Mark Hillas stood indicted for feloniously assaulting, &c., one Louisa Rule, at Parramatta, on the 14th May last.

This is a description of case, the evidence given in which we cannot publish; but the following are the circumstances:- The prisoner is a man of some substance at the Hawkesbury, and the prosecutrix one of the daughters of a person named Rule, a surgeon, who, at the time of this transaction, resided with his family at Windsor.  The prisoner had previously been a suitor to Louisa Rule, and a rejected one, but about this period his attentions were renewed and favorably received by the girl and her family.  It appeared that during one of of the prisoner's visits to Windsor, the prosecutrix expressed a wish to see a sister of her's who lived at Parramatta; and he, with the permission of her parents, took her with him in his gig on his return.  It was on this journey that the violence complained of was alleged to have taken place.  The prosecutrix swore that, on the road at Rouse's Hill, near Parramatta, in the evening, the prisoner drove the gig off the road into the adjoining bush - that he then drew a knife, threatening to murder her; that he ultimately by force effected his purpose there, and then regained the road by driving through the bush in another direction, in order, as he said, to avoid passing the White Horse Inn.  She stated also, that upon arriving at Parramatta, the prisoner took her to the house where he resided, and forcibly detained her all night; that he there committed another assault, and that she endeavoured to alarm the house by screaming nearly throughout the night.  On cross-examination, this witness admitted that she made no alarm as they drove along the road towards Parramatta, after the first act of violence, thought they passed several inns and houses; and though they stopped a short time at one house, where she partook of some ginger beer with the prisoner.  She did not tell any one at Parramatta on arriving there - she knew there were Magistrates and constables there, but she made no complaint except to her sister privately, who though it most prudent to say nothing about the matter until she returned to her parents at Windsor.  The only direct testimony, therefore, in support of her statement, was that of her father and mother, who both swore to having seen marks of violence on her person, and the evidence of her sister as to the prosecutrix having told her how she had been treated by the prisoner.  Two other witnesses for the prosecution contradicted some portions of the prosecutrix's statement as to circumstances detailed by her; and one of them, a military surgeon stated at Windsor, who also examined her person, stated that she bore no marks of violence, and directly negatived other facts sworn to by her father as a surgeon, and by her mother as a matron.

The prisoner made a long defence, in the course of which he avowed having frequently taken liberties with the prosecutrix, but always with her own consent, and for some time before that of which she spoke in her evidence.  He denied altogether that there was any truth in her statement about driving into the bush, and regaining the road by another direction; he admitted that she remained all night with him at Parramatta, but it was with her own consent; there was no screaming in the night, and she breakfasted with him in the morning.  After breakfast they went out together arm-in-arm, and walked through Parrammatta towards her sister's, calling at two or three houses on the way; he left her at her sister's, where he parted with her most amicably, telling her that when she desired to return to Windsor, she had only to send a message or note, and he would come and take her up.  He also stated that at one time he had some intention of marrying the prosecutrix, but had given it up on account of circumstances which had come to his knowledge, and others which had passed under his own observation.  The prosecution, he said, was got up to force him to marry her, or to extort money from him.

Several witnesses were then called for the defence.  A person named Bradshaw, of whom Rule rented a tenement at Windsor, adjoining his own residence, deposed to the frequency of the prisoner's visits to the prosecutrix, and of his being left alone with her by her parents, while they drove out in his gig for hours together.  The window of this witness's sitting-room is only twenty-feet in a directly opposite direction from the prosecutrix's bed-room; and in that room he distinctly saw her, with the prisoner, for nearly three hours, one day while her father and mother were out in his gig.  The prosecutrix saw she was observed, and drew the curtain; but the witness was positive they did not come out of the room during the time he stated.  Mrs. Bradshaw corroborated the evidence of her husband.  Mr. Palmer, one of the Magistrates by whom the prisoner was committed, stated, that he examined the place where it was alleged the prisoner drove the gig into the bush, and that there was no way of getting out so as to avoid the ``White Hart" Inn. - There was, in fact, no other way of getting out at all, except the one by which he was alleged to have entered, unless he could drive over a three-rail fence.  Another witness, a labouring man, swore that, on the evening stated, he was returning from his work at sun-down, when he saw the prisoner, with a female, in a gig driving towards Parramatta; when he first saw them they were at a good distance off from him, but coming towards the spot where it was stated the prisoner drove into the bush; he never lost sight of the gig till it descended Rouse's Hill, on the Parramatta side; the gig passed the only place where it could be driven into the bush, and it also passed the ``White Hart" Inn; the witness saw it driven past both those places.  A man named Dunn, and his wife, who inhabited part of a house in which the prisoner had temporary apartments, at Parramatta, stated that he brought a female with him on the night in question; they could not identify her, as she seemed to shun observation, but she made no complaint whatever to either of them, though she had ample opportunity of doing so; she and the prisoner had tea together, and Mrs. Dunn sent for some eggs for them; there was no screaming in the night; the prosecutrix and the prisoner breakfasted together next morning, one of Dunn's children having been sent for some milk and some beef-stakes for them; after breakfast they went out together arm in-arm; the prosecutrix appeared in good health and spirits.  Several other witnesses, who were present in houses at which the prisoner and the prosecutrix called subsequent to the time of the alleged violence had been committed, stated that they seemed on the most familiar terms together, and that she made no complaint.  The last witness called gave direct evidence to impugn the chastity of the prosecutrix.

The learned Judge put the case to the jury as one in which the grossest perjury had been committed either on the one side or on the other.  There was no middle view to be taken of the case - either the witnesses for the prosecution or the witnesses for the defence had committed wilful and corrupt perjury.  His Honor then called the attention of the jury to the statement of the prosecutrix herself, and asked them whether they thought it was consistent with the acting of a modest virtuous young woman under such circumstances?  Would such an one not avail herself of the very first opportunity, even at the risk of her life, to escape, or make her injuries known, in order to bring to justice a man who had treated her, while under his protection, in the manner in which the prosecutrix in this case alleged she had been treated by the prisoner?  But throughout the whole train of the transactions detailed by her, not one witness had been produced to speak of any fact corroborative of her story, but member of her own family - her father, her mother, and a sister. - True it was, that cases such as this must mainly depend upon the testimony of one witness; but then it was for the jury to take the statement of the prosecutrix in connection with her acting, and ask themselves whether they were consistent with each other - whether her conduct subsequent to the violence which she alleged had been committed upon her, was the conduct of a virtuous young woman?  Even resting the case as it had been presented to them on the part of the Crown, His Honor asked the jury whether they could make up their minds to consign the man at the bar to destruction on that evidence?  But it did not rest there.  The prisoner had undertaken to call witnesses to prove that the prosecutrix was wholly unworthy of belief, and that this was a case got up solely from some vindictive motive.  The jury had heard the testimony of those witnesses, and it was for them to decide whether or not they were the witnesses of truth?  His Honor then went through the principal points in the evidence for the defence; and, after making some remarks upon the conduct of the parents of the prosecutrix, in permitting the prisoner to be alone in their house with her for hours, while they drove about the country in his gig - then suffering her to accompany him alone from Windsor to Parramatta, and again calling the attention of the jury to the positive contradiction to the evidence of the father of the girl, by the military surgeon, who had himself been called as a witness of the prosecution - left he case in their hands as one depending entirely upon the credit which they might attach to the witnesses either on the one side or on the other.

The jury, after retiring for a few minutes, pronounced the prisoner - Not Guilty.

The Chief Justice said that, after the verdict, he felt it his bounden duty to order the prosecutrix, her sister, and Mr. and Mrs. Rule to be committed to gaol for conspiracy and perjury.  The parties were taken into custody accordingly.

The prisoner was defended by Mr. Stephen and Mr. Foster; and by Mr. Rowe as his attorney.