From Western Post, 10 July 1861: Quarter Sessions continued: Saturday, July 6th. Charles WILLIAMS, indicted for Larceny. Messrs HOLROYD and WINDEYER defended the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor explained to the jury the case against the prisoner, who was charged with having, on the 8th of June, stolen from the stores of ROWELL and KELLETT, 2 tarpaulings and four coats. Constable MORAN having been sworn, said on the 10th June he went in company with Mr ROWELL and another constable with a warrant for the purpose of searching prisoner's premises at Burrundulla. He read the warrant, and then commenced the search, and found two of the coats, under which were the two tarpaulings then before the court. Mr ROWELL identified them as his property. Prisoner said he had bought them of a man in Mudgee he met either at FOREMAN's or VILE's. He was drunk at the time, and did not know how he got home or how the goods came off the dray. He gave £7 10s for the tarpaulings. He did not know how much he gave for the coats. Cross-examined by Mr HOLROYD: Prisoner said he believed that a man of the name of M'CAM put the things on the dray. No objection was made to his searching the premises. Constable FARRAND deposed: finding the third coat on a piece of bard on a beam in the kitchen. Cross-examined by Mr WINDEYER: M'CAM lives in a hut on the Burrundull! a road. ROWELL claimed the coat. Prisoner had given it to a man who worked on the farm and who wore it on the Sunday. Could not find the fourth coat. Nicholas ROWELL, partner of Mr W KELLETT, deposed: About dusk, on Saturday, June 8th, he missed two tarpaulings and four coats - had seen them about half an hour before outside the door exposed for sale with other goods; they were afterwards found in WILLIAMS's house, to whom he said, "well, WILLIAMS, I did not think you were up to this kind of work". Prisoner replied that he had not stolen them; he had bought the coats of Mr BURROWS. A man on the farm claimed the third coat - WILLIAMS gave it him. He valued the tarpaulings at about £13, the three coats were worth between £3 and £4. Cross-examined by Mr HOLROYD: Had known prisoner for nine months; had always considered him honest, and never heard anything wrong about him; he always paid his bills and, they never hesitated to give him credit for whatever he wanted. Henry ! BURROWS, of the firm DICKSON and BURROWS, examined: Remembered selling a coat and a few small articles to prisoner. The coat was the one prisoner had on; did not sell him any of the three coats before the Court. N. ROWELL, again examined: Prisoner at the time of the search wore the same coat as he then had on; could swear to the coats and tarpaulings as being his property; knew the tarpaulings by the private and selling marks. Mr HOLROYD for the defence called A HEALS, farm labourer to prisoner: Recollected the night when WILLIAMS brought home the things; he was very drunk, so much so that he could not stand. The prisoner was very late coming home; he (HEALS) sat up listening for the rattle of the dray, which he heard at some distance about 10 o'clock; he went out to meet it, and found the horse standing still. WILLIAMS was on the dray. He took him home; prisoner gave him one of the coats. Charles POLDEN, baker, examined: Saw prisoner about 8 o'clock at FOREMAN's; the dray was outside, the horse being very frisky, he told prisoner he ought to go away, else something would happen; they had a glass together, and then started for MILLS' public house; prisoner led his horse by the head; they had a glass each at MILLS', when he (C POLDEN) with the assistance of a girl, put prisoner on his dray; there were a lot of things on the dray; prisoner said he had made a good bargain that night, and could af! ford to spend a pound; he then went towards home. Henry DARE, examined: Had known the prisoner about 12 months; had always considered him honest. George Henry COX: Prisoner was one of this tenants; had known him six or seven years; his character as far as he knew had been always good. Mr HOLROYD for the defence said: It was not likely that the prisoner, who bore such a good character, and who was not in want, had stolen the things. Had the Crown called M'CANN, they would have found that the prisoner had, as he said, purchased the goods - perhaps of some one who had stolen them. He was, as all the witnesses showed, so drunk that he had only a vague recollection of the transaction. There was no evidence to show that the prisoner had stolen the things. That he had received them there was no doubt; it was, however, necessary to prove that at the time of the purchase the prisoner was aware that the party who sold them to him had actually stolen them. Mr HOLROYD finished ! an ingenious address with some pertinent remarks on drunkenness; and said that the jury, taking the whole of the circumstances of the case into consideration, were bound to acquit the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor having replied, His Honor carefully summed up, in doing which he severely commented upon the sin of drunkenness, which was no excuse for other crimes; that if people would so degrade themselves by bringing themselves into a state of intoxication, and in consequence committed other crimes, there were not on this account to be excused, but must bear the consequences of their twofold folly. The jury retired for a short time and found a verdict guilty of stealing. His Honor, in passing sentence upon the crime of drunkenness, and trusted that the bitter lesson would keep him in future from the cursed drink. In consideration of the good character he had received, the Court would take a lenient view of the case, and sentence him to six months' hard labour in Parramatta Gaol. 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