BATT — COSSART.
The marriage of Mr. Henry Batt (second son of Mr. and Mrs. Batt, Wooloowin) and Miss Ethel Maud Cossart (second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. J. Cossart, New Farm), was celetrated on Wednesday afternoon, at the Valley Methodist Church, the Rev. W. Powell officiating. The church had been prettily decorated by several of the bride's girl friends. Arches of greenery and white flowers were arranged down the aisle, and a larger arch, from which was suspended a wedding bell, was erected immediately over the bridal party.
The bride, who was given away by her father, wore a beautiful gown of rich ivery white crepe de chine, mounted on a flowing underskirt of taffeta silk, gracefully draped in scarf effect, and weighted at intervals with pearl fringer, the pretty bodice swathed and adorned with lovely dentelle lace, long flowing trains, caught with orange blossom trails, inlet with ropes of seed pearls. A wreath of orange blossoms was worn under an embroidered tulle veil, and she carried a shower bouquet, which, with her jewelled pendant was the gift of the bridegroom.
She was attended by three bridesmaids, Miss Beatrice Cossart (chief) and the Misses Ruby Cossart and L. Batt. Miss Cossart wore a pretty gown of plush pink shantung silk, designed in cuirasse fashion, the pretty bodice inlet with handsome white and gold Brussels applique; skirt falling prettily, and arranged in tiny points, outlined with soutache, in the same shade; hat of pink slik crin in early Victoria shape, the high crown outlined with kiltings of tulle, threaded with sprays of pink boronia. Younger maids were frocked alike in dainty gowns of white silk and lace, with early Victorian bonnets of white crin, ornamented with kilings of lace and clusters of pink daisies, with streamers of merv ribbon. They carried bouqets, and wore gold brooches, the gift of the bridegroom, Mr. Norman C. Cossart supported the bridegroom. After the ceremony the guests assembled at the Café Eschenhagen, where the wedding teas was served.
Mrs. Cossart (mother of the bride) was in a handsome gown of black equal striped silk, deperse luise, over a foundation of satin charmeuse, in princess mode, the bodice finely swathed in deep points to waist, and inlet with beautiful silk point d'angleterre lace ; smart toque of black satin straw, with trails of blue bells and jetted mephisto mount. Mrs Batt (mother of the bridegroom) wore a beautyful gown of black eolienne, relieved with guipure; black bonnet, with touches of lilac. Mrs Cossart (aunt of the bride), gown of black silk with vest of vak lace ; black picture hat.
Mrs A. L. Cossart (Gatton), white mousseline in directoire style, inserted with panels of lace; black plumed hat. Mrs W. Batt, white muslin, inlet with embroidery; floral hat, Miss F. Batt, gown of mauve eolienne, softened with lace; floral hat in same shade. There also were present Mr. Mrs. Sheldon, Mrs. and Miss Baltrop, Mr. and Mrs. Robertson, the Rev. and Misses Powell, Misses Berry, Robinson, Clarkson, Toop, Caldwell, Day, N. Cossart, Messrs Batt, Hoelscher, Merritt, Shields, and others. Later Mr. and Mrs. H. Batt left for the wedding tour, the latter wearing a gown of dove-grey defaconne, in the cuirasse style, the soft flowing skirt being tucked at intervals, and showing tiny lines of silk braiding : hat of saxe blue crin, with cluster of pink roses.

(Before Messrs. F. W. Galloway, W. Thorn and A. Munro, JJ.P.
Child Desertion Jane Simpson sued Henry Cossart for deserting his illegitimate child. Defendant denied paternity.
Mr Boyce (Hamilton & Wonderley) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Eden for defendant.
Evidence was given in support of the charge by the complainant, her mother Jane Simpson, senr., Minnie. Mengel, William Simpson and William Hoffmann. For the defence, evidence was given by Henry Cossart, George Gossart and Sarah Cossart, Eliza Jane Sims, and James Ghee.
Mr Eden addressed the (Bench on behalf of his client and Mr Boyce for the plaintiff after which the Bench found the defendant guilty,and adjudged him to pay 5s per-week for 12 months and find one surety of £25 or two sureties of £12 10s. First payment to be forthwith. Witnesses expenses, £2 3s ; professional costs, £2 2s; costs of Court, 7s 4d ; total, £4 12s 4d.
Last Thursday this case was before the Court and was dismissed.

PERJURY.
Henry Cossart was charged with having committed perjury on the 21st January, 1896.

Mr Dickson prosecuted for the Crown and Mr A. Feez instructed by Mr C. S Eden, appeared for the defence.

The following jury was empanelled:- R. Lendrum, John Williams, M. Sheppard, J. C. McLay, G. L. Golden, Michael Horn, A. B. Postle, H. Reissen, D. Boland, J. Gorman, F. H. Chamberlain, John Hill. Frederick William Galloway, a Justice of the Peace, deposed, he knew Henry Cossart and Jane Simpson ; was present at the hearing of a case on 21st January at the Court House, Toowoomba he produced the complaint signed by Jane Simpson (complaint tendered); the other Justice; sitting were Wm. Thorn and Archibald Munro; Jane Simpson gave evidence, and afterwards defendant gave evidence on his own behalf; he was sworn on the Bible by myself; the evidence was written down by myself; he signed his depositions; (deposition tendered and marked Exhibit B.) By Mr. Feez: Every word taken down was not put in; his evidence was taken in his own words, as nearly as possible ; a number of witness corroborated his statement that he was not in Miss Simpson's company on the night of the 24th February.

By Mr. Dickson: Defendant swore positively the statement made in the indictment. Jane Simpson deposed she knew the defendant for about the last four years; have been on intimate terms with defendant up to 3rd April last year; the defendant is father of my child ; used to walk out with him at night; only once or twice since 24th February ; frequently before that date ; we were keeping company for nearly four years, sued him in the court for the maintenance of the child born on the 30th November, 1895 ; walked out at night with the defendant frequently about the 24th February ; saw defendant at my mother's house on the 3rd of April ; my mother was present, she saw defendant first ; a conversation took place; defendant said he was not in a position to marry as he had a debt on his property.

By Mr Feez: The case first came before the Police Magistrate and the case was dismissed; the case was afterwards tried before three magistrates ; met the defendant on the 24th February when coming from church ; was at the Congregational church ; he first spoke to me near Spring Hill; my mother wrote a letter to defendant ; don't know what was in the letter; told my mother my state the day my mother wrote the letter; my mother met defendant at the gate about twenty yards from the house; my mother sent me out and I spoke to him ; accused him of being the father of the child; he did not deny it; did not see him afterwards ; did not think it was my place to see him ; on the first examination I said he admitted he was the father"; on the second occasion I said he never denied he was the father"; think both statements mean the same; could not say what time she got home on the night of the 24th; was in the defendant's company on Christmas Eve of 1894; when my mother told me the defendant wanted to see me she came, out with me; we stood at the gate; my mother was standing with us; she left before I did ; there was nothing fresh said after she left ; she asked afterwards what was said as she didn't hear; she asked me what he said about '' property" and " money"; my mother was not in the house ; she could not have been a yard away ; she stopped about five minutes; she was in before me about a minute.

By Mr, Dickson : The defendant on the night of the 24th said he was either going to Bruce's or coming from Bruce's; don't remember which ; on the 27th February I met defendant at night on the Highfields road. To His Honor: It was not by appointment; he overtook me coming from town; it was between nine and ten o'clock. By Mr Dickson: I say it is true that I met him on the 24th December, 1894; brought three witnesses to prove it. At previous examination I was going to say that he told me he was either "going to or coming from Bruce's " when I was stopped by Mr .Eden.

Jane Simpson senr, deposed ; She was the mother of the last witness and lived on the Highfields Road; have known the defendant particularly for the last three or four years; sent for defendant on 3rd April; he came to my gate about eight o'clock in the evening ; saw him at the gale and he asked for my daughter ; he whistled when he came to the gate; said to him "It was not my daughter who sent for you it was me " ; (detailed the conversation that took place); sent my daughter out and followed her out; my daughter said I could go inside ; I did not go; believe they thought I was gone; they turned their backs to me; heard Cossart say he had a little debt on his property and was not quite prepared to marry yet; the next thing I heard was something about a doctor and money; went away and my daughter came in a few minutes after; had a conversation with my daughter. By Mr Feez: The house is about twenty one yards from the gate; saw it measured; when I sent my daughter out I followed her out ; the night was not too dark , did not go inside when my daughter told me ; asked her afterwards what he said; they were talking loud enough for me to hear; they were talking when I left; went in with vexation.

By Mr Dickson : Have often seen defendant and my daughter walking together at night ; saw them about February; they had been keeping company for about three years. By Mr Feez: Saw them on the night of 24th February; never said so before because I was not asked; remember it because my husband went away on the Tuesday following, which was the 26th. ; it was nearly ten o'clock when I saw them. Jane Simpson recalled said that on the 24th February Cossart went with her up to their gate.

William Simpson deposed he was a cousin to Jane Simpson ; saw defendant and Jane Simpson on Christmas Eve, 1894, and have seen them walking together at night since ; have seen them between nine and ten o'clock at night; the last time I saw them was about the middle of the year ; saw them together more than once at night. Minnie Mengle gave corroborative evidence as to having seen Jane Simpson and Cossart walking together at night up to the date she left Highfields in January or February.

By Mr Feez: We did not leave Highfields Road in December, 1894; am a great friend of Jane Simpson.

By Mr Dickson: Was living at Highfields on Christmas Eve, 1894. William Hoffmann corroborated the evidence that Miss Simpson and Cossart had been walking together, but could not say when he last saw them.
This concluded the case for the Crown.Mr Feez submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, but he was overruled by His Honor.

For the defence :
George Cossart deposed: He lived in Toowoomba and was a brother of the defendant; knew Jane Simpson for about five years; he and his brother lived together; remembered 24th February; Miss Thursby was staying at his place on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday before ; she was not there on the 24th ; on the 23rd she went to stay at Bruce's ; on the 24th myself and brother left home about 7 o'clock in the evening in company with my sister ; went to the Salvation Army barracks ; reached there about 7 30 p.m; came out about 8.45 p.m.; met outside my sister, Agnes Thursby, and Janet Bruce ; we talked a few minutes ; my brother and I left with Miss Thursby and Janet Bruce; we went to the junction of Margaret and Lindsay streets; we talked a few minutes and my brother and I left and went home by the back way: we reached home about 10 o'clock ; after a little talk we went to bed; my sister was home and up when we reached home ; my sister went home by herself ; my brother and I went to bed together.

By Mr. Dickson : We went home the back way because it was our ordinary course ; have gone the other way ; am certain that I went home that way; pick that date on account of Miss Thursby having been present; the Salvation Army comes out at all times ; guessed the time was about 10 o'clock ; our place is about a quarter of a mile from Simpson's; my brother would tell me if he was keeping company with Miss Simpson; have not seen him with her. To His Honor; Did not always go home with my brother ; have not seen anyone walking with Miss Simpson; cannot say where my brother was on the 27th. Sarah Cossart deposed she was a sister of the defendant; she kept house for her brothers. Miss Cossart corroborated the evidence of her brother as to the movements of her brothers and herself on the evening of the 24th February, 1895 ; she never knew her brother was intimate with Jane Simpson ; saw them together only once in February, when Jane Simpson came to invite them to another person's house. By Mr. Dickson : Began to recollect about the "24th February. 1895," when the case came on in January of this year; don't remember the day of the month nor the day of the week of the case; can remember the 24th of February, 1894, because of Miss, Thursby's visit; if my brother, the defendant, said that "I and my brother, told him about where he was on the 24th it would be because we had tried to remember together ; would remember him coming home that night because of the fact of my going away next morning; have not a very good memory as to dates.

By Mr Feez: It was after hearing that Miss Simpson had fixed a date that we talked the matter over and remembered the circumstances.

By His Honor: I gave evidence in the second case on the 21st January ; we discussed the matter between the two hearings and I then remembered the date; knew the time by Miss Thursby's visit; never saw my brother talking to Miss Simpson.

Miss Cossart's evidence respecting the movements of the Messrs Cossart and Miss Cossart was corroborated by three young women, but being a repetition of that given by Miss Cossart it is needless to reproduce it.

That closed the case for the defence.

Mr. Feez made an impassioned appeal to the jury, asserting that the Grown had not proved their case as it should be proved in such a serious charge, and further that the balance of the corroborative evidence was in favour of the defendant. The learned Council terminate a strong appeal to the jury, which lasted for half an hour, by asking the jury to bring in a verdict of " not guilty."

In summing up his Honnor asked the jury to put aside all sentiment either on the one side or the other, and to give a verdict on the evidence which was placed before them. He then proceeded to put the material issues of the question before the jury dealing individually with the specific allegations set forth in the indictment. His Honor continued to sum up the evidence in the main very strongly against the defendant. At four o'clock the jury retired to consider their verdict.

At the request of Mr Feez His Honor brought the jury again into Court, and charged them on the question of the 'corroboration of Jane Simpson's evidence as to the events of the night of the 24th February, 1895. He said if they believed the evidence of the mother that Cossart came and discussed the question with the mother, that would be some corroborative evidence of Jane Simpson's evidence, and there was again the evidence of Mrs Simpson that she saw the defendant that night at the gate, that would be direct corroborative evidence. If they believed there was corroborative evidence it would be their duty to find defendant guilty. If they had any doubt it was their duty to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt.

At six o'clock the jury returned into Court, and in reply to the question as to their verdict said that they found the defendant guilty.

Mr Eden applied for an extension of the First Offenders Probation Act.

His Honour, addressing the prisoner, said the jury had found him guilty, and he did not think that as men of the world the jury could have come to any other conclusion than they had come to. They had found the prisoner guilty on three out of the six charges of perjury. The law said that perjury was an offence. The law said that if a man kissed the Bible and stated what was false he was liable to a penalty of seven years penal servitude. In his opinion there were different classes of perjury. There was the perjury by which one man tried to injure another, and there was the perjury by which a man defending himself had a strong motive to defeat the law. This case was the latter form of perjury. It a man swore falsely against another man in order to convict him he deserved the highest penalty of the law, as he was injuring a fellow being. There was a law passed lately by which a prisoner was allowed to give evidence on his own behalf, and in nearly every case in which a charge of perjury had been brought against a man who had given evidence on his own behalf he had been found guilty.

The law gave a man the temptation to try to save himself from goal by giving evidence on his own behalf. Most men availed themselves of that and failed. The prisoner had attempted to evade supporting a child that was evidently his own. He had done that by perjury and had failed. The witnesses who had given evidence for the defence, had, he believed stated what they believed to be perfectly true. The prisoner had borne a good character in the past but the offence was a very serious one and did not admit of the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act. He would be as lenient as possible. He agreed with the verdict of the jury and was satisfied the past character of the prisoner was a good one. He would deal leniently with him and would sentence him to six months imprisonment in Brisbane Gaol.