THE CASE OP MRS. O'NEILL, THE ACTRESS.

West Coast Times, Issue 645, 18 October 1867, Page 3

THE CASE OP MRS. O'NEILL, THE ACTRESS.

__♦ (fhom the melboubne abgus, oct. 3.) Anna Maria O'Neill was charged, on warrant, with stealing a white lace veil, the property of Mrs Marian Holland, of Ilosstown, New Zealand. • Mr M'Kean prosecuted ; Mr Aspinall, instructed by Mr Cresswell, appeared for the defence. Arthur John Hams, on being sworn, said — I am a member of the Canterbury detective force. I produce the warrant, I signed by the resident magistrate of Hokitika, for the apprehension of Anna Maria O'Nicll, charged with stealing a white lace veil, the property of Marian Holland, of Eosstown. I produce a veil which answers the description of that named in the warrant. I asked the prisoner if the veil produced was hers. She said, "Yes." I said, "Are you sure?" She said, "No; I'll confess I took it from Mrs Holland, of .Rosstown." I then arrested her, and cautioned her in the usual manner. The veil is described as valued at L 3. I took the veil out one of the chests of drawers in a room which the prisoner said was her bedroom. I wish the prisoner to be remanded to Hokitika, New Zealand. Mr Kelly was present when 1 found the veil, and the statement to which I have referred was made in his presence. Mr Aspinall— Where was Kelly on the last occasion the case came before the Court ? Witness — In Melbourne, I believe. Mr Aspinall — Did you not say he had no evidence to give ? Witness — I did say so. Mr Aspinall — And yet he was present when the conversation between jon and Mrs O'Neill took place ? Witness — Yes. Martin Henry Kelly, depowd— l live

at Hokitika, New Zealand. I know Detective Hams. I recollect going with him to the Exchange Hotel, where Mrs O'Neill resides. I was present when a white lace veil was found. I believe the article produced to be the same. I heard the conversation which passed between the detective and Mrs O'Neill. The former commenced to search for some clothes. •. Mr Sturt asked if thin was all the evidence which bore on the case. Mr M'Kean — Yes. Mr Sturt— Well,- if there is no other evidence than this, it is not sufficient to justify the magistrates in committing the prisoner for trial. Mr M'Kean said that if that was the opinion of the Bench there was no use in proceeding any further with the case. He would, however, point out that the prisoner confessed in the presence of two witnesses to taking the veil. The Bench then discharged the prisoner.