, and pointing out that the fact of her writing the letters she did to the prisoner, showed thut if she only got a quid pro quo, nothing moro would be said about the matter. He characterised the. story of tho prosccutrix as a tissue of 1 es from beginning to end, and folt convinced that all she wanted was money. On the day following that on which Ihe occurrence took place, sho wrote to prisoner saying her husband had said if she did not prosecute he would ; whereas she had nerer seen her husband at all. If she had been outraged sho would have gone and proclaimed her wrong at once, and got a proper remedy ; iustead of which she waited until the following Saturday (four days) ; and during that time had washed prisoner's clothes, sent them home, nnd charged for them as usual. In fact the whole circumstances went to show that sho thought very littlo of what prisoner had dono to her. Mr Hamersley, for the prosecution, asked jury not to believe for one moment that the who!e case pointed to a plot to extort money, for the evidence did not support such an idea for a moment. He dwelt on tho way m which prosecutrix' story was confirmed by tho girl Emily ; and the face of the former not taking advantage of the offer made by the prisoner to make up the matter by going to the store, was strongly against any intention to oxhort money. The fact of her clothes being torn showed that violenco had bet-n used. Her evidence was not shaken to any great extent, and not more so than might be expected when undergoing a severe crossexamination by counsel. Had there been any charge of ill-fame against the prosecutrix, the prisoner's counsel would not have missed any opportunity of bringing it out, but he did no such thing. His Honor having summed up at considerable length, tho jury retired, and alter a brief absence, returned with a verdict of " Not Guilty." Demonstrations of applause from the body of the hall were at once checked by the police. IriKCENY. Cornelius Toll, against whom a verdict of guilty had been returned on the previous day, was brought up for sentence. Inspector Pender stated thnt he had made enquiries, and found' prisoner had been previously convicted. Sergeant Hughes, of Christchurch, said that m 1573 prisoner had been sentenced to 3 years' penal servitude for highway robbery. In 1576 he had also been sentenced to three months for larceny with others, by the Resident Magistrate m Christchurch. In reply to hit Honor, wiinpss said that on the second occasion the prisoner was not recognised by the police, hs he went under another name. Prisoner was a noted bad character. [ Sergeant O'Malley stated that m December, 1876, prisaner received three months at the Resident Magistrate's Court Ashburton. Constable Reston stated that on the previous evening prisoner sprang away from the gang while being taken to the gaol. He firort at tiim throo limes, but did not hit him. He called upon him to stand after the first shot. His Honor pointed out to the police how careful they should be m using fire arms, and on no account to do so unless really necessary. In sentencing the prisouor, his Honor said he felt convinced that he was only one of a numerous gang of determined ruffians, which must be broken-' up, or neither life nor property would bo safe. The sentence which he would pass upon him would be ten years' penal servitude. John Keelnuand James Davis werenndicted for, on Ist March lost, having stolen a silver watch and chain from the per* on of Henry Stevens, at the Point. The prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr Hamersley appeared for Davis. Tho following jury were empanelled : — Daniel West, David King, Georg« Selby, Richard Sullivan, Thomas . Maohin, Robert Lavery, Thomas White, A ugustus Blanchett, John Johnston, John Muller, John Elder, and Andrew Maltman. Mr John Elder was elected foreman. The following evidence was taken : — Henry Stevens, the prosecutor, said he was a shepherd, and on Ist of March was staying at Edwards' Hotel, Pleasant Point. He left the house to go for a walk, taking with him a flask of brandy, a watch and chain, and some mon'y. He had some drink, but was not intoxicated. He sat down under a hedge and fell into a dose. The prisoners came along, and Keelan said " He's got a b good watch upon him.'' He at once jumped to his feet, and the flask of brandy fell out of his pocket.. The two prisoners tried to get it, but he sent them about their business. He then went to sleep agniu. but was awoke by a tug at his waistcoat. He saw Davis rising off tho ground with his (witness's) watch m his hand. . He did not see Eeelan then. He went and informed Constable Ross of the theft. The watch produced was the same. By Mr Hamersley: Where he went to sleep *ai about 200 yards from the hotel. He could not swear whether any money was i taken. The brandy was not touched. He I had seen both .prisoners m a public-house previously. He told Constable Boss he would

let the prisoners go if lie got his watch. He did not go after D.ivis immediately. He would swear h-j had the wutch on him wh n he went to ulccp. Under cross-examination by Keelan, witness said he did not fee him when the watch was taken. .Duvis nerer volunteered to show him where the watch was. Thomas Ross, constable of police, stationed at Pleasant .Point, said he raceirdd information from prosecutor about March Ist th.it Inhid lost a watch, and acting on the information, arrested Davis, charging him with stealing ir. Davis denied all knowledge of it. He searched him, but could not find the watch. Davis said that rt Hobartown JackJ' (meaning Keelan) might know something about it. They went to Keelan, who also denied all knowledge of it. Davis then asked witness to walk down to a fence, where he thought lie bad seen Kcelan plant, something. They went to some gorse near where Keelan's t-.txt had been, and found a hat with the wutch m it m (lie gorse. Davis pointed it out. ' He afterwards arrested Keelan for stealing Ihe wutch. Keelan when charged said "If it had been, money I would have stolen it, but watches Are hard to dispose of." He ha I seen both prisoners together for several days previously. Uy Mr Hamersley : Keelan told him the tent was his, but Dass had also been living m it. J, This concluded the evidence, and counsel briefly addressed Ihe jury; Mr Haineruley, for Davis, reading the evidence of the prosecutor taken at tlio Resident Magistrate's Court, to show (hat it did not agree at all with that given by him on this occasion. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. There was a previous conviction recorded against the prisoner Keelau, for felony, at Christ church, to which he pleaded guilty. Inspector Fender said he had known Keelan for 11 years., during which time he had borne rather a bad character. He believed lie was an old convict, but had always had the repuiation of telling the truth. Krelan said ho .was an old man-of-war's-man, and had never been cent out to Hobart Town as a convict, but got his name of " Hobart Town Jack" because ho sailed from that, place. His Honor sentenced the prisoner Keelan to four years' penal servitude. With regard to Davis, Mr Hamersley said that lie had borne a very high character at Blueskin, m Olago. His Honor sentenced him to 18 months' penal servitude. The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. today. Wkdnesday, June 13. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The Couvt resumed at 10 a.m., there being presont F. do C. Malet, Esq , Registrar ; 13. Woollcombe, Esq., Sheriff ; and J. W. White, Esq., Crown Prosecutor. LIBEL. Richard Andrew Algar Sherrin was indicted for writing and publishing m the Waitangi Tribune a malicious libel (well knowing it to be false)against George McCullagh Heed. Prisoner pleaded " Not guilty." The following jury wero empanelled : — Messrs J. Miller, R. Fin-Jlay, G. Greene, D. King, G. felbj, A. Blanehet, W. if. Gentlemun, D. West, A. Maltman, H. Jackson, J. Wetherall, and J. Priest. Mr West waa elected as Foreman. Mr White (Crown Prosecutor), Mr Stout, and Mr Hamersley appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. Mr Stout, m opening the cat*, read the letter m which the libel was contained. It ran as follows : — "A REVEREND EDITOR. " (TO THE EDITOR OF THE ' TRIBUNE.') " Sir,— The Rev. George M'Cullagh Reed is supposed to have something to do with tho editorial inspiration of the Ghiardiaiv newspaper, published m Dunedin. The supposition may be truf or otherwise. Quien sabe'l At all events, the rev. gentleman is an able man. He is more : he is a religious mnn. He is, or seeks to be, or lias been, a pillar of the Scotch Presbyterian Church. In animal instinct the rev. gentleman is not unlike the Rev. Dr. Thomas Guthric Carr. The one gentleman has as much right to the sanctimonious prefix as the other. They are both birds of prey. Th«y both come from over tho sea. When the Newcastle doctor came to Melbourne, and hnd expended the whole of his funds, and hnd exhausted his credit, he adopted the charlatan business, and went m for mesmerism and lecturing. When the Presbyterian clergyman came to Auokland from Brisbane, he borrowed the sum of £4 10s, and went into partnership with a man called Brett — a man more objectionable than himself — and started the Auckland Evening Star. The journal obtained a notoriety and achieved a monetary success. It was, without doubt, under the Scotch parson's regime the most lewd of all New Zealand journals. Its inspired unutterable productions no modest journal can notice. But the journal paid. Another item of resemblance between the cleric and the charlatan obtrudes itself upon our recollections. It bos been frequently stated that the teacher of the Gospel m Queensland was unfrocked for the seduction of a girl of immature age. There is no truth m the assrrtion whatever. The girl was well up m her teens and solicitous. So they say about his alter ego, the mesmeric doctor. But every one who knows Ihs ' bump ' reader, is aware of the grossness of the charge. Woman it his divinity, and to h«r shrine he constantly does homage. His physique and piety preclude the supposition. Gallic like, he cares not for these things. In the Guardian of the 9th instnnt, appears a remarkable article on native lands, the conduct of native affairs, and the writer's impressions thereon. Everything that the Rev. George McCullagh Seed writes bears-- the ■tamp of his persistent individuality. He cannot cloak himself. Ego stands m every sentence, and the rev. gentleman writes with a knowledge of the subject. He feels aggrieved, and he considers be has a right so to feel. Some three years ago ho wanted to obtain, m a surreptitious manner, a valuable concession on the east coast of the North Island of nttive land. The Native Minister rightly, and justly opposed his claim ; hence th» peculiarity of ; the opinions held by the gentleman under consideration. He is utterlyignorant of the Maori language. He knows ' no more of native affairs than he does of godliness, and revels m bis ignorance by the iteration of unguarded statements. In the •rticlo m question he asserts that although the Hon. Dr Pollen is the " gazetted and ostensible Native Minister • • * MrJ.B. Ormond is the native mind of the present Cabinet. He directs the policy at autocratically as bis predecessor, and pulls the strings which regulate every movement of the department. He is only invested with the paint nnd feathers, his utterances are put into hit mouth— he dances to the tune his master dictates." Very tense -writing indeed. It only lacks one thing, and that it truth. Like the members for Mount Ida and Geraldino the writer only presumes on the ignorance of bis auditory. And yet, after all, the man may be sincere, when it is remembered that he only learned his Maori .'political views from Sir George Grey and Johnnie Sheehan. When the Hon. Mr Stafford was m office he would only take his orders from Sir George Grey m writing, to prevent the results of the Governor's habit of tergiversation, and very fewpeople indeed would even take this safeguard from the member for Rodney, Mr John Sheehan. It is within my knowledge that Dr. Pollen does not take, bis orders from Mr John Davieii Ormond, the member for Olive, more than the Rev. George M'Gullagh Reed or Dr. Thomas Guthrie Carr do their rales of con- j duct from the gospel ; but that he is, perhaps, as independent and self -willed a member of a Cabinet as ever sat at Ministerial table, or conducted the business of the colony m either the Upper or Lower House of the General Assembly, . The concluding, sentence of . the

leader it well worthy of consideration. It runs m this manner : — " From the present Uuuse and the pretrnt Government there is little to be hoped lor." The writer, at one period of his career, went into politics m Auckland, and achieved the distinction of making a mess of Provincial affairs ; and once sufficed to make sport for the Councillors by citing ' chapter and verse' instead of "section and Act,' when he, like a dumb dog sought to illustrate what he could not understand. Suck gentlemen uta necessary to be kept m their places ; hence tha necessity of this • letter. Having passed a few years m the North Island, the rev. writer is inclined to to say, ' I am Sir Oracle ? and when I ope my mouth, let no dog bark ;' to which I say, ' Exactly so, but keep your barking for your brother cure ' " Afcklan d. " Waimate, March 13." Richard Charles White Cuming said he was Editor of the Waitangi Tribune. He | knew the prisoner. He had ecen the letter produced before. Prisoner gave it to him to insert as a leader, which he refused to do, but inserted it as a letter. Before he did so lie asked prispner if it was true, and he said yes. The priioaer, while the proof was beiug read, altered his name to " Auckland." The letter appeared m the paper. George McCullagh Keed said he was Editor and part proprietor of the Otago Ghiardian. He was a minister of the Presbyterian Church. He hud been m Queensland. While there he was a Presbyterian clergymen of the Colonial Church. He was ordaiued m Ireland. He resigned his charge m Queensland for the purpose of entering Parliament. It was provided ut that time that no minister of religion could sit m Parliament. He was elected to the Queensland Parliament. He waa subsequently part proprietor of the Auckland Star. ; He had seen the libellous article which appeared on the lJilh March. He knew Dr. Carr. He was v mesmeric lecturer. He believed the article referred to him. All the statements contained m the letter, which referred to him, wero perfectly untrue. There hud been such an article as the letter referred to, m the Otago Guardian, but he (witness) did not write it. The charge, re seducing a girl m Queensland, was false, as also was that with reference to his land transactions. Before he was admitted by the Presbytery of Auckland they communicated with that of Queensland, who sent his credentials.

The prisoner here asked his Honor what particular parts of the letter were charged iv the indictment, und was informed that the whole of it was.

Henry Hughes said hn was a printer, and was working on the Waitangi Tribane at the the time tbe loiter produced was published. The heading was " A Reverend Editor." He believed it referred to Mr Reed ; also that charge with regard to seduction.

This concluded the evidence ; the prisoner calling none. Mr Stout said the evidence was so plain that there was no- necessity for him to address the jury. •The prisoner assort bis Honor whether the indictment as to " knowingly," etc., was born out by the evidence. His Honor said he liad his own doubts about it, as there was no evidence to show that the prisoner knew the libel to.be false, although it had been proved so. Mr Stout held that tho Tact of the prosecutor swearing against the truth of the libel, there being no proof otherwise, was sufficient.

At the request of the prison r, Mr Reed was re-called and cross-examined as follows : — He applied for twenty thousand acres of land m the North Island. A large number of negotiations were pending m -the fame district (Rotor ua). Suddenly the whole district was withdrawn by the Government, lie did not know that it was through the private negotiations going on that tha land was withdraws; He was negoiiating through Baron Fleury, not .Mr Young. He was not aware the agents were acting against the wishes of the Government. The^ prisoner then asked leave to alter his plea to guilty. His Honor snid he doubted whither this could be allowed now. Mr Hnmersley put m an authority to sho * that his Honor had power to use his own discretion m the matter. His Honor said he did not think it would make the slightest difference to the prisoner whether he pleaded guilty or not.

In summing up, his Honor said that while the liberty of the Press was a great thing, as long as it was properly used, but it might become a great ourse. While it was necessary to protect all persons from having their names or characters wrongly broughtintodisapprobation, still it wasrightthattheacts of those who held public positions or offices should be open to fair and honest criticism. The Press should be taught to use the greatest care not to create misery or injury to an individual or a community : and also not to believe m rumors until they were first substantiated. While a person had a right to recover damages for mere dander by words, he bad a much greater right to do so when the slander was written or published. .Although there was no absolute rule laid down as to what constituted a libel, m point of law anything was libel which was calculated to bring a man in'o disrepute with his neighbors. A libel which brought a person into public contempt was actionable without special damages being proved, and was an indictable offence. It was most proper that the jury should appreciate the principles of the law. The only justification a prisoner could lead would ba that the publication of the libel was for the public good ; a right which the Press certainly possessed. The indictment averred that the prisoner published the letter " knowing it to be false ;" but there was no evidence to this effect. If the jury thought the " knowingly" was not established, they mist inform hyn accordingly when bringing m their verdict. The jury than retired, and after an absence of ten minutes returned with a verdict of " Guilty " against the prisoner for writing and publishing the libel, but not guilty of doing so " knowing the same to be false."* MBBL. Eichacd Charleß White Cuming was indicted for taring published m the Waitajigl Tribune oertain libellous statements, knowing the same to be false. Mr Stout and Mr Hainersley appeared for the prosecution, and 'Mr Joynt for the accused. ' ' By* consent of th* prosecutor the accused pleaded " Guilty " to- the count of publishing the libel only; that of "knowingly" not being pressed against' him. ' His Honor said, m order to know what punishment to inflict, he should like to know the means of the respective accused. : Mr Stout said that ; Sherrin, he believed, had no meant. Mr Joynt said that' Mr Cuming had been showing Sherrin round Waimate on the day the letter was put m tb# paper, and . got a little elevated, , or it would never have been put m. The paper belonged to Mr Cuming, but was at present rather heavily encumbered as he was paving for it by monthly instalment*. '■.- . His Honor said it would be a bad.precechent to establish, that the fact of an editor getting the worse for liquor would absolve him. from actioni for libel. • . ' His Honor then, asked Sherrin if he was m a position to pay a' fine if it was. inflicted, bo as to mitigate the sentence of. imprisonment. The prisoner said that he had no means, and had nothing to say m hit defence. His Honor then proceeded to say that Sherrin's offence was far worse than that ■of Cuming'e, at there was good reason to believe that he had. written the letter with a* certain amount of animus against Me Reed. There waa no evidenqe of any vindictive feeling on the part of the prosecutor m bringing the charge against the prisoner. He would inflict a punishment which would prove a warning to others m the colony, and showthat the liberty of 'the Press must be properly regulated- Hero was no doubt that one and.

all reaped incalculable advantages from the diffusion of knowledge by means of the Press. The public pt-oco m Other countries had, however, suffered severely from the uubridled license given t> it. If this warning wera not taken by others, "he for one would take care to punish rcost sererely every case similar to that of the prisoner's which came before him. In consideration of the prisoner Imving alrra'ly been three month* m gaol, he would sentence him to the comparatively short period cf three months' imprisonment, without hard labor. * ,

His Honor then addressed Cuming, and Mid that ' he niuSt be aware that ha had' been led into committing a very nasty offence. He had allowed tilierrin to make use of his paper to publish a moit scandalout libel. Proprietors of newspapers must- be Bade to feel the necessity of using the greatest possible vigilance as to the character of the matter they published. The/, and the editors also, ought always to feel the gravity of their station. If it was for the public good that any matter should be inido public, let them go forward fearlessly and unhesitatingly, and comment as severely as they liked on it. But they must first satisfy themselres that they were advocating the cause of truth and justice. Every wound wrongfully inflicted by the Press ought to be answered for; either by means or imprisonment. He would not disgrace the accused by sending him to prison, but would inflict a fine, which, though in-' adequate to atone foV the offence, would still prove of great inconvenience to him. He would order him to pay the sum of £100 to Her Majesty the Queen, and be imprisoned until the fine be paid. LABCEJJY. William Mitclit-11 was charged with the larceny of £10, the property of Andrew Rottroy. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The following jury were empanelled : — Darid King, Andrew Maltman, Thomas Parkcs, James Metherall, Adam Miller, R. B. Sibley, John Brosnahan, Michael Moore, Thomas White, Thomas Machin, John Elder, and John Hancock. Mr John fclder was chosen foreman. Andrew Rattray said thut m the month of February last he left the Otaio station with prisoner. While there they had been working together. The came to the Makikihi Hotel. He had. a cheque for £15 m his possession. Prisoner ohanged it for him there, giving him an £11 cheque and some notes. This was on the Sunday. They came into Timaru on the Monday. He changed the £11 cheque at the Bank, and got a £10 and £1 note He was m company with the prisoner on the following day at the Old Bank Hotel. While silting m the billiard-room prisoner came up and took a £10 note out of his right hand trousers pocket. Witness vai slightly under the influence of liquor at the time. He aaw the note m the prisoner's hand as he went away. Witness asked him to give it back but he refused, saying he (witness) had had too much drink. He did not charge the prisoner openly with stealing the money. Prisoner afterwards gave him £1, saying that thut would be enough for the present. He did not authorise prisoner tj take the money. The witness was then cross-examined at some length by the prisoner, to show that the latter had several times had charge of his money for him and always returned it ; and had ac'el m a similarly honest way with other men. The prosecutor farther stated that he did not think the prisoner meant m any way to keep the money. Mr White here said he would not proceed further with the case after the prosecutor's statement. His Honor, therefore, directed the jury to return a verdict of " Not Guilty." The Court then adjourned for half an hour. EMBEZZLEMENT. John Thomas Pai» wat charged with the embezzlement of certain monies,' the property of tho Waimate Road Board. The Crown Prosecutor and Mr C. Perry appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs ■Stout and Hamersiey for the prisoner. " Mr White, m opening the caie, said the prisoner kept the accounts of the Road Board, and i ntered the amounts m his books.. The sutni were paid m for contracts to the prisoner, who was responsible for the same. The prisoner, instead of paying the amounts m to the Bank to the dfedit of the Road Board, appropriated the same to his own use. Michael Studholme said he was a member of the Waimate Road Board. The minutes were m the prisoner's handwriting. The prisoner's salary was £120 per annum, and he had to compile the rate roll once a year, for which he did not receive extra pay. He instructed him m his duties, with the Chairman's sanction. Prisoner took minutes of the meetings and kept the accounts.

N. Hillary laid he had been Engineer to the Waimate ltoad Board since the 15th November, 1875. The prisoner was m the employment of -the Board till the sth of February, 1877. Prisoner kept the cash book and le Iger, and took charge of the past book. There were two account* kept at the Bank — one for money received from the Provincial- Government, and the other for deposits from contractors. 1 per cent, was paid to the clerk m the presence of the Board, and the remaining 9 per cent, was paid to witness on signiDg the contract, and bis habit- was to give it to the clerk to be entered }n the cash book and taken to the Bank.

Cross-examined by Mr Stout : The clerk docketed the contracts. ~ The monies were generally paid by cheque. He-was still Engineer to the Board, and had .been. «o since 1875. The Board formerly kept its accounts at the Bank of New Zealand. The prisoner kept ull the books up Jo the sth February lart, and bad sole charge. Ths income of the district for last year -was £42,000. The journal produced was m the handwriting of the witness. The tender for £26 was> marked m the handwriting of the prisoner, and he saw the prisoner receive it. The contracts were handed back to witness by the clerk. He was preient at a meeting of the Road Board, and the priioner was also present when the book was produced and examined. Prisoner was requested to produce the pass book, but prisoner said he 'had not got it, and that it probably was at the Bank. He went to the Bank for it, but did not then obtain it. He had not spoken to the prisoner on the subject since. - There was a deficiency of £778 m the books, which was discovered by .Mr Ollivier,' the Government auditor, who asked the prisoner if he could make good the amount. - Prisoner said he could not do so. Mr Ollirier said he had been to -the bank and traced the number of cheques that had been cashed by the prisoner. Mr Ollirier audited the accounts yearly, and never made any complaints about them previously. The day labor accounts ' were paid by cheque. The prisoner paid the petty cash account*. When he (witness) paid money to the men he took a receipt from them, and . then, iofonned the clerk.

• ■ George Pratt, contractor, said, m January last be sent ill a tender to the jWaimate Road Board with acheqae for £6, beiog 1 per cent, on the amount. He beliered that 'the cheque produced was the one he sent. He gcft his money baok on the completion of the contract. S. W. Goldsmith, of the firm of- Meim Manchester and Goldamith, at Waimate, said he had dealings with Bichard Collins, and rgare him a cheque to pay m to the Boad Board. ! W. J. Donald,, clerk m the Bank of New at Waimate, said he. recognised the cheque produced, which was giren him by the prisoner, and be cashed it. The prisoner had the cheque paid m to his own prirate account. J. E. Bout, manager of the Union Sank at Waimate, said on the sth February last he gave th'e prisoner a pass book of the dr pout account of the Boad Board. - The book now produced was * second pass book for the W«imateßoa4 Board. £234 3a 9d was the i

amount at the credit of the contractors' deposit account on sth February. This concluded the evidence, and counsel addressed the Court. j 'After his Honor had summed up, the jury retired, and returned m about half an hour with a verdict of "guilty" against the prisoner. The case was then remanded till Friday, to enable Hi* Honor to consider certain points raised by Mr Stout. The prisoner was admitted to bail, himself m £1000, and two aureties of £600 each. The Court then adjourned till Friday, at 10 a.m. Fbiday, June 15. CITIL CASK. Pain t. Potter— Claim for £585 10s lOd, for a contract entered into. Messrs Qarrick and White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper for the defendant The jurors were : — Messrs W. S. Davidson, H. H. Pitman, J. A. G-amack, C. S. Frsser, J. Boyes, D. M. Inwood, C. B. Shaw, S. A. Bristol, O. W. Buller, W. Brans, F. H. Barker, and G-. E. Stericker. Mr C. K. Shaw was chosen foreman. Mr Garrick opened the case to the Court. James Thomas Pain, builder, said he made some alteration! m the Club Hotel at Wat" mate. Entered iutj the contract on 28th January, 1876, and began work three or four days after. The plan produced was the one referred to m the contract. This tracing is the one supplied him by Mr Bruce to woik by. The ground plan was too large for the site of the building. The building was about l&in. longer than the ground and a foot deeper. The whole of the frame had to be prepared before disturbing the old building.. He discovered the mistake too Jate, and the effect was to 'throw the door* and windows out. of position ; and to preserve the symmetry of the frame the whole had to be reduced m order to fit. Defendant asked him to press on with the now work as much as possible without disturbing her m the old place. All his men, about 13, were occupied three days m making .the change. In February the architect pulled down 6 feet of the old to put up 6 feet of new. (The witness here went into a number of details regarding the building and the exp.'iiso he was put to for the alteration* and extras, which, were' not included m the original contra ct) . Mr Bruce only allowed 12 extra ' days for the alterations, for which witness charged 113 days. Mrs Potter took possession of each room as it w.as finished. The building was finally finished about the Bth August. Her taking possession, of the rooms interfered with ihe business. She let the varnishing and papering to oilier contractors. Mr Bruce was not an acknowledged architect, but a timber merchant.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper : The cellar was enlarged, and the excavations were over 130 yards. Sawdust was to be rammed between the upper floor and the ceiling. The sawdust had to be taken out m consequence of the joists sinking. Some consultation between the respective then took place, and it was finally agreed to aettlo the case by arbitration. EMBEZZLBMHN*. ■ Begina v. J. T. Pain. In this case on Wednesday last, Mr Stout for the prisoner had obtained leare to appeal on a technical point regarding the legality of certain Provincial Ordinances bearing on it, • which did not bear the proper imprint of the Government Printer, at Christchuroh, as required by Act of Parliament. Bail having been found by the .prisoner as required by the Court — viz., himself m £1000 and two sureties of £500 each — he was ordered to appear at the next fitting! of the Supreme Court m Timaru, which will be held six months hence. The Court then rose.