SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2411, 14 June 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

TlMAßU— Ttjbsdat, Jcftß 12. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams..) The half-yearly criminal sossion of the Supreme Court at Timaru commenced yesterday, before His Honor Mr Justice William;. His Honor took his teat at 11 a.m. tub qr»nd Juar. The following were sworn m as a Grand Jury :— E. Smith, E. Raddon, D. McLaren, W. Deßenzy, R. E. Guinness, T. Hamlin, H. J. Gladstone,. F. Archer, W. Morton, K. Acton, W.M.Sims, O. Bowker, J. Jackebn, J. Watkins, J. W. 8. Zieeler, W. Sterioker, Jno. Paterson, Jas. Paterson, A. W. Wright, J. Bruce, T. T. Brownell, and R. Wood. W. Marcroft and J. Goodall were held excused on account of indisposition. Mr Brownell asked to be excused on the grcund that he had urgent business to attend to m Dunedin that day. His Ho«or said the Grand Jury would probably conclude their business before the train left for Dunedin, and if not no doubt he could arrange with his fellow-jurymen to allow him to go. There was no reason why they should not so long aa a quorum was left to carry on the business. bis honor's ohaeob. His Honor m addressing tbe Grand Jury said he was happy to see that the calendar was an exceedingly light one, and the cases were of so simple a character that it was hardly necessary that he should make any remarks upon them. He would, however, just indicate the nature of the several cases. There, was a case of criminal assault ov a girl under twelve. This was made an offence by statute, no consent on the part of a girl under twelve years of age making it less an offence. A caße of a boy putting stones on the railway they would have no diffiouity m dealing with, nor would they have any difficulty with a ease of embezzlement. There was ~m case of larceny under somewhat peculiar ciroumstancca. The acruied went away with another man's wife, and besides taking tbe man's wife be took with him a considerable quantity of the prosecutor',) property, and he was charged with the larceny of that properly. In general, when a wife took property belonging to her husband and handed it to another, tint other was cot guilty of xeceiving it knowing it to have been stolen, becaute a wife cinnot steal from her husband. But there are exception?, and this case came witbin the exceptions. When a woman goes away with another man for the purpose of living m adultery with him, and if between them the/ take away' any of the husband's property, then, although the wife cannot be convicted of stealing her husband's goods, tbe adulterer could be so convicted, and that was the case here. Other caeei — of stealing from the person, and larceny of horse, saddle, and bridle— would offer do difficulty. There were several cases of forgery, cases of a kind which appeared at nearly every sitting of the Supreme Court m every part of the colony. These cases did not seem to require any comment. FINDINGS OT THB OBAHD JT/BT. Daring the day the Grand Jury returned true bills against the following m the order given : — Charles Heatley, larceny of a horee, second count, larceny of saddle and bridle ; Edward Ford, stealing from the person ; Thomas Christie, forgery and uttering ; J. Sullivan, placing stonea on the railway ; J. T. Healey, forgery and uttering, six counts; Frederick Wellsman, embezzlement ; Mark Biihop, assault with intent; and -Fred Oullamore, larceny from a dwelling. - This concluded the labor* of the Grand Jury, and His Honor thanked them and discharged them. 'THB TEWY JCBT. The petty jury panel was tben called and sworn. One juror called, Joseph Roddick, did not appear and was fined £2 2s. HORSB STEALING. : Charles Heatley, a lad of 16, was charged with stealing a gelding, the property of Michael Biorden, on the 18th February last, and on a second indictment with stealing a saddle and bridleat the samo time. Prisoner pleaded guilty to b->th charges. Sentence was deferred. STBAiINO FBOU THB PEBBOK. Edward Ford pleaded guilty to stealing a purse and £3 10s m money from tbe porson of James Molloy on March 14tb. Sentence wa» deferred. FOnOINQ AND UTTERING. Thomas Christie, alias Thomas Oruickshank, alia* Frederick Gilbert, alias James tiiois, pleaded guilty to two indictments by which he was charged with forging a cheque for £15 on the 4lh February, 1831, and with uttering the samo knowing it to be' forged. Sentence was deferred. PLACING BTONBB ON THB BAILWAT. John Snlliva'n, a boj aged 13, pleaded guilty to a charge of plaoing eight stones on the Amberley-Bluff railway line, m January last, with (he intent thereby to obstruct, upset,' throw off, and injure a certain engine and carriages used on the said railway. Sentence was deferred. IOEOINO AMD UTTBEIHO. John Thomas Healey was charged with having on the lltb January last forged a cheque for £40 on the Bank of New Zealand ■t Waimate, with intent to defraud, and with afterwards, on the same day, uttering and disposing of the tame, well knowing it to be forged. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. MrJ. W. White, Crown Proiecntor, con« ducted tbe prosecution; Mr Jameson defended tbe accmed. : Tha following were 1 called aa a common j ary ;— W. Bush (foreman), H. W. Hunt, B. Hoare, J. Wilkinson, M. Connolly, I. Smith, T. Mitchell, T. Somervilla, J. J. Lorns, P. Power, W. Yeatman; and A. Dailey. Five called were chalUngei by the acouaed end two by the Crown. Mr White, m opening the case for tho Crown, eaid it would be shown that on the 11th or 12th of January last the accused went to one Michael Spillane and .'produced the cheque mentioned m the indictment, endorsed it with his own name, and then reotived £10 upon it, and next day he went and received the balance from the prosecutor. He told the prosecutor to psis the cheque' through his (prosecutor's) aeoount at the Bank, and he would get the cash - for it. Tbe oheque was made payable to J. T. Healey or bearer, and was signed "Jas. Prousn and Co." The cheque went through to tbe Waimate • Bank m the muni way," and was there dishonored. It would be shown that no such firm as " J*».

Prouie and C 0.," or anyone named Prouse, ever had an account at that Bank, and although strict enquiries bad been made, no soob firm or person could be discovered. If these facts were proved, he apprehended the jury would have little diffiouity m arriving at a verdict. Mr White then cilled ths following evidence : — Michael Spillane : I am an hotelkeeper, m Timaru. On the IKb or 12th January last the prisoner brought the cheque produced to me, and asked me to cash it. I told him I had not got it, but I would give him £10 then. He endorsed it befort I gave him the money. Next morning I gave ' him the balaoce, £30. He told me to put the cheque tp my credit m the Bank and it would be all right. I put it m the Bank, but I did not get the raonoy for it — not through tbe Bank % but I got it from the prisoner about a week or so after I cashed the oheque. To Mr Jameson : Nothing wa< said about the signature. I did not know the signature. I expect it was because I bad Healey's nam» on the cheque that I gave tho money. Xsaw him as soon as I could after getting notice of ths dishonor of the cheque. I told him of that notice and asked him for the money, and a short time after he paid it, It might be a week or less, or more. To Mr White: I told him I would like to get tho money and he said he would pay it us quick as he could. He gave me two £20 notes soon after. I cannot say exactly how long. Robert MoOwen, manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Waimate : The cheque pro-duo-d was presented at the Bank and was dishonored. There was no acoouot under that name and never had ben at that Bank. There is no such firm as " James Prouse and Co." m the district, nor anyone named Prouae. Austin Kirby, deteetivo of police stationed nt Timsru : I have made inquiries throughout the district and ran find no firm or person of the name of Prouse m the district. To Mr Jume-on : I cannotjrecollrct whether this particular information was laid by me or by Spillane. There are half a dozen cases, and I oinnot recollect. I knew a person named Prousn m the North Island, but know none of the name m this Island. Mr Jameson called no witnesaea, but proceeded to address the jury for tho defence. The case as presented seemed simple and clour so far es the non-existence of Prouse and Co. was concerned, but the Crown had failed to show that the cheque was necessarily a forgery. His Honor would doubtless direct them that one of the essentials of a forgery was deceit, fraudulent representations upon which credit or money was obtained. Moet of them who had beon any time m the colony knew that it was too oomraon to take cheques, bills and promissory notes without taking care to ascertain whether the givers were solid parties, and when such cheques, bills, or notes were presented at the banks, it was found that they were bad, and the bankers refused to have anything to do with them. He had no doubt that it was known to a good many of the jury that the accused was a cattle dealer, and was brought into contact with a great many people. His Honor: You should not import any matter that may be known to the jury outside. Mr White : Th»re is nothing of this m the evidence. : Mr Jamoson : That is material ; but my client's mouth is shut. He oan only apeak through me. His Honor : • You can toll the jury that you are instructed by him to say so and so ; that such are tbe facts of the oase. Mr Jameson continued : The accused received sums of money from people from timo to time, cheque?, bills and other documents, and tbeae he received m good faith and for valuable consideration. ' It was a common thirg for men like him — probably not having a banking aocount— to go to persons they knew intimately. This was probably what Healey had done m this oase, because Spillane said it was upon Healey's credit alone that ho gave him the money. He asked the jury if it was consistent with his client's guilt that he took only part of the money, and went back for: the rest next day, whon he must have known, if he knew tbe cheque waa a forgery, that it would already be on its way to, and perhaps on its way back from Waimato. Then when the cheque was returned he said he would see about paying it at once, and be did so. The ohief witness said it was on Healey's endorsement that he gave the money, and for the credit of his name Healey paid the money as soon as possible. It was a very common thing for persons to take cheques from persons they knew nothing about, and not seldom that ouch cheques were returned dishonored. It would be hard for tho innoceut holder of such a cheque to b«' indicted for forgery if he passed it into other hands, and it proved to be valueless. The law distinctly laid down that the mere fact of a name being used— whether a man's own name or a fictitious name— for the purpose of obtaining money fraudulently, waij a forgery ; but the jury had to decide whether the elements of forgery were present m this caie, whether at the time of puttiDg the signature on the cheque it was done with the intention of committing a fraud afterwards. Thtre was no tittle of evidence that when the oheque was handed to Spillane anything was laid about the signature, any representation by Healey that the signature was that of a person orpenons be knew. The Crown asked the jury to assume that Healey drew out tbe oheque, an assumption they should not make. Forgers as a rule never disolosed their own names, but carefully avoided doing so. Htaley on the contrary deliberately endorsed the cheque, and disclosed himself as a principal. There had moreover been no defrauding, for Spillane had been paid every farthing ; and there was no evidence of guilty knowledge, nothing to show that Healey was not a perfectly innocent holder of the cheque. He asked the jury to take no notice of the other charges brought m. [Tho Grand Jury had interrupted the address to bring m true bills on other charges against the accused.] He asked them not to allow the findings of the Grand Jury on other cases to influence them at all, but simply to judge this case on its merits, on the facts, and on theso he aeked them for a verdict of acquittal. Hie Honor then summed up, directing the jary that the offence of forgory consisted id writing a fictitious document with intent to defraud, and the offence of uttering, m the passing, or attempting to pass, such a document knowing it to be fictitious, with intent to defraud. A person might therefore be guilty of the offence of uttering without being guilty of foreery. If the jary thought the evidence insufficient to prove that the prisoner wrote the document, but sufficient to prove that it was fictitious, and that the prisoner knew 1 it to be so, they oould find him guilty of uttering alone. If a person received a fictitious document innooentlr, and then found it to be fictitious, and passed, or tried to pass it, be would be guilty of uttering. His Honor drew their attention to the evidence as to the fictitiousness of the document, tbat it purported to be signed by a person or firm having no existence, and indicated that a question for them to answer was — Was the prisoner aware when he passed tbe oheque that it was fiolitious P He understood the prisoner's counsel to say that he believed his client got the cheque innocently as a cattle dealer. There was a difficulty m accepting this view, because tbe cheque Was not drawn m favor of & stranger, but m favor of tho prisoner himself. It was for tbe jury to lay whether, m view of this circumstance, the prisoner must or must hot have known it to be flotitiaus. Notwithstanding that Bpillane advanced tbe . money on the faith of the prisoner's endowment, if I bo prisoner paised the ohequu' knowing it to be fictitious, the jury could hardly come to any other conclusion—it would not 'be safe for them to come to any other conclusion— than that he passed it ' with intent to defraud. It was true he paid the money afterwards, but a person was sot tbe less guilty of crime because he afterwards made compensation for it. His Honor then briefly recapitulated his summing up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. After 1 an absence of three-quarters of an hour, the jury returned into Court, and gave m a verdict of "not ■guilty. 1 . 1 ' : ' ' The tame prisoner was then arraigned on a further charge of forging and uttering ' a : promissory. note of the value of £12 10a, m tho name of H John Priest," 1 with intent tp dafraud Ross, Sims, and Co. - Counsel were tho same as m the previous case.

The following were sworn ia at a petty jurj : — W. Christmas, H. Block, Q-. Robinson, J. Baker, F. B. Oldfield, E. H. Brewer, J. Scolt, E. Edmieton, J. Young, D. Rae. J. W. Webb and J. Mueller. Mr Young wu cbosen foreman. . The Crown Proiecutor briefly cited the fact* of Ihe oaso which purported that, on lit November last, prisoner went to the office of Rote, Simi and Co. with, a promissory note bearing the lignature " John Priest," which he asked Boh to diicount for him. Bos* looked at it, and aaked him rhich Priest it wa», to which he replied, "John Priest, the old man j you know him." Rots discounted the bill, and on presenting it at the Bank of New Zealand, where it was made payable, it was dishonored. The bill wu nut signed by the only Jubn Print m the district, and the prisoner had the option of producing the John Priest from -whom he had received it. It might be urged that it wu not hii intention to defraud any person ; he might hare intended to lake up the bill himself ; but that, however, bad nothing to do with the cue. If he had taken it up before it became due he would' eti'l be guilty of the crime of forgery, and passing it off to somebody else constituted the offence of uttering. The following evidence wai adduced :— D. M. Boss : I am a broker, m partnership with W. M. Sims, carrying on business m Titnaru. On Ist November last prisoner camo to my office with the promissory note produced. I asked him which Priest it was who had signed it. He replied, "John Prießt, the old man ; you know him." He endorsed tha bill) and I handed it to my partner, with instruction) to giro him a cheque, whioh he did. The cheque has been paid. I only know John Fritit, of Pareora. I hate beoo m the district about ten yean, and during that time I have not known any other John Priest. Cross-examined by Mr Jameson : I hare known Healey a long time, and bar* bad many transactions with him m bills mortgages, etc., and I have always, found him very honorable indeed. John Priest : lam a farmer, living at the Pareora. I had known prisoner thirteen or fourteen years. The signature on the bill produced is not my writing, nor was it placed there by my authority. 1 know of no other perton cf my name m the district. Cross-examined by Mr Jameson : I have had monoy transactions with prisoner. I borrowed money from him about seven yeara ago, but I have had no bill transactions witb him. Henry Jubez Luxford : I am a clerk m the Bank of New Zealand, Timarii. The bill produced was presented at the Bank, but was not paid. There Uno account at ths Bank m tha name of John Priest. The witness detailed the usual mode of procedure with respect to dishonored bills and tbe like. D. M. Boss, recalled : The bill was returned from the Bank dishonored. Austin Kirby : I am a detective officer of police, stationed at Timaru. I hare made enquiries throughout tbe diitrict, and I can find no trace of any other John Priest but the witness m this case. Mr White laid that was tho; case against the prisoner. Mr Jameson, for the defence, pointed out to the jury that tbe prisoner stood indicted on two charges, til, of forgery and uttering, and the counsel for tbe Crown had laid stress on the inlentioaa^ofitbejpriaoner.at tb« time he presentod the bill to Boss. Tbe fact of a name being on a bill did not, m itself, show what hit intentions were then. Hraley had appeared m this transaction m liis own character, and had made no 'attempt at concealment. He went to Ross m the ordinary course of business with a bill signed "John Priest." Xbat bill, on presentation, was dishonored, and the mere dishonoring of the bill, it appeared, had been sufficient to let the law m motion against the prisoner. They had all of them, perhaps, held dishonored bills, and it was monstrous to suppose that such grave oharges should be laid, simply because a bill did not happen to be met at its due date. He was instructed by Healey that, ia his capacity as a cattle-dealer,' he bad been for years m the habit of dealing with men from all parti of the district, taking promissory note* m good faith. In tbia particular case he sold some cattle to a man named Priest, who gave him the bill witb another one, and he took it to Ross, at he had no banking account. Boss acted as his banker. He (Mr Jameson) was quite content to take up the position that the John Priest m Court was not the Simon pure. Efforts had been made to find tha real John Priest, but without success. He would contend that it was insufficient for the detective to say there was no other John Piiest m this district. It bad not been siid that there was. All that prisoner bod laid to Boss was, " The old man, you know him," and it would be necessary for them to find that he made certain representations to Boss' with intent to defraud. He would submit that there were dozens of other Priests s there were otheri even m this place, and m tha cattle trade there were many men who came and went, disappearing for a time to the North Island, or to the West Coaet, who came back again after a time. It wai a itrong point m priioner's favor that there was do account at the Bank m the name of John Priest. One of these travelling cattle dealer* might have given him tbe bill m the way of butineia, and be took it to Bosa m the ordinary way, as he had done many timet before. It had not been attempted to bs shown by tbe Crown that John Priest was a fictitious name. Healey had taken the bill m the ordinary course of busineat, and it wai monstrous that because it had been dishonored, he should be indicted for forgery. There waa nothing to show againit him, and the evidence proved his conduct over a long period to have been good and honorable. What would be tbe use of forging a document for auch a paltry Bum of £12 ? He would ask them to acquit the prisoner, aa there waa no evidence of any intention to defraud, and nothing to show that there waa no other John Priest. Hia Honor then summed up, laying down the law relating to both crimes, as m the previoua cose. , With regard to the line of defence adopted, he said that counsel for the prisoner wished to make it appear that be got the bill from one John Priest m cattle dealing. If co, where wat the perton f why w&a he not there ? Tbe anawer was that he could not be found. It was strange that prisoner should take a bill from a person of whom he knew but little or nothing. Opposed to this wai tbe statement made to Boas by prisoner when questioned as to which Priest it was, his anawer being, according to Bosa' evidence, " Old John Priest, the old man ; you know him." Thia represented that the person from whom he got the bill waa m the distriot, and waa known. Boaa had also aaid that he knew co other John Priest, and the witness Priest aaid that the writing on the bill was not his, and that he knew no one elae of bia name m the .district. They would have to find, first, if tbe document waa a false one, or if the signature to it was a fictitious one;- m either case it constituted forgery; and, second, if prisoner took the bill to Bosa with intent to defraud. There waa no evidenoe to chow that the writing on the bill was like prisoner's handwriting, and it was competent for thorn to return a rerdict of guilty of uttering, leaving the question of forgery out of consideration. The jury then retired to consider their verdiot, and after an absence of about half-an-hour they returned into Court and delivered a verdict of guilty of uttering, not guilty of forgery. < ASSiUI/T. i Mark Bishop, a lad of about 17 or 18 ' yeara of age, waa then arraigned on a charge ) of having assaulted one Beatrice Skinoer, a I child of tender years, with intent. There wai ) ft leoond count against tba prisoner of oommon ' assault. ■ i Mr J. W. While, Orown Prosecutor, con- • ducted the proieoution; and Mr L. Beid ap- > peared on behalf of the prisoner. r Tbe following was sworn aa a petty Jury i — ■ T. Someiville, J. J. Lornes, at. ■■ Smith, If. s Murphy, J. D. Slater, W. Quinn, J. Wilkins, r W. Arndt, A. Daily, it. Hoare, B. Bailey and f M. Connelly. Mr Slater wm cho«eu foreman* ■ i In opening the case, Mr White briefly s stated the prominent points to be aa follows : On tbe morning of tbe 17th April last, Mrs a. Skinner, of Waimate, the mother of tho child ■ on whom the 'assault had been committed, c bad occasion to leavo borne about eleven • o'clocki— Prisoner- was then at work painting c. f enoe . plpse . by. When she returned, m i about an hour, from what wai tsid to btr by on* of the children left m tbe hoate, t little =

girl four years old, abe questioned her daughter Beatrice, sod afterwards spoke to prisoner, who said he bad not been near the pl»oe. He afterwards said he went into the abed at the back, but that waa all. She told him she intended going to tbe police, and be aaid, " Don't do that ; I'll give you anything not to do that." Mr White called the following evidence m the case : — Georgina Skinner : I am the wife of John Charles Skinner, at Waimate. On the 17th April last I left my house about eleven o'clock m the morniDg. I left Beatrice and two little ones at horn*. Beatrice waa eight years of ■ge on the 25th March last I aaw Bishop about the place. I said good morning to him and ha answered me. I returned home about an hour after. One of the children told me something and I spoke to Beatrice, and fho answered my questions. I then spoke to the prisoner. Before doing so I examined the child, and found marka upon her. After that .spoke to prisoner. I asked bim what he bad been m tbe shed for. He said he had not be«n there. The shed is m the back yard. H« said ho had not been near th« place at all. I asked him if he thought the child four yean old, quite a baby, would tell me a lie. He then aaid he went just inside the shed, that was all. I said " Well, Mark, I shall go to tke police about it." He eaid "Ob don't do that, Mrs Skinner ; I will give you anything not to do that." I went to the police and afterwords Dr Chilton saw the child. I had not changed any of her clothing. Her clothes were taken off ia the doctor's presence. The clothes were produced and identified. Croat- examined by Mr Reid : The child wat born on the 25th March, 1874. Ihe fence prisoner was painting waa opposite my bouse. Nothing passed between ua when I weut out more than my bidding him "good morning, Mark." On the Saturday previous I bad asked him to come and work for my husband. He had been apprenticed to my husband for three years. He gave me no answer. I wai not displeased with him. He was still painting tbe fence when I went back, on the inside. Beatrice made no voluntary statement to me herself. I am positive prisoner said he would give me anything if I did not go to the police. Any person going to the well for a drink would have to pass the shed. I did not notice that a cup had been used for drinking. Ido not know where he went to when I weut to the police. I left him at the fenca. I did not see him when £ came back. I met Mr Haig, my neighbor, aa I waa going to tho police, and he aaid I was quite right m doing ao, on my telling him what bad happened. Sergeant Ramsay came back with me, and he went for tho doctor. He went for Bishop and foucd him at the fence. I knew Mra Doile ; abe waa a neighbor of mine aix years ago. I have made no statement to her whatever regarding the child. Tbe child is a healthy child, and has never had anything the matter with her. There is a half-acre section between Haig's house and mine. Any person going to the shed might be seen from Haig's windows. I do not think the child would have been beard at Haig's place had she made an outcry. No ens could be seen going into tbe shed from Loper's place. To Mr White : It would be easier to get water from the tank than from the well, and anyone going to the tank would not have to go near the ahed. Beatrice Skinner, a bright little child of rather delicate appearance, waa then called, and waa taken up beside His Honor, wbsre she waa submitted to a long examination by him. Sbe waa afterwarda stood on a chair m the witness-box, and gave her evidence m a very intelligent manner. Bhe deposed to Bishop painting the fence on the day m question, and to his taking a drink of water from tho well. He took her into tbe shad, and when her mother came home she questioned her about it. Dr Chilton gave evidence to the effect that he was called to are the child Beatrice flkinner at about a quarter to one on the day named, and that he found certain marks upon her which proved that aha had been roughly bandied. In bia opinion aho was a delicate child. Mr Beid aaid that he did not intend to call any witnesses, aa he considered there was no case against his client. Tbe oharge was a most aerioua one, and one that it waa moat difficult to disprove. Being so serious a crime, he would ask them to carefully weigh the evidence that had been laid before them. It waa one of those relict of barbariam that kept the priaoner from going into the witness box. But he, bb prisoner's counsel, could say what prisoner had told him, and hia story was a simple one. He had been apprenticed to Skinner, and afterwarda worked for another man named Millhouie. Mra Skinner oik«d him to work for her husband again, and he refueed, whereupon she became greatly incented. Afterward*, when ahe came home, she accused him of the crime imputed to him. Dr Chilton'a evidence had failed m establishing anything against the prisoner, and he would ask them to record their verdict iv hia favor. His Honor reviewed ths evidence at some length, and tbe jury, after half an hour's absenoe from Court, returned a verdict of guilty on the aocond count, that of common assault. Mr Beid wished to call evidence aa to the previous good oonduot of the lad, but His Honor intimated that as the law did not press unduly severe m the oaae, it would not weigh with him. His Honor then sentenced prisoner to twelve month's imprisonment with bard labor. HEKTENCK. John Sullivan, tbe lad who had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of placing obstructions on the railway line, and whose bead bsrely rose above the dock, waa then brought up for aentenoa. Hia Honor asked what waa known of the boy. Mr White aaid his mother waa dead and bis father had left him m charge of some person who had not taken care of him. Hia Honor pointed out to the prisoner the gravity of the oharge, and sentenced him to be kept m prison for eeven days, and at tbe expiration of that time arrangements would be made for hia being aent to tbe Reformatory until he was old enough to take care of himself. FOBQINO AKD TJTTEBINa. John Thomas Healey waa again placed m the dock, when the remaining chargea, four m number, were preferred against bim. In the case of tbe forgery and uttering of a promissory note for £27 10s, m the name of John Priest, prisoner pleaded guilty to the chargo of uttering. Mr White enid that, on behalf of the Crown, he waa willing to aocept the plea, and would offer no evidence on the charge of forgory. A fresh jury waa thon empanelled, aa follows : — J. Culhbert, J. Baker, D. Rae, W. Yeatman, &. Robinion, J. Young, B. fidmiaton, J. Nelaon, J. Scott, H. Black, J. Mueller, and J. Grant. Mr Edmiston waa chosen foreman. By direction, the jary returned a verdiot of not guilty on the charge of forgery. The Court then formally adjourned until ten o'clock this morning, when the three remaining cases agsiist Healoy, and tbe rases of Wellsroan and Cullamore wilt bo heard. It ia probable that m the oharges against Healey tbe Crown will enter a nolle proiequi, tbe demands of justice having been met m the convictions already recorded against him. LEVELS BO AD BOARD. A meeting of the Levels Rgad Board waa held yesterday at the Road Board office. WKJIBBBB PBBBBHT. Messrs Moody (Chairman), McKorrow, Mcc, Sullivan and Frew. ' MINOTBB. The minutes of last meeting were read and oanQrmed :— DIPCTATIOKS. Mr Verity attended as a deputation with a memorial, asking th* Board to form the Three Mile Bush road and the Swamp road. 1 The Board did Dot contider it advis'ab'e to form the Swamp road, but the Overseer was instructed to call for tenders for draining the Three Mile Bush road i also to call for tenders for rebuilding the bridge at Johnson's. A deputation consisting of Messrs Dooly, Dillon and other*, aaked the Board to form 1, the road m Buchanan's paddock. a Tbe Clerk reported that the roads had been i dedicated some time sinoe, and a promise; a given that they should be made. T Besolvad— " That tenders be called for the • work." ■ ; ■ „ - . . „'■,;

Mr Michael Mora attended, asking the Board to re-consider their decision with reference to mating a road through his land. Resolved — " That the Board does not ccc iU nay to construct a road m Mr Maze's land." A deputation coniiiting of Mr B. H.Tate.Mr Cullmann, Mr O, Green end others, aaked the Board to form the road known as Avenue road, and handed m a deed of conveyance for the game. Resolved— " That m reply to the petition of the resident! of Arenue road, the Board will form and level the roud provided the residents pay one-half the cost." } Mr Hamlyn applied to have a tmall portion of th» main road near his gate metalled. The Overseer was ordered to get tho work done. COBBBSFONDBKCE. A letter from the Mount Peel Road Board was read m reference to building a . sheep bridge; Resolved — " That the Levels Road Board do not see the utility of a small sheep bridge orcr the Opihi, and think it better to wait until a proper traf£o bridge be demanded by the ratepayers of both districts." Mr Wm. Pricgle applied to hare a portion of the road near his property shingled. oteuskkb's report. The O Fencer's report was read, as follows : — " Sir, — In accordance with resolutions of last meeting, I have the honor to report a» follows : — " I hare placed a footbridge over the creek on Butler's road. " I have repaired the ford leading to Cbisholm's farm. I did not put m a culvert, as the ground is not ut all suitable for a culvert. The hill mealioDed m his application I have not interfered with, as I considered the benefit to bo derived would not justify the outlay. " Tenders will be laid before you for the following work', viz. — metal for Wai-iti road, metal for Upper Fareora road, shingle for suburban roads, shingle for zigzag by Pringle'a, reducing hill and shingling on Millar's road, by Sullivan*. "Tenders for the Stadown roid, the Main Point road and, the Beadown-T»muka road will be called for by the next meeting. " The contract for tarring and painting the Ttngawai bridge lias pot been completed, as the weather has' been most unfavorable during the past month, but will be completed as soon as possible. 1 find it will be necessary to reSpike a number of the deck planks, as a great number of the spikes are broken. " I found it necessary to stop the contractor from working on the road from Briggb' Gully to the Bush road, owing to the continued bad weather. " I have commenced placing the metal on the Wai-iti road m the worst places,' but I shall require more carts, at it all wants using now. " I have mads provision m the contract for carting beach shingle to supply more if required, as I do not think that 600 yards will be sufficient. " The road known as Buchanan's, m Buchanan's Paddock, is very bad, and requires repairing. I might sta'e that this road was dedicated to the Board a long time since, and a portion of it done, with the promise that the remainder should be done. I think the cost would be about £ — . (Signed) " Ohables Wsianr." TENDBBS. The following tenders were received : — Contract No. 28, metalling Wai iti Road— R. B. Bibly, £204 3s 4d ; H. Nichols, £187 10« (accepted) ; S. H. Kirby, £195 15s. Contract No. 29, metal at Ballwat«r Creek — Pearson and Lawry, £106 5s (accepted) ; R. B. Sibly, £13L se; O'Connor tni Frindiville, £112 10s ; W. O. Bryan, £118 10j. Contract No. 30, ca'ting beach sbingls — R. B. Sibly, £56 ss ; E. H. Tate, £62 10s ; O'Connor and Prindiville, £59 7s 6d ; W. O. Bryan, £56 ss ; Jones and Peters, £50 ; Reid and Waterhouse, £45 (accepted). Contract No. 31, s-ingling by Z*g zag — O'Connor and Prindiville, 2s 6d per yard ; G. Oozter, Is 2d (accepted) ; Hughes and Rodger*, 3s. Contract No. 32, lowering hill m Miller's road— Fred. Tozer, £27 10s ; M. O'Connor, £34 1 O'Connor and Prendiville, £26 (accepted) ; G. Crozier, £28 15a. ACCOUNTS. Accounts amounting to £369 15s 4i were passed and ordered to be paid. INCREASE OF BALABX. In Committee, it was resolve! that an increase of £100 per annum be made to Mr Wright's salary, m order to provide clerical assistance to the satisfaction of the Board. This ij.jm consequence of the increased duties required oE Mr Wright out of doors. APJOCBNUBJJT. The Board adjourned ÜBtil Saturday, the 241h, to consider the circular from the Colonial Secretary.