Page images

f}octor when he is well. He was taken charge of when he arrived, by Fyzoo, my native doctor. Having been informed that he had arrived, I asked him no further questions. I had an understanding with Gore Tagore and Nilmoney, I had been informed, that Dr. Merce, was his ordinary family medical attendant. I made out the bill in the wife's name for Rs 500, which I have been paid. I do not know her name.

Nilmoney Addu examined. Soodasun Sein married my brother's daughter. In Pous 1243, he became ill, when living near Burra Bazaar. Illness first commenc. eil with a palpitation of the heart, and afterwards insan. ily. In the course of a month I saw him ten or twelve times. It was when he returned from Benares that he became insane ; he used to throw himself about, and one day he threw himself into the water: he would eat nothing and flog the servants. His wife sent for native doctors. He required force to take him to bathe. His wife sent for Dr. Mercer, who prescribed, but he would not take the medicine. Dr. Mercer recommended Mr. Beards. more's, and Gore Tagore took him there in a palanquin on the 7th Augon. Two days afterwards he went home again ; five or six days after he was again taken to the asylum. There was no quarrel in the family. He was married about thirteen years before he went to Benares; at the latter time his wife was five months with child. Soodasun Sein managed his father's affairs during his li'e : his property is considerable : there is a house in Cossitollah, one in Mirzapore, one at Mohungha, one at By sack Street, all worth about Rs. 50,000. When we were returning from Benares he jumpt into the water, the manjees picked him up, and I put a guard upon him. He was a man very sensible and capable of doing business when he conducted his father's affair's. His wife now pays his expenses at Beardsmore's. Gore Tagore is on friendly terms with Soodasun and with me al-d. Soodasun had a child, but it is dead. His wife sends me to see him every three or four days. When we took him to Beardsmore's we put him in a palanquin, shut it up, and placed two men to guard it on each side. The hurkarus so ced him out of his house. I did not think it necessary to go to the police first. His wife or. dered it. She did not take any pains to apprize his relations Joynarain and Marcon that it was necessary to send him to Beardsinore, nor did she direct me to do so. He remained in his palanquin two days after we took him to Beardsmore, without food ; he always said “take me back to my house.' I heard that Mr. Beardsmore took him out of his palanquin by force. His tenantwill not pay their rents only one tenant has paid since last Pous twelve month. The rent of the house in Chitpore Road has been collected by me.

Mr. Beardsmore re-examined.—The evidence as to his being in a palkee for two days without food is true; I did not say anything about this during my examination, because I was not asked. Drs. Mercer and Raleigh saw him in the palkee on the 2d of December He was taken out of the palkee by force at my request. Some sweetmeats were brought to him ; I sent them to Dr. Raleigh who analyzed them, and sent them to Drs. O'Shaughnessy and Goodeve for examination. Sooda. sun and one of my servants ate of the sweetmeats; my servant became sick, so did Soodasun. Arsenic was detected on analyzing the sweetmeats. Soodasun seeling himself sick, gave some to Bachoo, the servant, I put over him, and to Bachoos' wife. They were sick in consequence. All my inquiry was, who brought the sweetmeats, and Bachoo gave me to understand he supposed them to have been sent by Soodasun's wife. It may be that I did not take any precautions to ascertain who were his servants, or to learn to recognize then by their countenance. I have not taken any precautions to ascertain what persons are about him.

[Much surprise was expressed by the jury that the facts now stated by the witness had not been given in

evidence during his previous examination. One Samchund Seal, standing near the jury, was pointed out as the person who had given a clue by which the information was elicited from the witness. Mr. Nott ordered him to remain in Court for the purpose of being examined.] Shaik Bachoo.—l an a khitmutghar at Beardsmore's, and attended Soodasun for the last five months. His wife sent him some sweetmeats; the Baboo's servants brought them. Soodasun told me to eat some, I said ‘I am a \lossulman. Have you eat any He said he had eaten one of the balls, and it has made him sick and confused. I went and took them to Mr. Beardsmore, who a-ked me if Soodasun had eaten them with rice, I said no. He said, he dare say it was on account of his having eateu them on an empty stomach. I took some of them home. My wise told me she had eaten some of the sweetmeats, and had a burning in the throat all night in consequence. I eat some, and we were both sick. . When I was looking at the balls, I found they looked quite saffron. I managed to go to the asylum next morning with difficulty, I did not go to the Baboo. but saw Dinoo, his servant there. I had taken one of the balls with ine. At the time that I spoke to him, I was in a confused state of mind. I asked Dinoo where he got the sweetmeats; he said of the confectioners, but when I threatened him, he said a maid servant to the Baboo's family called Luckey, bought them. She was servant of that witness Nilmoney. When I made a noise Nilinoney came running and said to me, “what is the matter? You are mad.' I said, it is this sweetmeat. I went away with the sweetmeat to show it to Mr. Peardsmore. He was not at home, I showed them to Mrs. Beardsm ore, and detailed the circumstances. One servant only, 12inoo was disinissed ; there were five altogether; who as well as Nilmoney remained at Beardsmore's. There was no enquiry made among the servants. Nilmoney resided upstairs. This took place about five months ago. About ten or twelve days after Soodasun, became ill from purging and vomiting and took medicine. He was not attended by Dr. Raleigh, at all from the time he was taken ill by taking sweetmeats to the time he was taken ill by vomiting. He is considerably better from the time he was taken ill.

Samchund Seal examined.—Soodasun told me that on his way to Benares in the boat he became sick, and had trembling in the limbs. After he came back he had “six annas' worth of brain, and was not capable of managing his affairs. Formerly, he was a very intelligent man. Soodasun never eat any thing touched by his wife. He told me his wife's ways are not as they ought to be... I had a power of attorney to act for him; now his wife has a seal for which she gives a receipt for the rents. Nilmoney is managing this business. Soodasun had desired me to burn and sell five lacs of bricks, which I burnt, but Nilmoney sold them.

Soosadun questioned by the jury—Nilmoney. Fyzoo, and a native doctor put a musard poultice across my bowels. I do not know what I am here for. I see what you are all about. I have understood what is now being done : as I cannot go about my own business, I require a person from the court here to conduct my affairs. There are houses left me by my father, I can form no opinion of the value of the property. About Rs. 30,000 or 40,000 may be the value of it. I did not receive rents on my return, because persons used to sit round and confuse me. . They brought me rotton things to eat. I deputed Samchund before 1 went to the upper provinces to collect rent while I was away.

Mr. Dickens charged the jury, and particularly commented on the fact that Dr. Raleigh had not inentioned anything in his examination regarding the poisoned sweetmeats, nor had Mr. Beardsmore until re examined.

The jury retired, and after half an hour returned with 'a verdict coacurred in by thirteen of their body, that Soodasun is of unsound mind, and incapable of manag. ing his own affairs, and that he has been so for the last sixteen months. The Court met again on Saturday last for the purpose of formally taking the signature of the jury to the engrossed inquest.—Hurkuru, April 10.

April 6th. AND two following Days.

(Before Sir E. Ryan and Sir J. P. Grunt.)

Sittings after 21 term.—plea side.

Sreemutty Siboosoondery Dosse v. Sreemutty Comulmoney Dossee. The trial of this issue, which was commenced on Thursday, lasted during the whole of that and the three succeeding days. Other witnesses were called for the plaintiff, and among the rest, Rajkissen Bysack, the alleged finder of the will. This wituess deposed, that about a month or six weeks after the death of Hurrakissen, the son of the testator, five or six persons being present in the family house began to search the boxes, in which deeds and papers were usually kept, and at last discovered the present document ; that this was the identical will formerly made, nearly the same persons being present at the making and at finding. Mr. Clarke proposed to pht in as evidence, the bill and answer and the decree in the original suit, for the purpose of shewing that the present defendant and all the other parties interested under the will, acquiesced in its genuineness at that time. He also wished to lay the foundation for reading the deposition taken before the examiner, of one of his own witnesses, since deceased, and also the former depositions of defendant's witnesses for the purpose of contradicting their present testimony.

The Court said, that it would be quite idle to treat the pleadings in the former suit as evidence, independently of the circumstance that it was not between the same F. Nothing could possibly be implied, which could ave the effect of concluding the defendant in the present issue, since the very point had been referred from the suit itself, and it must be considered open. But it was regular to put in the pleadings, or the decretal order reciting them, for the purpose of making the depositions evidence. The pleadings and depositions were then put in, and this closed the plaintiff's case. The Advocate General addressed the Court for the defence, and first pointed out certain contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence. The defendant did not deny that a will or a hookunnamah had been in fact made, and made to a certain extent under the very circumstances set forth on the other side; but the defence was that the will now in Court was not the same instru. ment. It would not be attempted to be established that the disputed clauses and bequests had been interpolated, but that a different paper had since been drawn up, and as the writing was not the testator's, as there was no signature either of the testator, or of a single subscribing witness, what could be easier than for the same person who wrote the first paper, to forge another ? This view of the case entirely destroyed one of the chief arguments relied on by the other side. . Then as to the story about the subsequent discovery of the instrument : no doubt such a scene might have been gone through, and the recious document now produced might have been found in the box as described ; for it would be easy for the person who had placed the thing in its hiding-place to find it again. It was rather remarkable that the very same individuals, were alleged to be present at the making of the will, as at the finding. The whole of this scene was a mere got-up farce, invested with a mock

solemnity, and embellished by dramatic incident, in order to give plausibility to a falsehood and éclat to a forgery. There was certainly a considerable amount of testimony on both sides; but the plaintiffs witnesses were chiefly servants, who are generally ready to swear anything, or to do any thing at the hookum of their masters. Even if the testimony had been nicely balanced, the scale would be turned in favour of the defendant by the probabilities of the case. For the defence, relations of the family would be called who were present, and if subordinate servants were allowed to remain, it was extraordinary indeed that no relations should be permitted to be present on so solemn and important an occasion. The testimony of two of the chief witnesses was directly contradicted by persons, utterly disinterested, who had heard them make a totatly different statement on a former occasion. It would be proved by unanswerable evidence that the genuine will was written on a smaller and narrower paper, and only on one side ; that it contained no bequest to the widow, and that this circumstance was remarked upon, and explained by the testator, who said that his son was living and no special provision was required ; and it would be further proved that when only one son is left, it is not usual to provide specially for a widow ; but otherwise when there are two sons or more. Lastly, certain letters, written by the attorney in the cause. would be put in, which would shew clearly that the party giving the instructions, must have been then ignorant of the existence of such a will as the present ; from which it might be inferred that the forgery took place, or the intention to forge was first suggested, at some subsequent period.

Witnesses were then sworn, who deposed to the above facts, and were cross-examined with great minuteness. The plaintiff's counsel put in the depositions taken in the Examiner's office, for the purpose of shewing a variance between their former and present testimony. The Advocate-General endeavoured to give evidence of a conversation between the father of the plaintiff (since deceased), and other parties, from which it would appear that the father either forged the will himself, or caused it to be forged. Mr. Clarke objected that this evidence was not admissible.

The Court said that they were satisfied that the father was sufficiently proved to be the authorized agent of the plaintiff, and yet they were of opinion that this evidence could not be received, because it clearly was not within the scope of his authority to bind her by a forgery. They reserved leave, however, to the defendant's counsel, to move the point, if a verdict should be found for the plaintiff.

Certain documentary evidence was then put in, consisting of the letters of the attorney in the cause, and the deposition of Gourmoney, a purdah female, daughter of the testator. By this lady's evidence, it appeared that four females of the family were present, and that she hersels remarked, “My father has done something for every body, but what has he done for my mother?" which was repeated to the testator, who answered “Hurrakissen, my son, is living, and he will make provision for his mother.”

The Advocate General was heard upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in contradiction.

Mr. Clarke then addressed the Court in reply, in a very ingenious and able speech of nearly three hours' duration, (to which we regret that our limits will not allow us to attempt doing justice.) He said that these clauses were treated as interpolations in the genuine will, when the original suit was instituted, and the present story that a second and different document had been forged, was a story trumped up at the eleventh hour for the purposes of this trial. I this instrument was really forged, it was singular that the alterations should have been made in so absurd and clumsy a manner;

nothing but absolute fatuity could explain it. Two of the defendant's chief witnesses, Radicamohun and Gourmoney, unembers of the family, were collaterally interested in impeaching this will. The amount of their interest did not indeed affect their competency, but it very materially affected their credibility. Nothing could be deduced from the letters written by the attorney in the cause. They were written with a pacific intention, and before hostile proceedings were instituted. The probabilities were on the side of the plaintiff; and the evidence of the defendant's witnesses exhibited far more of contradiction and repugnancy than could be pointed out in the evidence which supported the plaintiff's case. Sir E. Ryan. This trial has now occupied the Court four entire days, and it certainly is altogether a most extraordinary case. Since I have sat on the bench, I have never witnessed such a vast amount of perjury and directly conflicting evidence. The onus, however, of establishing this will, is on the plaintiff, and we cannot say that she has succeeded in making out her case. It seems to us that the probabilities primá facie are against the insertion of such a clause as the present in the will of this wealthy Hindoo. The mother (defendant) and her son are admitted to have ever been on affectionate terms, and it is not likely, therefore, that the father would have gratuitously anticipated a quarrel between them, or provided for so improbable an event. It can only be on strong, clear, and satisfactory grounds that the Court can disinherit the testator's widow. We are of opinion, therefore, that the will has not been established, and that our verdict must be for the defendant.

[blocks in formation]

Ramanauth Mookerjee v. Sreenauth Mookerjee and another.

In this suit an application was made to the Court by the counsel for the complainant, that the cause might be referred to the Maser to inquire and report, upon a suggestion that the complainant had become a lunatic since the filing of the bill.

The Court said, that this mode of application was not regular, and that the cause might stand over iu the meantime.—Hurkaru, April 11.

WEDNesday, Argil 11, 1838.

(Before Sir E. Ryan, and Sir J. P. Grant.)

Sittings after 2d term.–In Equity.

Rajkristno Bonnerjee v. Tuiraneychurn Bonnerjee.

This cause being called upon Mr. Clarke rose and said that he had been instructed yesterday that the parties had cane to a settlement, and that he had accordingly applied to the Court to call the case pro formá. He had just understood that the cause was not settled, and he was not prepared, therefore, to argue it now. The Advocate General, admitted that his learned friend had certainly made a statement to the Court yesterday, from which he inferred that the cause was settled. But for his own part he had received an intimation in the course of the evening that this was not the Case. The Court recollected that Mr. Clarke had mentioned the matter yesterday, and they that now directed under these circumstances the cause should stan a-over. Stool over. Sreemutty Nibbunmoney Dabee v. Shamloll Tagore. This was beard on argument on exceptions taken to the Master's report, and was the last cause on the Equity Board. The sittings terminated this day. The sessions begin on Tuesday the 17th instant.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

J. Hunter, - W. Prinsep,
R. Davidson, H. L. Christiana,
A. D, Rice, J. M. Dove,

L. Carmichael,
J. Prinsep, and
H. W. Bayley, Esquires,
Baboo Radakisseu Mitter,
Baboo Hurrischunder Dutto,
Baboo Ramhurry Dutto.

C. A. Dyce, W. F. Fergusson, J. P. McKilligan, W. Earle, H. Chapman, L. A. Arratoon, C. Dearie, After the Grand Jury had been duly sworn, the learned Chief Justice thus addressed them. He commenced by remarking to them that he was happy to inform them that their duties during the present sessions would neither be very protracted nor arduous. There were only three cases to which he would direct his observations on their nature minutely to them. Two of these he was sorry to inform them were of murders, and the other of highway robbery, -a crime which has hitherto, ever since he had the honor of sitting on this bench, been one of very rare occurrence; but he regretted to find that there were no less than four cases of that nature sent up for trial during the present sessions.

The first case to which he begged to draw their parti cular attention, was that of Hurree Mlug, for the murde of his infant child, John Pereira. The particulars of it, from the'depositions before him, appear to be these : Lydia Francisca, the mother of the child, appears t have been the mistress of the prisoner, who resided a Sibtollah Lane, and was at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed by the prisoner, an ayah in the employ of a lady, named Ogilvie, who resided at Chow ringhee, where the prisoner was likewise entertained a short time previous to this murder as a cook. For som reasons unknown, he became dissatisfied with his service, and wished Lydia Francisca to quit the employ an return to live with him. This she refused to do until she had earned a sufficient sum to enable her to liquidat some debts which she then owed. This refusal enraged the prisoner, who, on the 27th of March, returned home, and on leaving the premises was heard to declare “very well, there are two lives, one here and the other with me.” He was then followed to his house by th police peons, where the infant was shortly afterwards discovered murdered. It is for the grand jurymen under these circumstances to consider who had murdered the deceased.

The other case of murder, was one of more difficulty: it was that of Prosper Milliner, a Frenchman, who was accused of the murder of a syce named Buckaollah. The statement, as gleaned by Judge from the depositions of the witnesses in this case, which he remarked are very confused, are these. Two French sailors were on the night of the 4th of Alarch last, met on the Chitpoor road by the deceased, and another syce between the hours ol 8 and 9 o'clock P. M. and without any cause or provocation, as deposed to by the witnesses for the prosecution, one of these sailors wounded Buckaollah, the deceased, with a knife, which he then held in his grasp, from the effects of which wound he lingered till the 5th of March at the Native Hospital in the Dhurrumtollah road and then died. It will be for the gentlemen of the jury to decide primarily whether the prisoner was the person who had wounded the deceased ; and secondly, whether at the time the prisoner, if they are satisfies he is the man who had wounded the deceased, there was not any -affray, and whether the prisoner had not been struck by any person before he wounded the deceased; and if so, whether the deceased was a party concerned in this affray or not. It has been proved, that the prisoner had bought these knives for his professional purpose. Now it has been provided by the law, that if any person has at the time any deadly weapons in his hand which he happened to have by him without any avowed purpose of wound. ing or injuring any person, and he happens to be struck by any person in an affray and retaliates with this weapon, and thus causes the death of the person who had struck him, the crime which he in that case is guilty of, is only manslaughter; for to constitute the crime of murder, it is requisite that a degree of malice and pre: meditation on the part of the criminal must be proved. But though this is a sundamental principal to constitute the crime of murder, yet it is not absolutely requisite in every case ; for example, when a man has been proved to be what the law terms the general enemy of mankind, in a case where a person shoots with a gun indiscrimi. nately into a crowd and wounds and kills some person or persons in it, he is guilty of the crime of murder. There are besides the evidence already alluded to, the dying depositions of the deceased, taken by Mr. C. K. Robison. one of the Magistrates of the Police office, in the priso. ner's presence, and explained to him by Mr. P. Delmar, the interpreter. This the grand jurymen can have read before them, because the law provides that whenever any deponent in a criminal case dies before the trial of the case at the sessions, that depositions taken on oath, may be read as evidence during the trial, Besides this, there are the dying declarations of the deceased, as declared to third parties. These were, it is true, not on oath j

out if the deceased was in a condition which made him sufficiently conscious that he had but a short time to live, and made a declaration as to the manner of his death, hat declaration is held voted in the eye of the law. It is for the jurymen to satisfy themselves whether the leceased, at the time he made these declaration, was in that state. In conclusion, the judge said, that the deceased's depositions as they were on oath could be read as evidence before the jurymen.

The third case was that in which a person was charged with highway robbery, for taking from the person of E. W. Bowbear, a gold watch. It appears that whilst Mr. Bowbear was watching in the streets for a friend at night, the prisoner came up to him and snatched out of his watch-fob a gold watch, and in doing so also tore the prosecutor's fob. The question it will be for the jury to determine is, whether that force which the law requires to constitute a high-way robbery which should be attended with violence and fear, was exemplified on this occasion. In the case of the King versus Morne, it was decided by twelve judges, that when a person has a guard chain round his neck and violence is used to that degree as by two or three jerks to break this guard-chain, it constitutes a highway robbery; but where no such chain is worn or violence is used, the crime is one simply of taking from the person, and this, like picking pockets, is not a capital offence. Therefore it will be very material for the jury to determine whether in this case, which is about to be submitted to them, that violence had been used which would legally constitute it a capital offence or not. With regard to the other three cases, the proofs of violence having been used are more clear, particularly in one of them. In conclusion, the judge informed the jurymen that if they required his. aid in elucidating any legal points in any of the cases which would be submitted to them, he would be must happy to offer them all the aid in his power. These were, he said all the cases to which he would beg to draw their particular attention at present; perhaps there may be more sent in during this sessions which may require his observations to them, and if so he would do so.

Mahomed Ruffick was tried for stealing, on the 30th of March last, several crockery plates, &c. from the premises of T. Barfoot. is Prisoner pleaded not guilty. T. o: so he lived in No. 2, China Bazar-Street, the prisoner, previous to his confinement, was a khansama in deponent's service for one year. Deponent, in consequence of some suspicions, accom: panied by to police peons, and a servant of his named Ameer Khan, searched the poisoner's house near the Hindoo College. Prisoner was at the deponents house. One of his servan's pointed out the prisoner's house to him. Then Mr. McCann produced the articles, and Mr. Barfoot identified them to be his property, because they matched with his set, a portion of which he produced in the Court, and he identified likewise a work box to be his daughter's property. Honeeskhan being dead, the thanadar who accompanied Mr. Barfoot in the search corroborated his evidence regarding this search. This closed the case for the prosecution. The prisoner said, that the property was his for a long time, and that he had purchased them and brought them from China. He further said that Mrs. Barfoot was in the habits of sending out her ayah's with goods o conceal, and charging servants to whom arreals of vages were due, with having taken them, and that he lad adopted such a course against 25 persons in order o get rid of them, and their wages, and the ayah had n one instance been detected in thus conveying some poons away for that purpose, which she confessed. He ikewise added, tuat Mr. Barfoot was a person who was capable of swearing to anything, because he quarrelled daily twenty times with Mrs. Barfoot, and then broke

his oath and quarrelled with her again.

Deponent called three witnesses who confirmed these allegations of his. The learned Judge then summed up the case, detailing the evidence, stating the law, and expressing the points as to the identifying these articles, which Mr. Barfoot had admitted were a very common pattern in the bazar. In conclusion he said, that if the prisoner was convicted of stealing even one of the articles, it was enough to find him guilty of the crime for which he was tried, which was simple. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of guilty. After the verdict had been recorded, the prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the house of correction and there to be kept to hard labor.

The grand jury submitted to the judge to-day a petition relative to a commission issued in the case of an inquiry in a case of lunacy. The judge, on perusing it, said that he would direct the clerk of the Crown to lay the papers regarding it before the grand jury, to-morrow, if possible, and if they think fit they ean, on its perusal, make a presentment to the court which would order the clerk of the Crown to prefer an indictment on that presentment against the person mentioned in the presentment. The petition was signed by D. Ross the foreman of the special jury, who sat on that inquiry of lunacy for himself and his fellow jurymen.

In the course of the day the grand jury returned true bills against the following individuals : Abdoollah, for stealing on the 2d March last several articles of to the value of 25 rupees, from the house of Messrs. Cockerell and Co. in Clive Street. George Lloyd and George Morgan, charged with stealing from the person of W. Tippen, on the night of the 14th March 1838, by force and violence, a musical snuffbox valued at 14 rupees. Pooteeram. For having stolen, on the night of the 22nd March, a wooden box containing several brass articles, the property of Kidernauth Bose and his uncle Nundolal Bose, from their house in Puttuldangah. James Arnold, charged with having stolen from the person of Henry Perks, on Friday, the 16th March 1838, i2 Bank of Bengal notes to the value Rs. 950 the property of the prosecutors. Miahomed Ruffick, for stealing on the 30th March, from the house of his master T. Barfoot, in China Bazar, several articles of crockery-ware, glasses and a toilet box. "ous bill against Meah Jaun for robbing from the erson of Bebee Deljaun two gold chains to the value of 200 rupees, at her house in Cossitollah, The judge remarked, that a true bill for stealing, and not robbing should be returned ; the jury altered the finding consequently. - Henry Lemsele, for robbing from the person of Ed. ward William Bowbear a gold McCabe watch at JRs. 250 No. 8157, on the 23d March 1838.-Hurkaru, April 18.

April 17.

(Before Sir E. Ruan, and a Petit Jury.) James Arnold was tried for stealing from the person of Henry Perks 12 bank of Bengal notes, of the value *Co 's Rs. 950. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. - Henry Perks deposed, that he resides at Coiroo Mehters Lane, and is an engineer employed by William Prinsep, Esq. He has known the prisoner for upwards of two years. The prisoner was formerly a Boatswain to some trading vessel. On the 16th of March last deponent met the prisoner, at about 1 o'clock P.M., at the Cape of Good Hope punch house in the Lall Bazar l'oard, and prisoner informed him that he was in dis

tressed circumstances and very thirsty, and that a person named Long had accomodated him with lodgings gratis at his house in Coiroo Mehter's Lane. Deponent compassionated his case and gave him some money and treated him with a glass of grog. Whilst thus engaged they met Mr. Long, and the prisoner advised deponent, as it was late, to retire and sleep that night at Long's house, the American flag punch house. Deponent having obtained Long's consent to this proposition, ieft the Cape of Good Hope for the American flag, in company of Long and the prisoner. At about 8 o'clock P. M. or gun-fire, after their arrival at Long's punch-house, deponent gave Long some money, and he brought him a bottle of port wine and another of brandy, which they finished there and then. They all retired to sleep. Deponent laid himself on a cot in Long's house, and felt very unwell and was restless ail the night, but he was not intoxicated. Shortly after deponent had laid down on the cot, the prisoner came to hin and wished to cover him with a quilt, but deponent objected and said, that he felt himself warm enough without it. Soon after this the prisoner put his hand into deponent's pocket and drew out a sock from it, in which were the 12 notes and a memorandum of their numbers, given to deponent with the notes by Mr. Prinsep's sirear. After he had emptied the sock of these notes and this memorandum, he attempted to replace the empty sock in deponent's pocket, in doing which deponent who had been dosing all this time, started up and collared the prisoner and taxed him with the theft. The prisoner then threw the notes down under the cot and a tempted to tear the memorandum of their numbers. In this he was prevented by deponent, who snatched the paper out of his hands and called to Mr. Long and desired him to get a constable to take the prisoner into custody. Long then came into deponent's room and helped him to pick up the notes, and they picked up ten of them at that time from under the cot. Long then went out for a constable, after he had stationed four chokedars at the door to prevent any person during his absence from entering or leaving the house. During Long's absence the prisoner struggled hard to escape, and said that these notes were his property. Long returned at about one o'clock P. M., with a constable, to whose custody deponent delivered up the prisoner. The constable took the prisoner to the police office and searched his person, to see if he had the other two missing notes about him, but found no money on his person, He then returned with deponent to Long's house, and, on searching the room again, they succeeded in finding the other two notes lying on the floor near the door of the room in which this transaction had occurred.

On cross-examination deponent stared, that he did not voluntarily give the notes into the prisoner's hands to keep them for him, on account of being too much inebriated at the time, and that they were not turned out of the Cape of Good Hope punch-house, because it was getting late, nor had the doors shut on them, and he never bore the prisoner any ill-will, nor did he promise to give Long 50 rupees it he would get the prisoner transported.

Constable T. Ware produced the notes, and the deponent recognized them to be the notes stolen from his person by the prisoner, and compared their Nos. with the memorandum in his possession, and said that they corresponded with the Nos. on the notes themselves.

The witness, George Long, corroborated the testimony of the first witness and said, that he had known the prisoner for about 18 months, a great part of which ume he had lived at deponent's house, where monies had often been lying within his reach and if he had chosen to steal any he could have done it often, without fear of detection; but he never did it. This is his first appearance of this nature. Deponent positively swore that he saw.the prisoner take the sock out of Perk's pocket,

empty it of its contents and then attempt to put the sock

« PreviousContinue »