In this case T am bound to say I can see none. The man waa] charged with larceny: none of the property has been recovered: the evidence against him was that of people employed in the same mill where he was a watchman. There might have been enmity between these people in some form or another, but the evidence against this man was supported by people with whom there is no reason to suggest at all any enmity, and it was that evidence which impressed the magistrate. There was the manager of there was the evidence of} the two Chinese watchmen, and the story amounts to this, on the evidence given in the Court below; that on the return of the owner of the property and the occupant of the hut on that Sunday forenoon, jhe finds the safe in which his proerty was, broken open and an axe thereby, and his property gone, Then comes the evidence of the Chinese: he saw this man approach! the hut: he subsequently saw hi come out from where he had seen! him go in with a bundle, and that he! asked him about it and was told in reply that it was nothing to do with him. There is the evidence! of another Chinese who. saw him in a "ricsha with a bundle": there is the further evidence of the manager to the effect that he looked for that man on thesSunday morning, and found that he was not where he ought to have been when he was wanted, and that he asked! him where he had been when he did! find him: apparently he did not call him over the coals over the matter.
That being the evidence called for the prosecution, the evidence for the defence was a total denial of ever having been near there: the allegation that he had been on hi post all the morning, except for! a few minotes when he was absent [buying cigarettes, and the sug gestion that the whole of the case was a put up one by the owner of the goods and the other Sikh watchmen who were employed in the mill to get rid of him because he was a Mohammedan, 'A. Hopeless Appeal It is not for me to say whether or nor T could have come to the same conclusion as the Magistrate did: it is not the function of this Court! at all, and it is impossible to say is no evidence on which rate could come to the conclusion which he did come to— that this man was the thief of that] property. He based his decision, net on the evidence given by the! watchmen, but upon the evidence of the Japandse manager, who} knew all the parties, and the way in which the Chinese watchman gave! his evidence.
Tt seems to me that with this evidence, and knowing that the Magistrate saw. and heard these witnesses, that if a. judge were to try this case up here with a jury, it would be a wrong submission to say to him that he would be bound to withdraw the case from the jury.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that this is a perfectly hope-ess appeal on the facts, and I see nothing whatever in the case on Which leave to appeal should _be granted, and it must be dismissed.
Dennis Macauley was] sentenced to three months and 10 days' imprisonment in Bitibid by Judge Purdy on Monday. Major Holeomb defended' and Chief Insp. O'Toole prosecuted. From the evidence it appeared that defendant snatched a. bag from woman on Boone Road en Novetuber 7. Bound over itr the lower cour? a day "laters "defendant appeared yesterday for the higher trial.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.