RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1414, 17 June 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. —Thursday, June 15. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Breaking into a Store. —Walter Neilas was brought up on remand, charged with having broken into the store of Mr. Clellan in Oxford Terrace. It appeared from the evidence, that a quantity of boots and shoes had been stolen from the store, which had been forcibly entered. The property was discovered secreted on the Ricearton Road. Information was forwarded to the police by Mr. Lloyd, who first found the articles ; Sergeant Hanns directed that they should be replaced in the spot where they were found, and a watch was kept over them. Detective M'Elroy was stationed to watch if any one came to remove the goods. He waited on the spot for some hours, and was relieved from this duty by Sergeant M'Alynn. The prisoner came up, and was at once seized by the constable. A struggle ensued between them, and both parties were severely injured in the course of the contest. Finally the prisoner was arrested, and was brought before the Court. On account of the injuries he received from the constable in the execution of his duty, he was unable to j appear before the Bench. This day he was brought up, and the evidence being conclusive as to his guilt, he was committed for trial. Before leaving the Court, his Worship remarked that every credit was due to the police for th® vigilance and energy they had shown in following up the case, and especially to Sergeant M'Mynn, for the courage and skill he had evinced in effecting the arrest of the prisoner, under circumstances of so much difficulty and danger. Friday, June 16. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Larceny.—William Christian and Ann Christian were charged with this offence. Mr. Wilcocks appeared for the prisoners. Sergeant O'Grady deposed: I went to the house of the prisoners in Cashel street on Thursday last, by virtue of the search-warrant produced. The female prisoner was the only occupant of the house at the time. I read the warrant to her, mentioning the goods named therein. She replied that she knew nothing of them. I told her that I must search the house. She then said that she had a dress and a jacket, which had been given to her by Mrs. Lawrance. She took them from a box. (The articles were produced.) She said that th* goods were all that she had, and that they were given to her by Mrs. Lawrance. I searched further and found the purse produced. She said that she had brought it from Sydney with her. I gave the prisoner the usual caution. I asked her where her husband was. She said that he would return shortly. The prisoners keep a hairdresser's shop in Cashel street. I afterwards saw the male prisoner ; he was wearing a waistcoat of which I had a description. He denied having any property which did not belong to him. Mr. Lawrance was present and identified the waistcoat which he was wearing. I told him I must have the waistcoat. He said that his wife had given it to him. Mr. Lawrance identified a silk handkerchief, found upon the prisoner, as his pr-perty. I produce the handkerchief. I arrested both the prisoners and took I liem to the lock-up. Whilst there the male prisoner re-iterated his statement that his wile had given him tiie articles. Cross-examined: The prisoner did not say, when I rend the search-warrant, that I might take anything that belonged to any one else. Mr, Lawrance wan with me when I read the warrant. I asked hint where he lived, in order to implicate them both. By " implicate," I wished to know it the house belonged cither to the male or f male prisoner. His Worship remarked that the explanation of the constable was fitir enough. He had made use of the word " implicate "by a slip of the tongue. Mr. Wilcocks said that'slips of the tongue, on the part of a constable, were dangerous things. By the Court: The purse produced is in the same condition as when I found it. William Lawrance: I am a publican, in the Papanui road, and also at the Heathcote Valley. The female prisoner was a servant in my house; she lived witn us -about three weeks. I believe that she was a nm-ried'woman— at least, she told me that, her husband was at the diggings. 1 never saw the male prisoner. Soon after the prisoner lett my service, some articles were missed. I went with the constable to the house mentioned bv him. I saw some articles, which 1 can swear belonged to my wife. I cannot swear to the purse. A similar one was lost from our house whilst the prisoner was living with us. I identity some of the articles produced. I never gave «ny of the articles' to either of the prisoners. I 8 the exact value of the goods produced. Maiguret Lawrance corroborated the evidence of _ B he identified the purse produced. At tlit time witness lost it, it contained ah 1 note. JJc articlt produced belonged to her; they were worth perhaps Ids. She had never given the pn«onersanyofthe; Cross-examined : The reason why I did not givejn formation earlier, was because I did not know where the female prisoner was to be f° n a nd - r _ "S ocks the male prisoner on our premises. M .

contended that there was no case against the male prisoner. His Worship coincided in this view, and he was discharged. The female prisoner admitted her guilt, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.