SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 2727, 20 June 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

HAIP-IBAELY CBIMINAI BBBSION. TIMABU..— TUBSDAT, JUKE 10TH. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) The half-yearly session of the Supreme Court, Circuit Court at Timaru, commenced yesterday, before His Honor Judge Johnston. The Registrar of the Court for the Canterbury District, A. B. Bloxam, Esq., the Sheriff ol the Timaru sub-district, J.Beswiok, Esq., and the Crown Prosecutor for the same sub' district, J. W. White, Esq , attended m theii several capacities. obakb jcthy. The following gentlemen were sworn m ai a Grand Jury : — W. Butherfurd, Jai. Pater' son, O. W. Eiehbaum, B. J. Lane, F. W. Burnett, G. Buohanan, F. Clisiold, W Moody, J. Talbot, ;W. Balfour, W. J. 8 Ziesler, A. FergussoD, J. T. M. Hayhurst, E G. Kerr, D. N. Inwood, E. P. Scaly, T. P MoClatchie, W. Deßenzy, G. Gabites, A. W Ensor, J. C . MoKerrow, I. N. Graham, G, W. Wade. Alexander Boyle did not answer to hit name. His Honor said he had received i telegram about this gentleman ; it wai quite irregular, and he would be fined £5 unlesi causa was shown; Did any of the othei jurors know anything of the circumstances i No reply being given, His Honor saic he thought he bad made it distinctly under stood m this district, and further south, that he could not, as a matter of principle, receivi a statement, or even a certificate from i medical man, not upon oath, and sending a telegram to a Judge was a quite irregular anc improper thing. The telegram was not ever from the gentleman himself, but appeared to be from his medical advieer. Mr E. G. Serr, was chosen foreman, anc the jury were then sworn. his uokob'b ohabob. His Honor m addressing the Grand Jurj said he was happy to be able to congratulati them upon the paucity of cases to be brought before them for their consideration. Sine he had sat m this part of the colony, then had not been a session m which the orimina business hod been so light. There were onl; three cases, none of wbiob were- of partieula' gravity or importance of their particular kind One was a case of arson — generally an im portant matter — but m this ease there wen oiroumstances of a peouliar character. Hi referred to tbe case of a man charged witl letting fire to a ataok of hay on the Level estate. There wai no suggestion on tbe fact

of the proceedings that the man was insane and irresponsible for his acts, and then if 1 hero were, it would be no part of the Grand Jury* duty to make any enquiry into facts of that kind. All they had to do was to find whether there was prima facie evidence ogainst the prisoner, and bis own admission was prima facie evidence against him. Another prisoner was charged with attempting to ravish a married woman. He need not tell them that the statement of the woman herself was a substantial feature of the evidence. They would consider whether that statement was m ileelf probable, and whether it was at a!l corroborated by surrounding circumstances ; whether her conduct after the supposed commisßion of the offence was that of a person telling a true or an untrue story j and it, would be competent for the Grand Jury to examine the principal witness more stringently than would be done under ordinary circumstances. At the same time they should guard against jumping to a conclusion against her story from anything m her mere manner of telling it or anything of that kind. In the third case he understood the prisoner was not now m a physical or mental condition to be brought before them. In this case a boy was charged with placing stones on the railway line, a most sorious offence, not only striking at the convenience of the public, but tending to mako life insecure, and unless such offences were adequately punished the consequences might be very serious. The Grand Jury had simply to consider whether there was evidence enough to enable them to find a true bill, the other circumstances being left to bo afterwards dealt with. Tho Grand Jury were then dismissed. A short time afterwards they returned a true bill against Robert Innes, for arson, and at 12.15 tboy returned true bills m the othor two cases. The Grand Jury were discharged, His Honor expressing his pleasure at boing able to discharge thorn so early ia the day. THB COMMON JURY. The common jury were then called, all answering to their names except two. In the case of ono, Wm. Parker, tho summoning constable stated that ho left the summons with the man's wife, who said her husband would not be back till tho next Saturday night, and might not ba back tlion. His Honor said the case must be mentioned again, and the man's wife had better appear if the man did not como back, otherwise ho might be lined. The attendance of jurors m this district was exceedingly good, but any relaxation of discipline would have a very bad effect. Walter Fleming Edmieton was called, and did not appear. William Fleming Edmiston appeared, and stated that he had been turnmoned m his proper name, but bad not been called. An investigation of tho matter •bowed that an error bad been made m transcribing the name on the ballot tioket. Mistakes m the jury list, Bis Honor said, were serious things, and it would bo safer that the juror should not servo. One of the jurors declined on conscientious grounds to be sworn, and was allowed to make an affirmation instead. A COMPLAINT. Oliver Weiterman complained to Hia Honor that at the last session of the Coutt he was summoned as a juror, but was n t called> and on that account ho was refused his allowance. He spoke to some of the offioials, but got no satisfactory reply, was told be could not be released, and therefore continued m attendance during the session. His Honor decided that under the circumstances he was entitled to bis allowance, and ordered it to be paid. ABSON. Robert iDnis was charged with feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously setting fire to a stack of grass seed, the properly of the New Zealand and Australian Land Company, on the sth January last. Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. The following jury was oalled :— M. Fitzgerald, G. Small, J. Craig, A. Storey, A. 31ytb, W. Ingram, J. Spooner, H. Piit, A. Sherratt, F. Mackenzie, P. F. B. Pearcp, W. J. Coker. Mr A. Sherratt was chosen foreman. Mr White, Grown Proseoator, stated the the case to the jury, and oalled the following witnesses i— 0. N. Orbell, Manager of the Levels Station for the New Zealand and Australian Land Company, stated that the prisoner had been working at tho Levels Station, and on the afternoon of Friday, the sth January, he asked for a cheque for his wages. Witness told him to see the Orersoer and to call at the office m the evening when be would be paid. He taw no more of him till the following Monday morning. On the Saturday moraine he was informed that a stack of grass seed, completed only the previous night, bad been burned. On the Monday morning he sent the acoased to work with other men, and font for Constable Stanley. The constable brought the accused to the station, and m the presence of witness and Mr Simpson, a conversation took placo between the constable and accused, the latter being juit cautioned by the constable. In the course of the conversation accused stated that he left the station on Friday night, went up the road and set fire to the stack, and tben ran away as hard as he could to Dunn's camp at tho Orari. It roply to His Honor tbe witness said he bad looked upon the accused as eccentric. Wm. Fergusson Simpson stated that he was present at the conversation mentioned by the previous witness, and he repeated it m more detail. When asked by the constable why he set fire to the stack, tbe prisoner replied "To cure my complaint," and when asked what his complaint was replied, " Liver complaint," and said something about smoke being good for liver complaint. Michael Mahan, a laborer at the Levels Station, showed that ha and accused went to bed m the same room on the night of January sth, and tb&fc accused got up and wont out about tea o'clock and did not return. Martin Duod, road contractor, stated that accused came to his camp at the Orari, fifteen or sixteen miles from the Levels, very early on the morning of January 6th. He stated that be bad come from the Levels, and had beeu on tbo road all night. Ho stayed a night with witness, and set fire to tho place he was put to sleep m. The witness was proceeding to give evidence regarding this fire, but His Honor said it had nothing to do with tbo charge. This closed the case for tho proseoution, and His Honor invited the prisoner to make any statement he bad to make, to which he replied that he remembered nothing about it. The prisoner behaved m a very eccentrio manner m the box, laughing every now and then m a foolish way, particularly duriDg pauses m tho examination of witnesses and during a diaotu sion which took place between the Judge and the Grown Prosecutor on a legal point. He, however, appeared to pay close attention to the evidence given. His Honor, m summing up, said there was no doubt the man was eccentrio and not like other people, but it had not been suggested by or for him that he was not a person responsible for his act?. As there was n6 evidence upon the point, tho jury conld not take into account the state of his intelligence, whatever that might be. They must simply return a verdiofc upon the evidence given. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty. His Honor asked tbe Gaoler, Mr Cotter, if he could give any account of the prisoner, and he stated m reply that the late surgeon to tbe Gaol, Dr Hassall, had examined him and pronounced him eccentrio, that wag all. He bod bebaved strangely at times, but ho (Mr Cotter) could not call to mind any particular act. The prisoner laughed immoderately at this point. Dr Hacon, Medical Superintendent of tbe Sunnyside Asylum, who had been m Court and had observed tho prisoner's conduct, wbb privately asked bis opinion by tbe Judge. Mr A. J. H. Bower came forward, on His Honor asking if any one could throw any further light upon the prisoner's mental condition, and stated that hp had known the prisoner two yean and had known him to act very strangely at times. Aconsed said he had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him. His Honor, addressing accused, said there was no doubt be perfectly understood what he was doing, and no question could be fairly raised as to his legal responsibility for his acts. Although the prisoner's manner was very eccentrio, yet he had observed that he gave attention to the proceedings when attention was neceuary or desirable, and

ulfliM-gh his manner had been peculiai tho o was no ground for beliering that th prisoner was not. legally responsible for th offence with which ha was charged. Tha offence was one of tho most serious orimei ono of the most common, and one, he wa sorry to say, m which it was difficult I secure a conviction. This was n ground, of course, for inflioting heavier punishment on those who wer convioted, but it must not be forgotten tha the principal object of punishment was t furnish a warning to othors. This mutt no be lost sight of, and it would show woaknes instead of humanity and benevolence, if i Judge were to allow himself to give a triflini sentence m a case of so great importance merely because the perpetrator of tbo offenci did not seem to bo quite so intelligent a others. Tho prisoner here interrnpted, to say tha this was his first offence. _ His Honor snid it might be. It was not foi him to judge tho moral responsibility of tin prisoner, who might be more wicked, or mor< to be pitied than other people ; it was his dutj to dispense the law and hold up on exampfc to others. To pass a trifling sentence would only be holding out encouragement to others and ho could not pass a lighter sontenco that three years' penal servitude. rIiIOTKG STONES OK THE BAILWAT. Thomas Newell, a lad was called to answei a chargo of placing stones on the railway at St. Andrews. He not appearing, his bail, hit father, Biobard Newell, and Bey. S. O. Brady were called upon to preeont an oicubo. Tho_ lad's father said the boy was m the Lunatio Asylum, and Dr Hocon would givj evidence of his condition. Dr Hacon, Medical Superintendent of tho Suunysido Asylum, statod that the accused was committed to tho Asylum on the 15th May last. He was suffering from dementia and also from inflammation of tha oyes. He Baa m such a conditnn thut he needed watching night and day, and witness considered it would bo unsafe for him to travel. Ho was of opinion that tbo boy had a'waya been weak minded. Tho question was discussod whethor the suroties should enter into fresh recognisance! to bring up the accused when called upon, or whethor tho lato rcoognisancos should bo extended till next session, tho latter course being finally decided on, tho surctiosof courso expressing thoir concurrence Ihe Court then adjourned at 1 p.m. for half an hour. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A BAFB. Frank Bosnter was charged with attempting to commit a rape upon Mario Bott, a married woman, at Albury, on tho 26th of January list. A second count m the indictmont charged him with committing an indecent aßsault, but the Crown Proaocutor after somo conversation with tho Court, agreed to strike out this count. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr E. Stout, plcadod not guilty. Iho following jury were eallod : — James Henderson, A. Blytb, A. Storoy, F. Boddon, A. Sutherland, B. Proctor, B. Miller, M. Fitzgerald, W. Ingram, J. Seaton, H. Pitt, J. Christmas. Mr Proctor was chosen foreman. Mr White, having stated tho case for tho prosecution, called Mario Bott, who stated that sho was employed with her husband, Joseph Bott, at Mr Bichardson's station, Albury, for some time previous to December last. Sho loft the station m December, and went to live at McLcod'd Hotol at Albury, her hiuband remaining some time longer at the Btation, being unable to leave at the samo time with her. She was living nt the hotel on tho 20th January. That day she spent with a Mrs McAlieter, remaining with her till the evening. About eight o'olock sho went to tbe hotel to see if her room was oil right, and then went down the road for a walk. Seeing some one on the road she turned to go back, and then sho heard a voice (accused's) from the fence at the roadside, telling her that sbe had better get tho dogs she bad with her out of tbe way, becauso there was a mob of shoop coming. Accused was standing beside the fence. They entered into conversation, and he told her that two objects she caw down the road were men driving sheep. He advised her to walk home acroßS the paddock instead of by the road, and they went across the paddock together. They had tome conversation about riding to Fairlie Creek, she refuting an invitation to ride there with him. Sho was walking fast, and accuted asking why, sho told him she did not with to be seen walking with him. Accused said " No, it would not do for you to be seen with me." She then hurriod on, and had gone but a few steps when accused put his hands on her shoulder! and pulled her down. The witness then described the assault and her resistance, and from her description tbo accused need a good deal of violence, while sho relisted to the best of her ability. While struggling with acoused she heard tho shoep go by along the road a short distanoe away and she eallod out for help. The assault was continued after that. When sho got away from accused sho wont to Mrs McAlister's, tbe nearest house, and complained to her, mentioning accused's namo. She complained to the constable the next morning, and to her husband on the Monday morning following. When dressing the morning after tho occurrence she noticed bruises on hor shouliers and chest, and she showed them to Mrs McAlister. The prosecutrix was cross-examined at length by Mr Stout. In reply to hie questions she slated iv effect that she was not m tho habit of walking out at night, and did not walk out with anyone on tho night of the occurrence, and had no drink with anyone that night. She knew a man named Hammond. He brought her a message from her husband that evening. Sbe did not walk with him from the hotel towardt the bridge that night about 9 o'clock, nor did sho drink with him. She drank nothing but water or tea that day. Hammond tpqko to hor at tho hotel, and she walked with him from the front entrance to tho side entranco ; they did not leave tho house. Sho did not see tbe cheep accused spoke of, but only a cloud of dust and two men's heads. They were a long way— three paddockß— off then, and they passed along the road while tbe accused was committing tho assault, this taking pkeo m a part of the paddock foparated from the road by a garden. She could not Bay how long she was m the paddock. She went through the paddock partly because it was the nearest way to Mn MoAlitter's and partly because acoused told her her dogs would be in ' the way of the sheep. Jano Beach MoAlistor stated that sho lived near McLeod's Hotol, not the length of the Conrt room away from it. The proseeutrij was at her house on the 26th January, anc stayed till seven or eight o'clock, and thot went out for a work, going aoross a paddook not down the road. Half an hour after wards she came back m a very excited con dition. At first she oould not speak, one when she recovered she tnado a complaint ol what had happened. Next morning proßo cutrix showed her Borne big bruises on ho right shoulder. Dr Macintyro statod that ho examined th< proeecutrix on the Ist February, or five dayi after tbe alleged assault. Sho complained o; pain m her breaat-bono, and he found a lumf on ono breast, which might have been elthe: old or recent. There was no discoloration such as he would have expected to find m i recent bruise, but it was such a lump ai would be produoed by a bruise. To His Honor : If tbe woman had been ill used by a man five or six days before, helc down, he would have expected to find otho symptom*. Thiß completed the case for the prosecution Mr Btout then briefly stated the caso for th defence, and called Bobort Howie, a laboror, whoae evidonc was to tbe effect that he had tea at tho Hote with acoused about six o'clock on tho ovenin of the day m question, and that after tea the; went to the stables and stood thnr " yarning " for a quarter of an hour. Accuee< then went to shut the gate of tho paddock and oamo back a quarter of an hour aftei wards — before seven o'olock. They rosumei their "yarning" and continued it until M Ohilds and another man arrived with som sheep about eight o'clock, when accused wen aoross to speak to them. Accused went t the front of the Hotel, out of witness* eigb to do this. He was only away threo or fou minutes, and then camo book to the stable and stayed another hour there. David Outhbertson, blaoksmitb, stated lha he was with the last witnosa on that evening talking with aoouied at the stables till Ih cheap arrived. Aocused then left them, an

r, a few minutes afterwards he caw accusec io talking with Ohilds m the bar. o John Hnmmond elated that he knew Ihi A pvojccutrix. He remembored the evening o ', iho 26th January. On that evening ht 9 walked with Mrs Botr, to the bridge am o back, between nine and ten o'olook, and thej 0 had a glass of beer together at MoLood's. Hi a did not hear of the " affair " till a day oi c two afterwards. *• Mr Btout said ho would havo called Ohilds ** hut he did not appear to have been, bounc t over to appear. » This ooncluded the evidence for the dca fence, and Mr Stout briefly addressed the B jury, pointing out that the case for tire prose. ', cution was that the offence was committed b while the cheep were going along the road, s while two witnesses sworo that accused was at the stables until Ohilds arrived there with t the sheep and then he went into the bar with Ohilds. The prosocutrii slated that she went f down the road ; Mrs MoAlister contradicted B this, swearing that she went down tho pads dock. Prosocutrii swore that she had no ' drink that day, and did not wslk towards the > tho bridge with anyone j Hammond contra--1 dieted both these etatements. And the , statements about the bruises were not » corroborated by the Doctor. He concluded by quoting tho opinion of Lord Hales respecting this class of oajei requiring . ample proof, but be submitled that this case , had been amply disproved by tho evidence for , tho defonce. ( Mr Whito intimated that he would not reply. , His Honor said he ought to reply. It was ! his duty to do so, nnd it was not fair to leave it to the Judge to reply to the arguments used for the defence. I Mr Whito said be could see little to reply to. He did not expect a oonviotion. , His Honor again expressed surprise at Mr White's decision, saying ho thought there was [ a good deal that might be replied to. Hit Honor then addrotsod the jury, saying it was , a caso of great importance, because the whole , future curcor of tho woman depended upon their verdict. Either there had been a brutal i aeaault committed upon, her, or she must bo i branded as one of the wickedest of women, who had perjured herself for no assignable motive Was it probable that m the absence i of such motive tho woman could be so utterly destitute of moral decency as to como into Court and commit the blackest perjury P . That must be taken into account. She had sworn that cortain aots had been committed, and if her statement was true an indecerit assault had been committed. Oaseß of the , kind were easily trumped up and were hard to disprove, therefore common seme as well as common law required that every possible corroboration should be given. One of the best corroboratioDS was a prompt and serious complaint, and that complaint was made m this case. If the charge was false, not only had the woman perjured herself m Court, but sho had also gone through a drama of feigning distress to Mrs McAlister for no other purpose than to conviot a person with whom tho had the very slightest acquaintance. His Honor then spoke at some length on tbo vnluo of the alibi set up, pointing out that persons might easily be mistaken as to tbo precise time another person left their oompany, and the precise time he remained away. An allowance of a few minutes of error, he pointed out, would make the evidence of both sides coneietont. He would have contidercd the evidence for the defence very weak but for the two facts sworn to by the witness Hammond, contradioting direct statements of the prosecutrix. If the deliberately false statements she made about those two matters decided the jury to doubt her testimony on other points, she must take the consequences of her own want of care and caution m the witneßS-box. Tbo prisoner must have the benefit of any doubt, whatever might be the consequences to tho prosecutrix. Mr Stout remarked that the alibi was stronger than His Honor bad presented to tho jury, becauso his witnesses swore that the acoused did not leave their company at all till tbo sheep oamo up, while the woman said the offence took place while the eheop were on the road. His Honor said little reliance was to be placed upon statements as to the time the accused was out of their view. It might have been possible for him to go to the place where tbo occurrence took place and get to the hotel again within a time that might havo appeared to tho witnesses to be only a few minutes. The witness Hammond had shown that the woman had sworn untruthfully about two matters, and this might influence the opinion of the jury regarding the rett of her story. The jury requested to have the evidence read over to them, und then retired it balf-past tbrca. At 4 o'clock they returned and stated they could not ogroe, and being sent baok for further consultation, returned twenty minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged. DITOBCE CASE. Strong Work Morrison, petitioner ; Catherine Morrison, respondent ; John O'Shea, corespondent. Mr Or. Harper, instructed by Mr White, for the petitioner j Mr 0. W. Purnell for tho corespondent. Mr Harper read the petition, which showed that the petitioner married the respondent at Orari, on the 2nd of May, 1863, her maiden name being Catherine Gordon. They lived together happily till 1876, when the reipondont gave way to intemperance. The petitioner did all he could to prevent her from getting drink. Juet before 1880 she left petitioner and went to live m Ashburton, whero she led a very questionable life. In Juno of 1831, she went to live m adultery with one 0'8ho», tho co-respondent, at Ash--1 burton Forks. The usual affidavits m the caso had been properly filed. The petition was presented on tho 9th October, 1882, and the citation on the 12th Ootober. The evidence ho proposed to coll would be only general, dealing only with O'Shea. He then called;— ' James Blylh, who said he knew the petitioner Strong Work Morriton,in the year 1863. ' He was at that time a pilot. He also knew 1 his wife, both before and after their marriage, i Her maiden name was Catherine Gordon. ; He remembered distinctly the day they were 1 married, beoauee he got married at the same ' time, and they made the one ceremony do for 1 both marriages. It was at tho Stumps, ■ Orari, and the officiating minister was the 1 Rev. L. L. Brown. He had known them 1 during the last fifteen, years at man and wife. ' The laat time he taw the respondent was about four years ago m Timaru. He saw the I petitioner and wife occasionally between the 1 years 1876 and 1879, and they teemed to be j always on good terms with one another. 1 To Mr Purnell : Tho last time be caw them 1 they were together m Timaru. He knew i Morrison's partner, Mr Green, but was not * aware of any dissension between them. * * 'Austin Kirby, a detective officer at Timaru, * said ho knew petitioner and his wife. The ' latter was living m Ashburton when he * became acquainted with her m, the year r 1879, under tho namo of Mrs Morrison. In April 1880 ho had occasion to visit O'Shea's > house at Ashburton Forks. Witness described * the plaoe, which was literally a hovel, four * posts erected with a tarpaulin or sheet over ' them, adjoining a stable. When he got there r he saw the respondent m the house washing up 1 some dishes. He waited at the house for 1 about an hour and a half and during that time 9 had a conversation with her about the way she was living. While there he had a oonveraa- ' tion also with the co-respondonr, but it did * not relate to this case. The place where r O'Shea lived was about twelve miles from Aehburton, and the nearest houses were about '• half a mile from it. Witness could not say c exactly bow long the respondent bad been living with O'Shea. c To Mr Purnell : He knew Morrison m ' 1879, and bad a conversation with him about g tho life his wife was leading. He was not y aware that O'Shea's dwelling house had been c burnt down previous to his visit m April. He ' did not see anyone elsp there but the responi '■• cleat, O'Shea, and was potitivo the house con- * tamed only one room. d Henry W. tfolton, Sergeant of Police r stationed at Ashburton, said he knew a womar 0 there by the name of Mrs Morrison. Ho alto t remembered seeing her m Timaru m 1863 0 and knew that she was the wife of S. Morri 1 son, Pilot and Harbor Master. He remem r bered her being arrested m company witl 8 another woman m 1879, under the Vograni Act, when she gave tho name of Oatberim lt Gordon. He knew a man named O'Shea, bu >> did not of bis own knowledge know that re ° spondent had lived with him. He aaw he d once m June, 1880, outside O'Shea's house, a

i he was patting. Owing to her character she was kept under the turveillance of the police. b In witness' opinion she wae about 38 or 39 f years old. j To Mr Purnell : O'Shea's house is above 1 Aahburton, some 11 or 12 miles distant. He r siw the petitioner m 1876, but he did not 9 know of his keeping a public-house. r 8. Morrison, the petitioner, was then called and aaid that he first became aware of hit , wife's misdeeds m 1879. In that year she 1 went away with the co-respondent. To Mr Purnell : He was not koeping a ■ public-house, but living on his means at the ) time his wife loft him. He did not know • what she was doing at Aehburton except from I what he read m the papers. To His Honor : He had taken steps towards i obtaining a divoreo m 1879, but had desisted j as he could not afford the expense of having the case heard m the Divorco Court, Wellington. Wm. Wareing, a mounted constable, knew one Mra Morrison, who was living with a man canned O'Shea, about 12 miles from i Ashburton. He never saw O'Shea there, but he knew that it was his house. It contisted < of four posts with a (arpaulin over them. Mr Harper said that was the case. He did not intend to make any application as regarded cjsts. His Honor granted a decree nisi, without > costs. The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning. [By Teleokaph.] Nblsoh, June 19. 1 At the Supromo Court to-day the murder case is ttill progressing. Mrs Orammatica was examined at length. She stated that her evidence at the inquest on the body of Denis Quintan was incorrect. She alleges she feared to tell the whole fact*, bat claims to hare made a clean breast now. She says that the prisoner Davidson slabbed Quintan m the breast ; that she bandaged it and went to bed m a state of intoxication, sleeping through all the after occurrences. Next morning she saw a heap m the sitting-room, covered with blankets, from which boots projocted. On her asking the prisoner for Quinlan, be said be had taken his heart's blood. She was forced to remain m her bedroom all next day, and at night she heard Davidson drag Quinlan'a body out of the. house.