184 " 



RED EIVER EXPLORING EXPEDITION. 



him in performing the duties of his office. All the chief 

 factors of the Company are magistrates, ex officio, and 

 although instances have occurred of a court of magistrates 

 trying cases without a jury, yet in general, and probably 

 at the present day, a jury is always empannelled. 



The reports in the recently established newspaper at 

 Keel Eiver exhibit the mode in which justice is now 

 administered ; and as this is the first instance in which 

 a reporter has enjoyed the opportunity of supplying the 

 Eed Eiver public with a full account of the proceedings 

 of these courts of justice, it possesses an interest apart 

 from and superior to the subjects to which it refers. 



RED RIVER SETTLEMENT, Dec. 28, 1859. 



GENEEAL QUAETEELY COURT. 



A sitting of the above Court took place within the Court House, at the 

 Upper Fort, on Thursday, the 15th instant, before William Mactavish, Esq., 

 Governor; Dr. Bunn, Sheriff; Thos. Sinclair, Esq., Robert McBeath, Esq., 

 and Francois Bruneau, Esq., Chairmen of the several District Courts. The 

 building was crowded throughout the day, and the liveliest interest ap- 

 peared to be taken in the proceedings, which, on the whole, as will be seen 

 from the report, were of an animated character. Mr. James Ross acted as 

 French and Mr. James McKay as Indian interpreter. 



THE EOBBEEY AT THE STONE FOET. 



Catherine Daniel and Mary Daniel, aged respectively 13 and 16, were 

 charged, the former with having stolen two several sums of money from the 

 Stone Fort, the property of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the latter with 

 having received part of the cash at the time, well knowing it to have been 

 stolen. They both pleaded not guilty. 



Margaret Daniel, a still younger girl than either of the prisoners, stated 

 that on the 10th of October Catherine Daniel stole money from the shop 

 at the Lower Fort, which she entered by the window. Witness saw her 

 get through the window, go to the drawer, and take the money out. When 

 she returned, Catherine told witness she had taken £6. Part of the money 

 was spent by Catherine in the shop, and of the balance she gave witness 

 one poimd. Subsequently, Catherine a second time entered the store by 

 the same window, witness being with her. On this occasion Catherine 

 went to the counter drawer and abstracted five £1 notes. The drawer had 



