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.


10 THK EDITOH. Sir,—l have just a few words to say regarding this case. I went to the head of the polico and asked for the possession of my watch, if it were only to have the use of it until the caso was tried, offering to give an indemnity for its production at the Supreme Court, but was met with the reply that, however much they might bo willing to give it me, they had really no power to do so, as they were simply custodians; that the pawnbrokers usually assisted them in cases of this kind ; that it was their interest to do so, but that they had no legal power to retain. Not only was this so, but the inspector was kind enough to go with mo to the clerk of Court, and substantially repeat the same statement to him, and that the proper course for mo to take was the one I did—viz, summon the pawnbroker. With what result? That I have been put to expense uselessly by the very direction cf the police themselves. I need say nothing further, the facts are apparent.—l am. etc., T. N. Wilson. Dunedin, July 30. TO THK EDITOR. Sir,—Magistrates investigating indictable cases should be the judges of what " the owners may want for use in the meantime" (vide Mr Justice Johnston), and make the order of custody accordingly. Too much is left to the police, who in this case seem to retain physical possession of Mr Wilson's watch wholly unjustifiable by law. Both Messrs Wilson and Myers are to be commiserated for the manner they have been led into unnecessary expenses and irritation.— I am, etc., A Justice of the Peace. Dunedin, July 29.

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

WILSON v. MYERS., Evening Star, Issue 7972, 30 July 1889

Word Count

WILSON v. MYERS. Evening Star, Issue 7972, 30 July 1889