Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


Thursday, Juke 17, 1880,

(Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.)

ANOTHER LEGEND OF THE BROTHEL. Ann James, wife of Henry Janies, of Ashburton, pled not guilty to the charge that she did on the 11th day of June feloniously steal, take, and carry away three bedsteads, three pairs of palliasses, three flock mattrasses, three bolsters, three toilet tables, three washstands,, two looking glasses, one couch, six cane-seated chairs, four wooden chairs, and two pillows, the whole being of the value of £22, belonging to Joseph Bareira. Sergeant Felton conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. O’Reilly appeared for the defence, and the accused was accommodated with a seat beside her solicitor while the case was proceeding. Joseph Bariera deponed—l am at present a prisoner of the Crown sentenced to three month’s imprisonment under the Vagrant Act. I was formerly living in Havelock street; the furniture now outside the Court is my property. The goods were all right in my house at the time I was arrested. I know Mrs. James. She was engaged to wash the clothes of those in the house. On Thursday, the 10th June, I borrowed L 5 from her, but gave her no receipt. A dress, a silver locket and chain, and a lady’s hat were given in security. The locket was worth L 3 55., the dress L 4 4s. 6d., and the value of the hat 30s. There were also two petticoats valued at 30s. given in security. These things were given to Mrs. James about eight o’clock on the evening of the 10th. The total value of the goods—Llo 10s. —was given as security for the L 5 lent. I owed her about L2 for washing. Nc one was present when she gave me the L 5 cheque. I never authorised the accused, nor anyone else, to take any property whatever. There were a number of girls living in the house with mo— Jessie Davis, Ellen Jack, and Emily Evans. I let the house an.l furniture to Jessie Davis for L 5 a week. She paid me one week’s rent in advance. Emily Evans was left in charge of my things when I was arrested. She was half-a-slcep at the time, and I said, “ Emily, look after the house, and don’t make a fool of yourself.” I went yesterday to Mr. Wm. Davis’ shop in Moore street with Constable Warring. I saw some of my property there, and pointed it out to the constable, and saw him take it to the police station. Since I was taken into custody I never gave any one permission to take possession of the things. The day after I was sentenced I obtained permission from the police to go and get some things from my house, as the clothes ,1 had on when arrested were very old and shabby. I found the house empty. This was on Monday, the 14th June. I then informed the serjeant of police of my loss. I never authorized any one to remove the goods from my house. There was no written agreement between myself and Jessie Davis. It was one week before I was arrested that Jessie Davis paid me the rent in advance. Jessie Davis had no permission to remove the goods of which I left her in possession. The locket and clothes which I gave to Mrs. James belonged to Emily Evans. I had not parted with my property in the goods left with Jessie Davis. 1 made out a list of the goods in the house (list produced, marked D). The list was for the information of Jessie Davis. It was made out when I was arrested. The paper was taken from me by the police. By Mr. O’Reilly—l do not feel any angry feeling towards the accused nor ■would I like to injure her When I bought the goods, the agreement was that I should pay as I could, and at the least Davis was to receive L2 per week. On the 19th March, when I bought the goods, 1 had about L2B on me. The reason I did not pay for the goods altogether was that I had other things to purchase at that time. The document marked E was signed by myself. I paid LB, notwithstanding my agreement to pay only L2. On March 29th I paid L2, on April sth another L2, but cannot swear to all the dates on which I paid him. I know the total amount I paid, although I cannot tell the dates on which 1 paid the separate amounts. When I bought the goods, Emily Evans was not living with me as my wife, and has never lived with me as such. Emily Evans was left in charge when I was arrested, and she gave me leave to give the locket, etc., to the .accused. It was not my property. What was mine was mine, and what was hers was hers. Wo had nothing in common. I was hard up at the time, and I was trying to raise money on the furniture. I offered to give Mrs. James a bill of sale on the furniture for the loan of some money, the amount of which was to be .agreed upon by us. When I box-rowed the L 5, it was agreed that the articles belonging to Emily Evans were to be returned upon repayment of the amount. Emily Evans was in the habit of wearing the things. The bailiff was in the house at the time. The money which I got from Mrs James was for the purpose of paying off the bailiff. I arranged for a further loan from Mrs James on a bill of sale, in case Jessie Davis did not buy the house. Jessie Davis did not buy the house fx’om me. [Emily Evans here entered the Court, and Mr. O’Reilly took occasion to ask witness if the dress and locket which she had on were what had been given to Mrs James, and witness the affirmative.] Emily Evans, who was slightly intoxicated told me, when I asked her for money, that I could take wdiat I liked to give as security. The reason I did not give my trousers as security, was because they were not valuable enough. I was in a hurry at the time to get the bailiff out of the house, as it w-ould be expensive to keep him there. I do not know that Emily Evans ever asked for her things back. My intention was to raise money on the bill of sale and pay back the money to Mrs James which she had lent nxe. I made this arrangement with Mrs James myself. Next day these goods belonging to Emily Evans were to be returned. Mr. O’Reilly here threw down a knife which he had in his hand, and objected to the manner in which his Worship was interrupting and putting constructions on the wutness’ answers. His Worship characterised the conduct of Mr. O’Reilly as most unbecoming and irregular, and for a short space of time there was quite a scene. Witness —The goods were delivered immediately I got tiic bill of sale. Before I could carry out this ax-rangement, I was arrested, and at the time I left Emily Evans in charge of tho place. I am a rogue and vagabond at present. By the Bench—As a matter of fact, I never gave a bill of sale to Mrs. James. hty Mi’. O’Reilly—l arranged with Mx-s. James to get the bill of sale executed next day, but no particular time was mentioned. Emily Evans deponed—l know Joseph Bariera, and have been living in the same house with him in Havelock street, Ashburton. I remember Bariera being taken prisoner about 11.30 last Thursday evening. I have seen the furniture outside the Court in two carts, and recognise it as Bariera’s. It was in his house on the night ho was arrested. Some of my clothes were given that day as security for L 5. The articles were—the dress I have on, a locket which I also wear, a silk handkerchief, and two woollen skirts. The total value of the articles would amount to about L 9 or LlO. Mrs. James receh ed the - goods from about seven or eight on the evening of tho 10th. He did not ask me for tl e goods, and I did not know that Mrs. James had the goods until next morning, when Mrs. James told me. and I sent a cab for tho articles. This was after

Bariera was arrested. I was partly under < the influence of liquor on the night Bariera was arrested. I dou’l remember i seeing Mrs. James that evening. On the following morning Mrs. James me 1 that Bariera said that lie was to give a i bill of sale for the L 5 which she had'leut, i and L2 which was owing to her. I told her to take furniture to the value of L 7. 1 She remarked that she wanted her money. ' She told me she had received my clothes i as security for the L 5 lent. I sent for my clothes, and got them back. The accused, i took, I think, all the goods which are out- ] side the Court. The goods were not mine, ; and I had no authority to dispose of his : goods. When Bariera was arrested he told mo to look after the house. He gave me no authority to deal with bis property. I know Mrs. James. She used to do my washing. She has been at the house several times. I know where she lives, and on the same afternoon that she took the furniture 1 went to the house. She left a few articles in the house—bedding, looking-glasses, and a set of ware. The reason I went to Mrs. James’ was because I had nowhere else to go. She said I could go and stay there as the things wore taken. Mr. Heflbrd took the things away in an express to Mrs. James’. Mrs° James told Heflbrd to take the things to her house. The best part of the things were taken from Mrs. James’ by Mr, Davis on Monday, the 14th. Mrs. James sold the things that Davis took away for L 7. She only sold a part of the goods —those that are in the big dray outside. [List marked F handed in.] I remember searching Mrs. James’ house yesterday in company with Constable Neil, and found three blankets, quilts, a mattress, three bolsters, two lookingglasses, a set of ware and two pillows, belonging to Bariera. They were part of the property taken ( away on the 14th. The mattress was found on the bed in the back room, two bolsters were under the bod, and one was on the bed. Before searching the house, the constable read the warrant to Mrs. James. She said that they would be as safe there as anywhere else. She brought all the things to the constable from a back room. I heard Mrs. James bargain with Davis for the goods for L 9, but he would only give L 7. Mrs. James told Davis that they came from Beriera, that she was to have a bill of sale that morning over all the furniture. Davis took the goods away in an express on Monday, the 14th. The furniture which was taken from Barira’s I value at L 23. The goods left at Mrs. James’ was between L 4 and L 5 worth, which she had over and above the goods sold to Mr. Davis. By Mr. O’Beilly—Mrs. James was acting the part of a friend to me at this time, who was trying to arrange for my return to my husband, and Mrs. James had carried the arrangement so far that it only awaited my consent. She was in communication with my husband at the time I went to stay with her. It was arranged that I would stay with Mrs. James-until I did return. I did not give Bariera any authority to pawn my goods. I was left in charge by him of this furniture, which is now in dispute. I told Mrs James that she might take furniture sufficient to cover Bariera’s amount. 1 understand the furniture which Mrs James took was in security for the L 7 whicn Bariera had lent him by Mrs. James. When Davis took the things away from Mrs. James’ I was staying there. When I went with the constable to Mrs. James’ I did not know that there was anything belonging to Bariera at Mrs. James’ house excepting two pillows. Have stayed at Mrs. James’ since yesterday. I do not remember the accused mentioning anything that had been left by Davis excepting a looking-glass. Mrs. James took me round yesterday morning, showed me the things, and told me I could do as I liked with them. If I wished to give her any of the things I could do so. By the Bench—My things were returned to me before Bariera’s were taken away. Jessie Davis deponed—l know Joseph Bariera and was living in his house at Ashburton. Nelly Jack and Emily Evans were stopping there as well. I remember Bariera being arrested last Thursday night. I arranged to take the house and furniture from Bariera last Thursday week for L 5 per week, and paid a week in advance. Bariera took a list of the things in the house on a piece of lavender-colored paper. I know Mrs James, and she has been employed by mo to do housework. I did not see any money transactions between Bariera and Mrs James, but Mrs James said that Bariera had borrowed L 5 from her. The furniture now out the Court. I left in the house on the Friday morning, but when I came back it was in a cart. Some of my property was taken, but Mrs James returned them-. I never authorised the accused to take the furniture out of the house. By Mr. O’Reilly—The house was let for the express purpose of being carried on as a house of ill-fame. I expect Bariera knew of that intention. Constable Neil deponed to having searched Mrs James’ house in company with Emily Evans, and to finding the goods and furniture in question. The accused showed me a bundle in which she said all Bariera’s goods wmre tied up, but on further search in other parts of the house, I found more of the goods than Mrs James at first pointed out. Mrs James promptly admitted they were Bariera’s. Took the things in M'Farlane’s express to the police station. Constable Warring deponed to having visited Mr. Davis’ shop and to having taken possession of certain goods which Bareira identified in Davis’ presence. These goods were taken to the police station in Cullen’s cart. Davis, when the warrant for search was shown, said at once “All right, proceed.” John Heflbrd, carrier, went to the house in Havelock street on Friday, the 11th, instructed to remove some furniture. The woman, whom he now learned was Emily Evans, was there, and ordered the furniture to go to Mrs James’, where, she said, she was" going to live. Mrs James was present at the time Evans said so. Evans pointed out what was to be taken, and what was to be left, and in answer to Mrs James said some of the goods were her own property. The cartage of the goods has not yet been paid for. I expect Evans to pay me as she engaged me. A messenger came and told me that the woman living in the house in Havelock street wanted some carting done. Bariera, re-called, said ho took the house from Mr. Poyntz, but he believed it was the property of a livery sfablekeeper in Ashburton, whoso name witness did not know, Robert McFarlano, expressman, testified to carting furniture from James’ house to Davis’ shop, and identified the goods outside as a portion of what he took. Mr. O’Beilly contended that no case for larceny could lie against the accused. If a, person took goods as a matter of right, fully believing in her right so to do, so long as there was no felonious intent, no case of larceny could lie. In this case Mis. James had a right to take the things in pursuance of a contract. Money had been paid, and in equity Mrs. James had a right to the goods. His Worship pointed out that the evidence went to show that the contract was only contemplated. Mr. O’Beilly said that the accused was acting under cover of a right which she presumed she had. There was no felonious intent. His Worship said that he would have to ask Mr. O’Beiily to call his evidence, as the accused had attempted to retain illegal possession of certain goods which she hail not shown to Constable Neil, and the constable had only found these articles after further search. Ann James, the accused, after being

cautioned, made the following statement: —I am not guilty of this charge, and had no felonious intent in taking the goods. What I have done was for the purpose of befriending Emily Evans. I told her if she was determined to do right she could come to my place, and bring the things with her until she could get to her husband. The things that I did not show to the constable were what Emily Evans was using at the time. I told her I did not want to keep anything, but she could take away what she liked. The morning the policeman came down, I said “ We’ll see what’s here, and then we will know.” I looked upon the transaction as merely removing from one house to another. There is no one in the Court but what knows I am an honest woman. I would not take anything from anybody. I might say that the things which were in the bedroom were what I bought on Saturday at Bossenburg’s sale, the articles were what he had seized from Bariera. Bariera asked me to keep Emily at my house for the three months while he was in gaol and he would pay me. He said he was very glad I had the things. His Worship, after referring to various authorities, and citing cases, saidhe was convinced there was no felonious intention in the action which accused had taken and dismissed the accused. A FIVE-SHILLING HOUSE. Henry Meharry was charged with illusing a horse, contrary to The Cruelty to Animals Act. Constable Bowse deponed to seeing accused using a horse the day previous with a deformed leg. It had a contracted joint on the near fore leg. The horse was in fair condition. It was not shod. Accused told witness that he had bought the horse some time ago for ss. The horse was lame, and when it treads on a stone the leg turns under. Charles Lake, livery-stable-keeper at Bakaia, deponed that he knew the prisoner, and had seen the horse, which had been sometimes in his stable. The horse is a perfect cripple, and it is cruelty to use it. At some time or other I should imagine the horse had cast its hoof, and that then it had to walk on the pastern joint. By accused —I do not know what the age of the horse is. It is in good condition. I know the animal was sold a few weeks ago. Ido not know that Mr. Hardy had intended to buy it if you had not done so. I think it great cruelty to use the horse. Charles Hassal deponed—l am a horseclipper, and saw the animal yesterday at work, and gave information to the police, as the horse had a diseased hoof. It was cruelty to use the horse. By accused —I am not aware that the horse could bring a ton from the Bakaia. It might have done when it had four good understandings. Accused said that the horse had had a diseased hoof when it was a foal. It had done a good day’s work, and Mr. O’Beilly knew a gentleman who had worked the horse. [Mr. O’Reilly (emphatically)—No, I don’t.] The horse, although bought for 5?., was equally able to do work with a horse worth L2O. His Worship said the conduct of the accused was very blameable, and he should inflict a fine of L 5 and costs ; but it being found out that the accused was insolvent, his Worship ordered him to bo imprisoned for a fortnight, and the horse to he destroyed. Meharry asked to be allowed to try and borrow the amount, a request which his Worship granted.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 115, 19 June 1880

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 115, 19 June 1880

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.