- (Before E. H. Carew, Esq.,'S M.'j Drapery Supply and General Importing Company, Limited -v. Frederick Sidon (of Timaru).—Claim, £3, for goods supplied.— Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default, with Gi coats.
John Hunter v. Louis Spedding.—Claim, £1 lis, on a judgment summons.—Debtor did not appear, and His Worship made an order for the payment of the amount still dup, with costs, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment.
John Warnock v. Adam Brockie.—Claim, £2 3i, on a judgment summons.—An order wa3 made for the piyment of the amount due in week'y instalments, in default four days' imprisonment. J. and T. Christie v. Charles Sparrow.— Claim, £2 5s 9d, on a judgment summons.— After evidence by debtor, His Worship dismissed the case.
New Zealand Electrical and Engineering Company v. Sew Hoy Big Beaeh Gold Mining Company, Limited.—Claim, £25 ss, for machinery supplied. Mr Woodhouse appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Sim for defendants.—After evidence His Worship reserved his decision, CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs G. F. Burgess and W. Farley, J.P.s.) Drunkenness.— Edivard Connor was fined 103 or forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Charges of Theft. James Lyndhursl was charged with the theft, about the 10th iuat., at Musselburgh, of three ducks and one drake, valued at 103, the property of James Johnson. Accused pleaded guilty.— Detective O'Brien stated that Mr Johnson missed the ducks and drake from his yard about the date named. A day or two afterwards he discovered them in the possession of a Chinaman living close by. It was then ascertained that accused had sold them to the Chinaman for ss.—The Bench reserved their decision until hearing other charges against the same youth. James Ker and James Lyndhurst were charged with the theft, about the 17th inst., of a looking glass, valued at 43, the property of John Houston.—The accused pleaded not guilty.—Mr C. M. Mouat defended Ker.— Detective O'Brien explained that the prosecutor was a blacksmith, living near the pound at the Southern Cemetery. He had been using the looking glass for a number of years, having brought it out from the Old Country with him. Latterly he replaced the glass by a more modern one, and removed the old one to a shed at the rear of his house. On Friday evening Plain-clothes Constables Cooney and Boddam received information that suspicious characters were sleeping in the shed at the pound. The I officers went to the place at about two o'clock in the morning, and found the looking glass rolled up in clothes and concealed amongstsome hay. The constables waited there until the afternoon, when Ker came into the shed. As soon as he entered he began to make search amongst the hay at the Bpot where the glass wss concealed. Constable Boddam, who was hiding under the hay, jumped up, and, holding the glass in his hand, said to Ker: "Are you looking for this ?"' He replied "No ; I have come for my clothes." Ker then claimed the clothing which was wrapped round the looking glass. The other accused had been sleeping in the shed with Ker for a week or ten days. The shed was about 25ft by 15ft, and the hay which was stacked in the place almost reached the roof.—Evidence was given by John Houston, Plain-clcthes Constable Boddam, aud Detective O'Brien.—Mr Mouat said that the first time Ker 6aw the looking glass was when he went to the shed on the Saturday afternoon. Counsel pointed out that the shed was opeu to the general public, and submitted that there was no evidence to show that accused stole the glass.—Accused Ker said that he had been rabbiting for about a fortnight. When he came to town he went to the shed and stopped there till Thursday morning. Lyndhurst was also living there. He left his swag at the shed and slept at heme on Thursday and Friday. He went to the pound on Saturday afternoon to get his clothes, when the constables arrested him. One of the officers covered him with a revolver and told him not to move c r ho would shoot. His swag had. been tampered with and his clothes scattered about the place. Further evidence was given by Mrs Ker and Annie Ker.— Lyndhurst had nothing to say.—The Bench gave the accused the benefit of the doubt and dismissed the ca3e. Their Worships held that ib was possible for anyone to visit the shed and place the glas3 there. The same accused were also charged with theft, about the 16:h inst, at Musselburgh, of a clothes wringer, valued at £1 01, the property of James Jago. Mr Mouat appeared for Ker.—Detective O'Brien said : Under the circumstances I ask to withdraw the charge against the accused, as I caunot make the evidence any stronger than in the last case. It is just the same evidence.— Mr Mouat: I have no objection to that course.—The case was withdrawn accordingly. In answer to the Bench, Detective O'Brien stated that Lyndhurst had been twice convicted and discharged for theft, and twice sentenced to one month's imprisonment for horse-stealing and housebreaking. The Bench then inflicted a sentence of three months' incarceration for stealing the ducks and drake.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY. MAGISTRATE'S COURT., Evening Star, Issue 10424, 20 September 1897