
    The People vs. Susan Rankin.
    When there is no evidence rybut the testimony of the and the /nation of the prisoner, the court will leave it to the jury to decide which is entimost Credit and they will dingly. aCC°r"
    
      Grand Larceny.
    
    The prisoner, a young mulatto girl, was indicted for a grand larceny, for stealing from the person of William P° wers, on the 25th of November, 1822, a silver watch.
    It appeared by the testimony of the prosecutor, that he walking along Banker street, and was accosted by the prisoner. She took hold of his watch chain and pulled it _ , , . ,, , , , , , . out. He followed her into a cellar and demanded his waic¡2. She denied that she had it, or had taken it. The prosecutor called the watch, and she was taken into custo(ty> an(^ at confessed she had the watch, and had pawned it at a place in the neighborhood. The officer went with her, and the watch was obtained. She was brought to the police office, examined and committed.— She declared, in her examination, that the prosecutor came into her cellar very drunk} that he lay down in her bed for some considerable time} that he had vomited ■about the floor ; and that he promised to pay her fifty cents for the trouble he gave her, and left his watch with her in pledge for the payment of the money.
    
      There was no other witnesses to the facts, and the case rested upon the testimony of the prosecutor and the exam-. ination of the prisoner.
    M’Ewen, and N. B. Graham, for the prisoner,
    addressed the jury.
    
      Maxwell, District Attorney,
    
    declined.
   By the Court.

“ This case rests upon the testimony of “ the prosecutor himself, and the examination of the prisoner. You, gentlemen of the jury, are to decide whether “ the story told by the prisoner, in her examination, is a “ fabrication or not. The law has allowed the prosecu- “ tor to he a witness, and the law has also allowed the “ examinations of prisoners to be read in evidence in certain “ cases. The court will not decide which party is entitled “ to the greatest weight: because that depends upon the “particular circumstances of each case. The jury are “ the proper judges of the credibility of witnesses. If “ you are satisfied that it is not an invention of the pris- “ oner, but, on the contrary, that the facts actually took' “ place, as she detailed them, in her examination, you “ ought to acquit; if you think they are the mere inven- “ tion of guilt to evade justice, you ought to convict.

“ The prosecutor swears that the watch is worth $30 “ you have a right,-¿to wever, if you should think it of less “value than $25, to find her guilty of petit larceny.”

The jury found her guilty of petit larceny.

Note.—See the case of Deborah Smith, ante, and the note thereto.  