It has been published in a Sydney paper, which, during and after the trial, was in the closest touch With the witnesses for the Crown, that it was Madame Ghurka who induced Matthews to tell all she knew about the case. It is also a fact that both were well acquainted with Ross, and both were unfriendly with him, a circumstance which would make discussion natural; and that Matthews had lived at Madame Ghurka’s house from November, 1921, up to the date of the trial, a circumstance which would make discussion easy. It is also a fact that Madame Ghurka and two of her family have shared in the reward, though nothing has ever appeared officially to show what services Madame Ghurka rendered to the police, which entitled her thus to share. We may assume, further, that the reward was not allocated until the views of the police had been ascertained. When we know what Madame Ghurka’s services to the State under this head were, and when we know—what may appear irrelevant, but what is very germane to the matter in hand—why nobody was ever prosecuted for the recent theft of Ivy Matthew’s box of clothing, and when we know why a charge of indecent language laid against Sydney John Harding was precipitately withdrawn when called on in the police court, then we shall know something which has a very close connection with the making of a case against Colin Ross.[3] And if Madame Ghurka gave information (undisclosed) to the police, which they felt entitled her to share in the reward, her information should be considered in the light of the fact that she gave evidence in a recent divorce suit, and was then described by the presiding judge as a “bitter, vindictive woman,” and “the sort of woman who would say anything, whether it was true or false.” [3] Ivy Matthews, in June, 1922, reported that a box of clothing, containing some money which she had ready packed to take to Sydney, had been stolen. It had been called for by a cabman in her absence, and taken away. Some weeks afterwards the box was discovered at the railway station; but about £20 worth of the clothes were missing. That was the last ever heard—publicly—of the matter. In September, 1922, Harding was arrested on a charge of indecent language. When his case was called on next morning at the police court, the prosecuting sergeant said, “The accused has apologised to the constable; the constable is satisfied, and wishes to withdraw the charge.” It was withdrawn accordingly. All offenders do not get so easily out of their troubles, and plain constables are not, as a rule, allowed to withdraw charges for public offences. But no doubt Harding was able to say, “I have done the State some service, and they know it”—with the accent on the “they.” POWERS OF INVENTIVENESS.