
    Commonwealth vs. Thomas Watson.
    At the trial of an indictment for robbing A. B. of a watch and chain, evidence is admissible that a ring, such as is used to fasten watches to chains, which A. B. could not distinguish from the ring that was on his watch, and which bore the appearance of having been wrenched off, was found in the place where he said he was robbed.
    Indictment for robbing John W. Smith of one watch and one drain. At the trial in the superior court in Suffolk, before Lord, J., Smith testified that on the night of October 30,1871, he was attacked by a number of persons, among whom he thought he saw the defendant; that immediately afterwards he missed his watch and chain; that a chain, which was produced, (and which the defendant admitted was found in his possession on November 2,) was the one which he lost; and that a ring, which was also produced, was so like that which joined his watch and chain together that he could not distinguish it. This ring or “bow,” as it is technically called, and which is usually separable from both watch and chain, had the ends separated and curved, as if by violent wrenching. An officer was allowed, against the objection of the defendant, to testify that early on the morning of October 31 he found this bow at the spot where Smith had told him that he was robbed. There was no evidence except Smith’s testimony as to the resem blance, to show whether the bow was attached to either the watch or chain, or was usually considered by dealers in watches and chains a part of either. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. JL. Eldridge, for the defendant.
    
      O. JR. Train, Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The evidence as to the bow which connected the watch and chain, and the time and place of finding it, was admissible, and tended to corroborate the testimony of Smith.

Exceptions overruled.  