MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2298, 5 May 1868, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

;CHRISTCriURCH. Monday, Mai 4. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., E.M.) Larceny as a Bailee.—William Newcombe was charged with this offence. Mr Harper conducted the prosecution, and Mr Garrick the defence. It appeared from the statement of Mr Harper, that the prisoner had mortgaged some cattle to Mr, W. T. L. Tracers, and that he retained possession of them. He was bound by the mortgage not to dispose of the cattle without Mr Travers' permission, The cattle remaining in his possession constituted the prisoner a bailee, W. T. L. Travers stated that he was the person named in the deed produced. There was a clause in the deed which forbade the prisoner's selling or parting with any of the stock. He had never directly or indirectly authorised the prisoner to do so. He had left Canterbury in December last, and had not Been or heard anything of the prisoner since. By Mr Garrick: There was a prior agreement in writing which was the basis of present deed, as far as regarded the purchase money, but the conditions of it were not carried out. I have received several sums of money from the prisontr. £SOO was paid on account of the prior agreement. The purchase money has not been paid. I hare sued prisoner under the deed, but have received nothing, E, Mitchell, auctioneer, Christchurch, stated that prisoner put some cattle in his hands for sale, He sold fifty head. This was iu January last. The beasts were variously branded. Prisoner said that the cattle came from his run in the Nelson province. Witness knowing that he had property there, believed his statement. The apprehending constable stated that he had arrested the prisoner, giving him the usual cauiion, Prisoner replied " Yes, I know that I have sold the cattle and spent the money." Mr Garrick contended that there was no case against the prisoner which could be sent to a jury, as it was not within the meaning of the Act, It was not such a bailment, the infringement of which, would bring the prisoner under the Act as being guilty of felony. There was, in fact, no bailment at all, His Worship said that he had such very serious doubts as to the case coming within the criminal law, that he did not feel justified in committing the prisoner for trial, and should therefore dismiss the information.

Arson.—Luis Berliner, and Betsy Berliner, his wife, were brought up on remand, charged with this offence. Mr Garrick appeared for the prisoners. On the case being called, His Worship stated that he had informed Mr Cowlishaw that he would take bail, provided it was substantial, namely, £250 each. Mr Garrick said that he did not think that so large an amount could be raise I, The prisoners were remanded until Thursday, LYTftiLTON. Monday, Mat i, (Before F. D. Gibson, Esq,, R.M), Assault.—David Hughes, a seaman on board the ship Gainsborough, was charged with striking Percy Earl, the third mate, in the face, on Saturday last, Norman Campbell, a passenger, corroborated the evidence of the complainant, and the accused was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, Insubordination and Rifdsal of Duty. —Henry Scott, William Tayler, Henry Angel, and William Lawson, able seamen, were charged by Captain C. Charlton, with this offence. In reply to questions from the Bench, the men stated that they would not go back to the ship, fhe prisoners were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour,