POLICE COURT, KOORINGA Friday 23rd May
Catherine Hutchins was charged by Elizabeth Gladwin with illegally having in her possession a gold ring with a red or cornelian stone, the property of the complainant. Elizabeth Gladwin, sworn, stated - About two months ago she lost the ring in question. She had it in her possession the evening before but she lost it. She missed the ring in the morning. About nine days since she saw the ring on Mrs Hutchins's finger, when she asked Mrs Hutchins where she got the ring. She said it was her own ring, for which she had paid £1, but subsequently said if the complainant claimed the ring, and could tell the marks, she would give it up, and be the loser of the £1.

Catherine Hutchins denied in toto the statement of the complainant, and said that she never knew anything about the ring.

William Bailey, sworn, stated that he knew the ring referred to by the complainant. He had seen it in Mrs Hutchins's possession. She wore it at the time. He went with the police-officer to Mrs Hutchins. PC Rogers, called, stated that the rings he had seen on Mrs Hutchins's finger were the two plain rings she now wore.

Jane Gladwin, mother of the complainant, sworn, corroborated the evidence of her daughter, and stated that she had herself seen the ring on Mrs Hutchins's finger, and claimed it as her daughter's ring; and Mrs Hutchins said that she bought it, and gave £1 for it, but that if witness would tell her any private marks she would give it up. Witness was also told by a person of the name of Grenfell that the defendant had been trying to borrow a ring to match it. Adjourned to Monday next for the production of further evidence.

(My appeal to obtain an account of the first appearance of this case was answered by Daryl Edmonds who sent the TROVE link for which I am most grateful.)

The South Australian Register, Thursday 5 June 1851
POLICE COURT, KOORINGA Thursday 29th May
"The business of the Court did not commence until about 1 o'clock, and Mr Grant, Clerk of the Court, seemed to suffer much from the piercing wind blowing through this well-ventilated apology for a Courtroom.
His Worship said he had got wet by being out in the rain, and that therefore the cases for to-day must stand adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o'clock." ...

Mrs Hutchins again appeared on a remanded charge of illegal possession of a ring. Some rather unintelligible conversation arose between the female witnesses, Mr Fitzgerald, and His Worship, which resulted in Mr Fitzgerald's saying that he should like to examine Miss Nankervis.

Maria Nankervis, sworn, stated that the plaintiff in this case told her the ring was lost in washing, and that it was thrown out with the water in the washing-tub. She had never seen a ring of the description given by the plaintiff in the possession of the defendant. Mary Ann Harris, sworn, corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to the plaintiff and her mother having stated that the ring was thrown out with the water in the washing-tub.

Richard Grenfell, sworn, made some statements favourable to Mrs Hutchins; but as his evidence was only from hearsay, His Worship said it could not be admitted.
James Nankervis made some statements similar to the last witness.

Elizabeth Gladwin confirmed the evidence she had given on a previous occasion. She was examined by Mr Fitzgerald, but nothing material was elicited.
His Worship (to witness's mother) - "Be quiet, Mrs Thingame. I wish you would keep your tongue and hands quiet."

Mrs Deeble, sworn, stated that Miss Gladwin and herself were at a store in Aberdeen, where they met Mrs Hutchins, who put up her hand to feel some calico, when they both observed a very nice ring, with a bright red stone in it, on Mrs Hutchins's finger. Miss Gladwin blushed, and said to the witness at the time, "That is the ring I have lost." Witness advised her to ask for it, but Miss Gladwin declined doing so, saying that, as she was not friendly with Mrs Hutchins, she would get her father to go to Mrs Hutchins about it in the evening.

The father of the plaintiff substantiated the general tenor of his daughter's evidence, and swore that he saw the ring in question on Mrs Hutchins's finger, and she positively refused to take it off and let him see it. Cross-examined by Mr Fitzgerald - He never slapped Mrs Hutchins in the face. He never broke any windows, nor in any way ill-treated or abused her.
Police-constable Patteson was about to make some statement, when Mr Fitzgerald stopped him, and wished to know if he attended there as an advocate.

His Worship said he had heard quite enough in this case.
Mr Fitzgerald contended that the charge was not sufficiently sustained, the witnesses for the plaintiff being altogether a family affair.
His Worship decided that the charge was proved, and ordered that the defendant restore the ring to Miss Gladwin, or pay 20s for it, and 29s costs of Court.

J Mr Fitzgerald, the solicitor appearing for Mrs Hutchins, represented others on the day. Catherine would have been 35 yrs of age in 1851.

The second newspaper report was provided by Kerri Painter, Hutchins/Paull descendant.