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.


RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) A. Solomon v. F, G. Whetham.— Claim, L 5 ss, on a judgment summons. Mr S. Solomon appeared for plaintiff.—Defendant admitted that judgment had been obtained against him, ho having backed a bill of Lls for Mr E. T. Fricker, and had paid instalments, leaving a balance of L 3 7a due. He intended leaving for England to-day, but could not do so owing ,to the action of Mr Solomon, to whom he bad previously explained the ppsiti,On of his affairs. He had received some LSOO from Home and had been in constant employment, but could not pay the debt at present. Part of the LSOO had gone in paying another person's (Mr Fricker's) liabilities.—Plaintiff said that he did not have in his books any records relating to the transaction, which he considered was not an ordinary business one. Witness furnished particulars as to the paying of the money on a bill of Mr Fricker's which defendant had endorsed. He had received various sums from Mr Fricker and defendant, but the amount now Bued for was still owing.—Defendant said that the amount which Mr Solomon had previously stated was owing was less than the amount now sued for, and ho had forwarded Mr Solomon's statement of the account to Mr Fricker, who was in Melbourne.— Plaintiff said that to the best of his knowledge he had not given the account as mentioned by plaintiff to him.—Defendant said that he had called on Mr Solomon yesterday and said that he intended making arrangements at Home for the paying of the amounts due to his creditors, and had also stated that he would call on Mr Fricker at Melbourne ani arrange about the payment of the present claim. Mr Solomon then told him that he would be the last man to humiliate anybody by taking out a judgment summons against him, and witness therefore understood that he would not take out a judgment summons. His passage had been arranged for by his creditors, because by going Home he would he enabled to settle their accounts.—Mr S. Solomon: Oh ! and I suppose you expeoted a little contribution from this creditor?— Defendant: I did not know that Mr Solomon was in the habit of giving contributions unless it was in the shape of providing testimonials.—Mr Carew: Ido not think that there is any necessity to show feeling over the matter. Defendant has admitted liability to the extent of L 3 7s, and plaintiff now agrees to accept that sum, and by reason of the fact that defendant has admitted that he intends proceeding to England, plaintiff is entitled to an order. It is rather hard that a man should have to pay another's dobts, but I can Bee no ground for refusing an order. .. Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of 1$ 7s, with cobJs (8s), by tomorrow morning* in default foiir days' imprisonment. J. Donnelly v. J; Macdonald.—Claim, 1:1 l4s 6d, on a judgment summons.—Mr Gallaway for plaintiff; Mr Stamper for defendant, who said he carried on business as an insurance agent, but was unable to pay the debt owing to insufficient means. He had made barely 19s per week for some time, and was forced to give up his employment owing to the srhallness of his wage. He could not produce his books, because he only kept memorandum slips.—His Worshipi said that from defendant's statement he was unable to pay the amount claimed. Case dismissed.


(Before His Worship the Mayor and Mr J. Elmer, J.P.) Charge of Larceny.— Rose M'Carthy, a young woman, was charged with stealing, on or about the 16th September, one jacket, four skeins of worsted, a quantity of underclothing, and an umbrella, of the value of LI 17s 6d, the property of Ellen Beck. Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.—The complainant stated that the accused had been recommended to her as an honest girl out of employment. She took her in for a few days, and was taken in in return, as she missed the things enumerated shortly afterwards. The row of beads produced were hers, and were attached to her jacket.— Detective Walker said that, in company with Detective M'Grath, he executed a search warrant on Mrs Hay's house at Roslyn, where the accused was servant. He got her to open her box, and in searching it he found a piece of underclothing which Mrs Beck identified as her property. Mrs Hay asked what witnebs was searching for, and he replied for a beaded jacket principally. Mrs Hay turned to the accused and asked " Where's that black jacket you took the beads off the other night ?" The accused said she did not know. Mrs Hay replied " You bad better find it," and the girl then went to the washhouse and came back with a grey jacket. The prosecutrix Baid that this was not her jacket; hers was a black jacket. Mrs Hay remarked : " Why, Rose, that's my jacket. It was a black jacket you took the beads off." The accused again went away to search for the jacket, but said she was unable to find it. Witness then arrested her. —Mr Fraser asked the Court to dismiss the case. The girl was in a state of nervous excitement consequent on the visit of the police; hence her confused statements to the detectives. She was a respectable young woman, of exceptional character, and had been for four years in tho employ of Mr Burton; and had also beon in the employ of Mr Wilson, of Bing, Harris, and Co. The learned counsel called Thomas Burton, commission agent, who stated that the accused had been in his employ for upwards of three years. They had every confidence in her, and allowed her the whole run of the house. If Bhe had had any inclination for theft his house offered every facility.—The Bench: We are of opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a conviction, therefore we dismiss the case; and in view of the very good character given by Mr Burton we feel quite satisfied that there must be some mistake in this case. , Housebreaking.— James a lad, was charged on remand with breaking into the house of John Graham, Walker street, on the 13th inst., and with stealing a pair of gold earrings, twenty-one cigars, a tin of cocoa, a comb, and a tin of apricots, of the value L3.—Detective Henderson conducted the prosecution; the accused was undefended. The facts shortly stated aro these: Captain Graham is master of the barquentine Ocean Ranger, and, with his wife, arrived here a, little more than a week ago. The accused was known to the mate, and paptain Graham brought him over for a trip from Melbourne and took him up to his bouse. Mr and Mrs Graham went down to the Rattray street wharf on Sunday afternoon and spoke to thelad, who was on the Ocean Ranger. When they returned to their home at 11 p.m. they found thattheplacehad beenenteredand that the articles mentioned had been stolen. A Mrs Templeton, a neighbor, had seen the accused go into Captain Graham's yard. The lad was arrested, and denied to the detectives that he had committed tho robbery ; but admitted to Mrs Graham that he had, and said that he had planted the stolen articles in the hold of the barquentine, where they were subsequently found.— While Mrs Graham was giving her evidence the accused said that he got access to the house through an upstairs window, which was open, and came out through thekitcnen window, which he unfastened.—Mrs Graham said possibly this window might have been open; however, it was I6ft from the ground. —His Worship said that if the window was open and the accused had ontored the house through it the charge would become one of larceny instoad of housebreaking.—Detectivo Henderson: Not at all, your Worships. The law is clear enough: that if a person goes into a shop, allows himself to be locked in and steals goods, unlocks the door and breaks out, he would be guilty of housebreaking, precisely the same as if he broke in,—At the close of the ease Detective Hen-

derson said that both Captain and Mrs Graham regretted the position in which the accused was in, and had communicated with his father, so that he might send the boy's Eaßsage-money over for his return to Melourae if he chose to do so.—The lad persisted in his statement that he got in through the upstairs window, climbing on to the top of the fence by the aid of a box.— Mr Gourley : The Bench are quite satisfied that there is no evidence to show how he got into the house, and they are not very clear that there is sufficient evidence to justify them in committing him for trial for breaking out. Therefore they are going to treat this case as larceay. They convict him for larceny and remand him for sentence for a few days till a report oan be received from the Probation Officer. Seeing that his father has been commnnicated with that, we think, is the best course to take. It is quite evident that neither Captain nor Mrs Graham wish to press the case.—Detective Henderson : Their feeling in the matter is quite the opposite. Of course the police could not compromise the matter when they discovered that this lad had committed the robbery.—The accused was remanded till this day week to enable the Probation Officer to report. StfRAY Cattm,— John Drtimm admitted allowing his horse to Wander at South Dunedin, and this being his first offence he was oonvioted and discharged. Edward O'Neill, for allowing a cow to stray at South Dunedin, was fined Is, without costs.

A charge against Patrick Lee of allowing | a cow to stray on the Town Belt was dismissed. City By-laws,—-An information against Nicholas Griffin of driving a horse and cart over the footpath in William street was dismissed. Peity Thkft.—A charge against Anne Morrison alias Isabella Johnston of stealing, at Caversham, an iron bowl of the value of Is, the property of Thomas M'lntosh, was adjourned for a week.

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

THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8039, 16 October 1889

Word Count

THE COURTS-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8039, 16 October 1889