THE COURT—TODAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7624, 29 May 1888, Page 2

THE COURT—TODAY.

Resident magistrate's court. (Before Messrs C. Haynes and A. Ronnie, J.P.8.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases :—J. Reid and T. Maxwell v. J. Taylor-Claim, L3l9s 6d, for a saddle supplied (Mr Thornton for plaintiff); ' Otago Daily Times' and ' Witness ' Company v. GeorgeGartley, LI 17sGd, for subscriptions due ; same v. John Haigh, LI 13s, for subscriptions due, CITY POLICE COURT, (Before Messrs T. M. Wilkinson and N. Y. A. Wales, J.P.s.) Drunkennjrss.— Ann JancSeah, who was described by the police as incorrigible, there being seventy previous convictions against her, was fined LI, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment; Daniel Simpson, for whom Mr Stuart asked the leniency of the Bench, on the ground that he was a respectable man who had been overtaken by a glass too much, was convicted and discharged, Begging.— Richard Turner alias Mant pleaded guilty to going to Mr R. Wilson's house and begging half-a-crown from Mr E. T. Wilson.—He wAs convicted and discharged. Receiving Stolen Property. —Samuel Webb was charged on remand with having received from Alexander Duguid a yard and a half of tweed, valued at 18s 9d, the property of J. T. Yonng, knowing the same to have been stolen. Dotectivo Henderson prosecuted ; Mr Mouat appeared on behalf of accused, James 1. Young, tailor, Princes street, said that a boy named Alexander Duguid was recently in his employ. He had recently obtained a warrant to search accused's house, and there found a piece of blue coating (produced), the value of which as cut up at present was 30s. That coating was his property.—Detective Henderson : Did you hear anyone plead guilty of stealing this?—Mr Mouat objected; witness could not give evidence as to what ho had heard. —Witness, continuing, said that accused was in his , employ at the same time as Duguid. Witness had two shops ; and Duguid was loft in charge of one of them while the man was away at his meals, There wero about twelve or thirteen yards of this material in the shop, but witness could not say how much of it was missing, as he had not taken stock. Crossexamined : Pie was sure there was no other stuff of the same kind in town. He had 18yds of it in January last from Bing, Harris, and since then had been cutting from the piece whenever he wanted it. He had bought the whole lot that Bing, Harris had. He had accused Webb of robbing him right and left, but had not said that Webb had robbed him of LSOO worth of stuff. Re-examined: The tweed is not a common pattern. Alexander Duguid, the boy recently employed by Mr Young, said that he was convicted in this Court of larceny on Saturday last.—Mr Mouat urged that the confession of an accomplice was inadmissible, and no evidence that the goods had been stolen. The cases and authorities showed that independent evidence must be given that the goods were stolen.—Witness, continuing, said that ho had pleaded guilty on Saturday last to stealing the cloth produced, He stole it a fortnight ago, being asked to do so by accused. Webb came into the shop while witness was there by himself, and asked witness to get him a piece of that tweed, saying that he would come round the back for it. Webb said that he wanted it for a coat. Witness cut off the piece, wrapped it up, and took it to Webb. Webb promised to give witness 2s for doing this, but had not done so. Webb had given witness a pattern of the piece of cloth he wanted. Cross-ex-amined : Witness had confessed to Detective Maddern that he had taken some trimmings, and then, being asked if he had stolen anything else, confessed that he had taken the piece of tweed. Mr Young told witness that he would not be hard on him if he told the truth as to what he had taken. He had been in Mr Young's employ about five months.—Detective Maddern gave evidence a3 to finding the tweed and arresting accused. When the arrest was being made accused said that he had been very foolish, and asked if Mr Young would withdraw the charge against him, to which witness replied that he did not think anything could be done now that the law had been set in motion. Crossexamined : Accused was very nervous when ho spoke to witness; he might have been drinking. When accused said that he would like to see Mr Young, witness replied that he might do so; but after considering the matter he did not go to Mr Young.—Mr Mouat contended that apart from the boy's evidence there was nothing to show that the goods had been stolen—the goods must be proved to have been stolen before they could be proved to have been received ; and, further, there was not sufficient identification of the tweed, as it had not been established that there was no other tweed of the kind in Dunedin. If their Worships thought there was a case to answer, witnesses could be produced to prove that the tweed had been in accused's possession from November last,—The Bench thought that there was a case to answer, and Mr Mouat then called Miss Gibson, step-daughter of accused, who deposed that she carried the weed produced from Leslie, Lane, and Dobie'slast November, and took it home to be made up. She was sure the piece produced was the piece she took home. It had been knocking about the house ever since.— Mr Mouat handed up the tweed to the Bench, and asked them to notice that the piece of tweed had evidently been cut up for some time.—ln cross-examination, witness said that she had at first refused to let the detective in when he called at the house. The tweed was being made up as a long jacket for Miss Webb, and had been in hand since January, Re-examined: The reason witness delayed admitting the detective was that she wished to consult her mother. John Byfield, lineman in the Telegraph Department, said that a fortnight before Christmas he gave accused an order for a suit of clothes, and accused handed him a piece of cloth as a pattern of the stuff from which they wei e to be made.—This pattern was handed up to the Bench, who said that they did not think the pattern was similar to the tweed that had been shown in Court, and would like an expert opi ion on the matter.—W. Absolon Smith, alter comparison, said that the pattern and the tweed submitted to him were evidently of the same stuff; he was satisfied of that, though the pattern was of a slightly different shade, which might be accounted for by its being carried about in a man's pocket.— D. R, Hay said that he was satisfied that the pattern had been cut from the piece of tweed.—J. T. Young, re-called, said that he had two webs of the same pattern, one of a black shade and the other blue, and the pattern had been cut from the black piece while the yard and a-half of tweed alleged to have been stolen was from the blue piece. —S. P. Heaton, warehouseman for Bing, Harris, and Co., gave evidence as to the sale of the cloth to Mr Young. After an inspection of the pieces handed to him, witness gave it a3 his opinion that the small pattern was from the black web, and the larger piece from the blue; but on bringing to Court original cuttings from the pattern books, he said that the sample and the larger piece were the same stuff.—Mr Mouat pointed out that there was nothing against the accused but the evidence of the boy ; and this being so, he submitted that the case for the prosecution must fail.—The Bench said that this was a very suspicious case indeed, but they could not place thorough reliance on the evidence given by the boy ; they were rather disposed to give weight to the girl's evidence. And further, as Mr Young could not say that he had missed the tweed, there was a doubt in the cane, and accused being entitled to the benefit of that doubt, the case would be dismissed.

Accused was further charged with receiving a piece of tweed, valued at 12s 6d, tho property of J. T. Young. Evidence having been given by the prosecutor, the boy Duguid, Detective Maddern, and Miss Gibaon, the Bench said : We are of opinion that this cp.ae haa been proved and inflict a lino of . JMr Mouat said that he had intended to ask their Worships to take into consideration the fact that this man had always burnt a ( ;ood character, The Bench;

No doubt; but this case is much plainer than the other. We are, however, inclined to be lenient, and. therefore fine him 20s, with costs, or a week's imprisonment.