From Western Post, 10 July 1861 Quarter Sessions Cont. TONG QUI, a Chinaman for Larceny. Mr HOLROYD and the Crown Prosecutor appeared for the Crown. Mr WINDEYER for prisoner. Thomas HOY acted as interpreter. Charles PRICE of the mounted police, stationed at Avisford, said from information he received on the 19th March he went to a Chinese Store on the Meroo with a lad named R LUCKIE and a trooper, where he saw the prisoner standing before a fire outside the tent, who upon seeing him ran away through the back of the tent; he followed and apprehended him; he searched the prisoner, but near the tent he picked up two bags of gold and two purses, one containing gold; the prisoner uttered words which induced him to believe the gold was his; the Chinese in the tent likewise said it belonged to the prisoner. He opened the bags when young LUCKIE said "There is the nugget I know; you will see a pick mark on it". The gold weighed about thirty-five ounces. Cross-examined by Mr WINDEYER: There were a score of Chinamen in the tent smoking opium; prisoner did not live in! the tent. Margaret LUCKIE had known prisoner twelve months; saw him in her store in March, when she bought 20s of gold from him; she put it into a bag; shortly after she weighed the whole of her gold, which she put into bags, and lad them upon a window sill. Seeing the prisoner hang about the store the whole of the day; she asked him what he wanted; he made no reply, but laughed. When she missed the gold, which weighed about 33oz 16dwts., she went to prisoner's tent, situated about 300 yards from the store, but could not find him; she then gave information to the police. Could swear to part of the gold, some of it being very dark; there were likewise two small nuggets which she could identify. Robert LUCKIE, son of previous witness, had known the prisoner nine months, having resided at the foot of his father's paddock. Went with the police seven miles down the river, where he pointed out the prisoner, who immediately bolted; he next saw him in custody; could swear to the nugget; ! had seen it the day it was lost. Mr WINDEYER addressed the jury for the prisoner. His Honor summed up, and pointed out the nature of circumstantial evidence. The jury found a verdict of guilty. Sentenced to 18 months' hard labour in Parramatta Gaol. James GARBUTH for larceny. Mr HOLROYD defended the prisoner. C HARDY (Chief Constable) deposed that the prisoner was given into custody by Mr BURROWS on the 8th May for stealing a pair of boots. He went into prisoner's bedroom and found a box under the bed full of articles, part of which Mr BURROWS identified. Mr BURROWS, partner of the firm DICKSON and Co., had engaged prisoner about five or six months ago as porter; he said he came from Maitland; he was in a very destitute condition; his feet were out of his shoes, and was altogether in a deplorable state. He agreed to given him 20s a week and his board and residence. He found a pair of boots belonging to the firm into the bedroom and sent for him, when he said "this is a fine game you are up to Jim; we were about sending you up to our new store, and have found you out in time". He sent for Mr HARDY, and found a quantity of goods amounting to from £30 to £50 in a box consisting of articles sufficiently varied to set up a pedlar. Could identif! y some of the things by the shop mark; the marks were destroyed on others. Prisoner admitted to taking part of the goods out of the store, others he said he had picked up when sweeping the shop. Cross-examined by Mr HOLROYD: A man called John slept in the same room; a pair of cord trousers found in the box were similar to some they had in stock; prisoner said he had purchased them in Hartly; could swear to the razors, and four knives, one of which belonged to himself. Fredk. HART, salesman in the boot department, gave information of the 8th May to Mr BURROWS that a pair of boots were missing out of his department; they were the only pair of the kind in stock. Prisoner had access to the store, and had been in the department during the day. The boots were afterwards found in prisoner's bedroom; they had been worn; could swear that the boots before the court were the same, knew them by their shape and make. This was the whole of the evidence. Mr HOLROYD, on behalf of the prisoner, contended that there was no proof that he had taken a single article out of the stores of DICKSON and BURROWS, and that the prosecutor had failed to identify any of them. Other storekeepers had similar goods, and it was only reasonable to suppose that the prisoner had purchased them. The jury, after a short consultation, acquitted the prisoner. N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW