23

G.—s

was also examined upon the depositions in the Police Court, where he was represented as having sworn that he asked for money for the purposes of his election. Witness said he had received the following sums : £100, £25, £35 —from Mitchell —and £15 —in all, £175 —for his election expenses.) Sis Honor : That is £25 too much for the prosecution apparently. Mr. Brooltfield ; But it is £25 too little for the defence. Mr. Tyler asked whether the Court was of opinion that the jury could convict after the above evidence. Sis Honor: I confess I was much struck by the circumstance that the witness accounts for £25 of the defalcation. Mr. Brookfield: It is evident the witness is in a fog with these figures. His Sonor -. He is your principal witness, and if he is in a fog, where are you ? Ido not propose to withdraw the case from the jury. Periperi was examined as to £100, and the manner in which he received £50 out of it, which was at variance with previous statements. The Crown Prosecutor said: After the evidence of the last two witnesses, Ido not see how the jury could convict. Both Hans and Philip have made statements to-day at variance with previous statements made in the Court below and to me. Sis Sonor: I think the evidence is not such as they could convict a man of felony upon. His Honor directed the jury to return a verdict of " Not guilty." The prisoner was admitted to bail to answer the other indictments. Mr. C. O. Davis entered in recognisance for £500 that the prisoner should appear on Wednesday, when the next case will be tried. The Court adjourned at 5.45 until 10 o'clock on Wednesday morning. Supreme Court (Criminal Sittings).—Thursday, 22nd April, 1880. [Before Mr. Justice Richmond and a Special Jury.] His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock. Alleged Larceny of Public Money, John Charles Toung, late Native Land Purchase Officer under Government, was arraigned upon an indictment charging him, " that he, being intrusted with public money, did, on the 26th of April, 1879, feloniously steal, take, and carry away £7, the money of Her Majesty." There were two other counts charging him with stealing two separate sums of £15 each. Mr. Brookfield (Crown Prosecutor) and Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Hesketh and Mr. Tyler for the defence. The following special jury was sworn, after thirteen challenges (nine on behalf of the prisoner, and four on behalf of the Crown) : Frederick Lambert Prime (foreman), Walker Ewen, Joseph Goble, 'Frederick Ireland, Edward Lewis, Joseph May, jun., William Ball, 14. O. Greenwood, Frederick King, William Anderson, Joseph Cockrane Mackay, John Savage. Challenges by the Crown : John Abbott, William Lodder, Robert Cox, Walter Charles Brackenbury. By the Prisoner: H. Brett, George Frederick Ireland, George William Jones, Franz Scherff, Arthur Heather, Thomas Henry Hall, George Johnston, William Hammond, Morritz S. Leers. Sis Sonor: I should like the reporters to be a little careful about these challenges. I mention the subject because I observed some time ago there were ten challenges, and it was stated in one of the newspapers that there were two. I should like these jury trials to be closely watched, but with correctness and vigilance. It is very desirable that the public should be fully but accurately informed in these matters, and that the proceedings in our Courts should be temperately criticised, which, I am sorry to say, is not always the case. The Crown Prosecutor opened the case to the jury to the following effect: The prisoner had money paid to his credit in the hank, and upon the amount the accused had to operate by cheque. He was an imprestee under the Public Eevenues Act, and had to send in imprest accounts monthly, with vouchers attached. In the month of March, 1879, the accused appeared to have paid sums of money to two Natives —a Native man named Nuku Pauro, and a Native woman named Maria Maraki; and for the sums so paid vouchers were given and duly returned to the Government. The Natives referred to admitted the payment of these sums of money. On the 26th of April there is an entry in the cashbook for £7, paid to a Native named Te Malm. There are entries of a payment of £15 to Nuku Pauro, and of £15 to Maraki. Credit is taken for these amounts, and vouchers returned to the Government. The Native named Te Mapu would be called, and he would swear that he never received a sum of £7. These payments professed to be on account of a block of land called Waitahanui. Te Mapu is a Native Assessor. The voucher would be produced, and it did not bear Nuku's signature. Nuku would state that he never received but one payment of £15. It was evident, however, that it could not be Nuku's signature, for that Native, when signing his name in full, invariably signed "Nuku P-a-u-r-o;" but in this document the name is spelt "P-a-o-r-a." In the same way as regards the Native woman. She invariably signs her name "Ma-ri-a Ma-ra-ki," with a break between each syllable. In the voucher that will be produced, the name was written " Maria Maraki " (with no break) ; and the woman would say that was not her signature. There was another circumstance to be mentioned —namely, that the defendant drew a cheque for £31 ss. upon the Government account, and paid it to his own credit. What was the value of that fact it was impossible at the moment to say. Mr. John Frederick Churton, Audit Inspector, was examined at great length as to the duties of Government officers in the position occupied by the defendant as Native Land Purchase Officer, the mode in which the accounts of such officers are kept, and the results of his inspection. The greater part of his testimony was repetition of that given upon the previous trial of the defendant. Henry Mitchell, Native Land Purchase Commissioner, deposed that he took over the office at Tauranga from the defendant and Warbrick. He produced the deed of conveyance from certain