SUPREME COURT-IN CHAMBERS,
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) lie James Hutchings, deceased.—Motion for remuneration to administrator, with Registrar’s report thereon (Messrs Stewart and Holmes).—Order accordingly. Re Adam Borthwick, deceased.-*-Motion for a vesting order (Mr G, Cook).—Order accordingly. Re Francis Joan Hocking, deceased.— Motion for remuneration to executors (Mr Findlay).—Referred to Registrar, Re Mountain Maid Gold Mining Company.—Motion for approval of preparation of schedule (Mr Hoskins).—Order accordingly. Murray v. Liverpool and London and 01-OHE IScstmAKCB COMPAHY, Motion for order that plaintiff make discovery of all documents relating to case (Mr James).— Order aeoordingly. Re Alexander MacLachlan, deceased,— Motion for regrant of probate (Mr Sim). — Order accordingly. Re Catherine Wright, deceased.— Motion for probate (Mr Daniel Stewart). — Order accordingly. Re Jane Ann Sinclair, deceased.— Motion for regrant of letters of administration (Mr Daniel Stewart).—Order accordingly.
CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs W. Hutchison and J. Logan, Justices,)
Drunkenness.— A first offender was convicted and discharged. —Thomas Connor, who was evidently still under the influence of liquor, and, as Sergeant-major fievin suggested, unfit to plead, was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; and on afurther charge of provoking a fight in Maolaggon street was fined L2, in default a month’s imprisonment. By-law Cases.— Patrick Lee was fined 2s fid, without costs, for permitting a cow to wander. For keeping an unregistered clog Daniel Holdenoay was fined Is, and costs; John Macdonald, Is, without costs; Andrew Smith, Is, without costs, a second charge being dismissed ; and charges against Robert Mason and Thomas Martin were dismissed. Larceny as a Bailee.— Daniel Ross was charged that, on the 30tb April, being the bailee of a watch of the value of L 25, the property of Thomas Nesbitt Wilson, he converted the same to his own use, and thereby stole the same. Mr Wilkinson appeared on behalf of accused.—Chief-detective Headerson said that there were eight charges against accused, who was a watchmaker carrying on business In the Arcade. In five out of the eight cases the watches were pledged by himself, and in the other three he employed men to pledge them for him.—Thomas Nesbett Wilson, insurance officer, said that on the Saturday previous to the 30th April he left his watch with accused to be repaired. From week to week witness called to get his watch back, but was put off by the answer that it was not ready, and os a matter of fact he had never got it, accused eventually admitting that it was pawned. Witness went to Myers’s Ballarat Pawn-shop with accused, who produced the pawn-ticket to the pawnbroker, and then gave it to witness for safe custody. Witness laid an information. The watch was a gold hunting lever with monogram on it. The one produced was ids. Accused was advanced ]A 2i on tbo watch. He had on different occasions tendered witness small sums, amounting altogether to IfL fid, towards the redemption of the watch, whicli witness declined to accept.—Samuel Sldel proved the pawning of the watch by accused personally. To Mr Wilkinson : Witness did not question accused as to the ownership of the watch. Accused had pledged watches there on about half a dozen different occasions. Accused wished to release three other watches when he called to pledge tin's particular one, and witness gave him 30s over and above what was necessary to release these other watches.— Mr Hutchison (to witness): How did you suppose it oame about that Ross was pawning a gold watch with another man’s name on it?— Witness : We have a gcod many watches with monograms on them.—Mr Hutchison : Did you think at the time that it was Ross’s watch ?—Witness : No.—Mr Hutchison : What, then, were you doing with it as a pledge ? You knew Ross, and that it was not his own watch. Did yon not regard the pledging as a suspicious affair? Witness: People often bring second-hand watches with monograms on them. We do not always ask questions, unless we have suspicion. J did not regard this as suspicious, because people sometimes sell their pawn tickets, and I supposed ho had bought the watch.—Mr Wilkinson remarked that when a person produced a pawn-ticket he was presumed to be the owner—he was prima facie the owner of the watch.—Mr Hutchison: It seems to me, and 1 cannot help saying so though I do not blame you, as you are not the principal—that the business is not conducted in the way it ought to he to further the ends of justice. Detective Walker having given evidence as to the arrest, accused was committed for trial, Mr Wilkinson intimating that the defence would be reserved,
Seven similar charges were preferred against accused. The first of these was of converting to his own use a watch, value Lls, belonging to Thomas Bell, saddler, the watch being pledged by Ross personally at the Ballarat Fawn Office. In the next case the complainant was John A. M'Nioklo, a student at the University, the watch being valued at L4O. It was pawned at the Ballarat Pawn Shop by one Daniel Lelder, traveller, at the request of accused. Samuel Shiel, being questioned by the Bench, said that when Lieder came with the watch he gave the name of James Brown, He (witness) asked Lieder something about the name on the watch, M'Nickle’s name being inscribed on the dome, and Leider said “It doesn’t matter,” or something to that effect, giving witness to understand that it was not his (Lieder’s) own name that he was giving. In the third case the complainant was Henry James Luscombe, waiter, and the watch (valued at L2) was pledged by Ross himself at the Ballarat Pawn Shop. Thefonrth case charged thelarconyof awatch valued at L2 belonging to David Luke, a blacksmith residing at Anderson Bay. It was pledged at Solomon’s National Pawn Office, Rattray street, by David Chalmers, acting at the request of accused. In the fifth case the informant was Daniel M'Ewan, blacksmith. His watch, valued at LG 10s, was pledged by Chalmers (under instructions from accused) at Marks’s office in Dowling street. In cross-examination by Mr Wilkinson, Chalmers said that though he had signed an acknowledgment for LI ds he had only received LI from the pawnbroker. This was denied by the witness Marks, who. said that he advanced and paid LI ss, and that Chalmers’s statement was an untruth. Case No. 6 charged Ross with the larceny of a watch, chain, and pendant valued at Ll2 10s, the property of John J. M'Laren, commercial traveller. The wateh was pledged at Solomon’s office in Rattray street by accused, who gave the name of Crawford, and the chain and pendant at Mrs Isaacs’s shop in the Arcade, accused in the latter case giving his own name and address. In the seventh case the charge was of the larceny of a watch valued at Lls, the property of William D. Havard, caretaker on the water race. It was pledged at Solomon’s office, Rattray street, by accused personally, who gave the name of M'Kenzie. That was the first transaction between witness and accused.—Committed for trial on each charge. Bail was allowed —in the first case himself in L 25 and two sureties in L 25 each ; in each of the remaining oases himself in L 25, and two sureties in LlO each.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7954, 9 July 1889
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7954, 9 July 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.