MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4717, 28 March 1876, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, March 27. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., E.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.—Mary Maule was fined ss.—Wm. Calder failed to answer his name when called. He appeared in Court later on, but so much under the influence of liquor that his Worship ordered him to be imprisoned for twenty-four hours for contempt.

Rowdy Conduct.—William Finley was brought up charged with having created a disturbance in High street, and breaking a pane of glass in Messrs J. and J. Crothers’ shop window. From the evidence it appeared that prisoner struck a man in the street, knocking him through the window, and that he afterwards challenged several others to fight. Prisoner, in defence, said that he saw two men fighting and separated them, also that one of the men knocked the other through the window, with tho breaking of which ho (prisoner) had nothing to do, A fine of 10s was imposed, and prisoner was also ordered to pay £2, the value of the damage done.

Larceny as a Bailee. —John Hunt was brought up on a charge of this nature. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the defence. Detective Bettington said he arrested prisoner on Friday last, and that when the charge was explained prisoner said he hadn’t Lee’s watch, but had disposed of it. Simon Lee, labourer, Southbridge, said—About March 7 he saw prisoner at Southbridge, Prisoner had a watch for sale, and some time after witness bought it from him. He paid prisoner £2, and was to pay the balance when prisoner wrote to him. At this time the watch was at Petersen’s. Prisoner told him to go and get it from there. He went, but the watch was not at Peterson’s. To the best of his belief the watch produced was the one he bought. Prisoner had no right to dispose of it or take it away from Peterson’s. By the Bench : I had the wateh in my possession a few days before I bought it, but prisoner afterwards broke the glass and said he had sent it to Petersen’s to repair. When I purchased the watch he said he was at Petersen’s. By Mr Williams : Ho did not see the watch in prisoner’s possession after he bought it. Between the time witness saw it and the time he purchased it, the prisoner had taken the watch to Petersen’s. Witness and prisoner had worked together at Bluett’s. Witness did not purchase the wateh the first time he saw it because prisoner did not want to sell it then. Albert Gunderson said ho was assistant at Petersen’s, watchmaker, High street. The watch produced was brought to Petersen’s shop on Feb. 8 and taken away on March 9. He was sure it was brought there on Feb, 8. It was left in the name of John Hunt, and the person who took it away signed his name as John Hunt. By Mr Williams : The same man who left the watch took it away again. Sigismund Cohen, pawnbroker, Colombo street, said he took the watch produced from prisoner in exchange for another one. He sold the watch again on March 15, and he had it in his possession about a week before selling it. He might not have had it quite so long in his possession. Mr Williams submitted that prisoner could not be convicted, as the whole matter simply amounted to a breach of trust. Such cases often occurred, as, for instance, in fraudulent bankruptcy, but they could not be considered as amounting to larceny as a bailee. The prosecutor had never had the watch in his possession after purchasing it. Inspector Feast submitted that the larceny as a bailee occurred when prisoner took the watch from Petersen’s and disposed of it after he had told prosecutor that it was there, and he could get it by calling. Mr Williams said this could not hold good for a moment. The watch had never passed into the possession of prosecutor, and, therefore, no larceny could be committed. It might be a piece of trickery, but nothing more. His Worship said, perhaps taking watch to Petersen’s was with a view to defraud. Mr Williams pointed out that the watch was there when prosecutor bought it. Supposing, however, the watch had not been there at all, the prisoner could not be charged with larceny as a bailee. His Worship ; No, but he could have been charged with obtaining goods by means of false pretences. After some farther argument, Mr Williams requested permission to re-call prosecutor, who, in reply to a question, said prisoner told him that if he did not get the watch at Petersen’s, he was to write to him. It was also understood that prisoner could subsequently have the watch back from witness if he repaid the money. By Inspector Feast: He asked prisoner for the number of the watch and an order to get it, but prisoner declined to give him one, saying that he did not know the number. Prisoner, in defence, said that when be got to Christchurch he found he was short of money to take him where he wanted to go, and thinking that ho had sold the watch too cheap he took it from Petersen’s with the view of selling it and paying prosecutor back his money, which ho had the power to do, as it had been agreed upon that he should have the watch back again whenever he could return the money. His Worship said he was not quite sure that prisoner could have been convicted of larceny if he had kept the watch in his possession, but he had gone straight away and disposed of it. Prisoner would be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. Prisoner asked if the Bench would not impose a fine instead of imprisonment. His Worship said it was not in his power to do so. Complaint against a Pawnbbokke. — Inspector Feast said he wished to draw the attention of the Bench to the conduct of Mr Cohen with respect to purchasing, the watch from Hunt, who had just been convicted of larceny ns a bailee. The disappearance of tho watch from Petersen’s was reported to him on March 12, and on the following day Detective Bettington called upon Mr Oobon, told him of the affair, and entered the number of tho missing watch in his book. Mr Cohen denied having the watch in his shop at the time, and yet he subsequently sold it to a person from Lyttelton, without informing the police of tho watch being taken to him, and when he (Inspector Feast) called upon Mr Cohen after the watch had been traced, tho latter gave him a groat deal of trouble. Other cases of a similar kind had occurred, and it was very necessary that they should bo put a stop to, as if the pawnbrokers could not be relied upon for assistance it would be very difficult to bring many thieves to justice. His Worship said Inspector Feast was quite right, and asked Mr Cohen what he had to say on the ms iter. Mr Cohen stated that the number on che watch was only scratched on the inside of the case, and it quite escaped his notice ; besides which, be might state that prisoner had been to him five or six weeks previously with the watch to exchange, therefore no suspicion entered his mind when ho came the second time with it, and he (Mr Cohen) exchanged it for another watch without tho slightest idea that there was anything wrong. With respect to the trouble given to Inspector Feast when he called about tho watch, he (Mr Cohen) might say that it arose entirely from his mistaking another watch for the one Inspector Feast called about. His* Worship said it was a general thing for jewellers to scratch their num-

ben on the inside of watch cases, and Mr Cohen ought to have known to look for it. Inspector Feast said he would like Detective Bettington to explain what he said to Mr Cohen about the number. His Worship called Detective Bettington, who said that he went to Mr Cohen’s on March 13, reported the loss of the watch, told him the jeweller’s number, and pointed out the exact spot where it was scratched on the inside case. Mr Cohen said he did not remember Detective Bettington pointing out the place where the number was. In reply to a question, he said that the watch was brought to him on the same day it was taken from Petersen’s, March 9, and he sold it it on March 15. Inspector Feast; Then in that case the watch would'be in Mr Cohen’s shop when Detective Bettington called on March 13, and it was not till two days after the latter date that the watch was sold. He did not wish to attribute any dishonest intention to Mr Cohen, but it was very necessary that pawnbrokers should exorcise more care in these matters. His Worship concurred with this, and administered a strong caution to Mr Cohen, pointing oat that if anything of the kind occurred again it would endanger his license as a pawnbroker. Mr Cohen said he was sorry for his oversight with reference to the number of the watch, but asserted that ho had always done the best he could to assist the police, and give them information in suspicious matters coming under his notice ; indeed, it was not long ago that a woman came to him with a gold watch, and thinking there was something wrong about it, he at once sent to the police.

LYTTELTON. (Before W. Donald, Eaq., R.M.) Drunkenness.—Alexander Collins,charged with this offence, was fined 10a. John Durham, who is separated from his wife, was charged by Mary Ann Durham with being drunk and annoying her. The Bench adjourned the case for a week. Civil Cases.—Hardecke v. May; claim, £3 13a 6d. Judgment by default, costs 9s.— Same v. Ray; claim, £3 10s. Judgment by default, costs 9s.

EAIAPOI. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) Cattle Trespass.— Nicholas George was fined 5s and costs 6s 6i, for allowing cattle to wander at large on a public thoroughfare. Width of Tibbs Ordinance. —Frederick Denton was charged with a breach of this Ordinance, for having a waggon with 3-inch tires drawn by five horses. Constable Haldane stated that, according to the Ordinance, the tires should have been five inches wide. He cautioned defendant on March 4 that he was committing a breach of the Ordinance, and told him not to offend again. On March 12, he again saw defendant using the same waggon and tires, and laid an information against him. The constable called a witness who corroborated his statement with regard to the caution. Defendant made a long statement to the effect that he only used the road to Kaiapoi for about three weeks in the year, when drawing his grain to market, and besides paying rates he had paid a special contribution towards metalling the road from his house to the river. His Worship said a breach of the law had been committed after a caution had been given, and defendant would be fined 5s and costs.

Larceny as a Bailee. —Samuel Corrigan was charged that he did while tho bailee of a certain silver watch, the property of Thomas Gibbs, Woodend, dispose of the same, and fraudulently appropriate the proceeds to his own use, George Gibbs said he asked prisoner on March 10 to call at Kangiora for a watch of his, which had been loft with a watchmaker to repair. Prisoner came to him on the following day, and asked him what he would take for the watch. Witness said from £2 to £2 10s. Prisoner then said he had sold the watch to a man named Charles Martin for £1 10s. Some other conversation took place, and witness said if prisoner did not give him back tho watch he would put the case into the hands of the police. He did not think prisoner heard him say so, and he did not put the case in the hands of the police. Witness never authorised prisoner to sell the watch. On Friday last prisoner told him that he would hand back the watch on the following day, or compensate him for it. He_ after-, wards saw the watch in the possession of John Bailey, but would not take it back, as the police had taken the matter in hand. The watch produced was the same. He owed prisoner about £L 5s at the time, or perhaps more. By prisoner: You admitted having sold the watch for 30s. I said 1 would take it back or the value of it. 1 told you some time before that the watchmaker said the watch had a wheel wrong, and was no good, and that I would either sell it or raffle it, and buy a new one. You have been working for John Bailey and myself, and we owe you about £3 10s. That is more than I valued the watch at. Sergeant Morice came to me and asked me about the watch. He also asked me whether I would prosecute you, and I said no I would not. I saw you on Friday last, and you said you would go and get the watch back from Martin. Charles Martin said ho purchased the watch from prisoner in Rangiora. He gave him £1 10s for it, and intended giving it to his little boy. Mrs Martin said the watch was hanging up in her bouse, and was given to John Bailey. H. Greaves, a watchmaker residing at Rangiora, said he gave the watch produced to prisoner, who said be wanted it for Gibbs. The inside of the watch was no good, and worth nothing. The silver case might be worth about five shillings. Sergeant Morioa said he made inquiries about a watch belonging to Gibbs, and being satisfied that a felony had been committed, arrested prisoner and locked him up. After being arrested, prisoner said, “• Who gave you information? Was it Gibbs? I intended to give him back the watch to-night. It is an old Geneva watch, worth about 10s.” By prisoner : When I arrested you, you asked mo If I had a warrant. I said, come on with ms, a warrant is not necessary, I have told you the charge. Gibbs said if the watch was not brought back, he would put it in tho hands of the police. In reply to the usual caution, prisoner said he admitted selling the watch, but he knew from what Gibbs had told him that he (Gibbs) wanted to sell it. He went and told Gibbs what he had done, and said he would either pay for the watch or return it. Gibbs was perfectly satisfied, but for some reason or other the police insisted upon his prosecuting, and forced the matter on to make a case. Gibbs, Bailey, and the prisoner were friends, and worked together, and used many things in common. He might have done wrong by selling the watch in the first instance, but he supposed it was done because he got some drink in Rangiora, John Bailey gave evidence on behalf of the prisoner, and said Gibbs owed him money. It had been agreed that the watch should be returned or paid for, and they owed prisoner more than tho value of it. His Worship said prisoner had no authority to sell the watch, and he did not go straightforwardly after ho had sold it and offer Gibbs tho money. He first began by asking what it was worth. There was a previous conviction against prisoner for a somewhat similar offence, and he would be sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment with hard labour. . „ _ . , Civil Cases —J S. While v. S. P. Andrews; claim, £i3 2s; set-off £7 14s; paid into Court, £5 18s. Judgment for plaintiff for £1 17s and coats,in addition to amount paid in.— W. Fraser v. F. Pearce; claim, £l9 10s, damages sustained by ahorse which had been lent to defendant being brought back and turned into a paddock in a heated state and allowed to get to water, thereby causing its death. Mr Gresson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for defendant. Plaintiff’s case was that he lent defendant a horse to ride to Saltwater Creek, and that on his return to Kaiapoi in the evening he immediately turned it into defendant’s paddock. It had been overridden, and received no food while on the journey, and when turned into the paddock it drank a quantity of cold water and died early next morning. R. W. Smith and E. Feldwick said they saw defendant when he returned with the horse; and it looked to be very warm and showed signs of hard riding. Defendant said be borrowed the horse from plaintiff. He took it oat of the paddock in the morning, and put it into the paddock when he returned. He did not know of the existence of water in the paddock, and the horse was not overi heated. It was a hot, sultry night, [ and he rode the horse very slowly. When at the creek a horse end trap ran

away from Oliver’s Hotel, and he tried to stop it but could not, as the. horse would not go out of a trot. Mrs Oliver corroborated the ffitter part of defendant’s statement, and Jacob Grossman said he came down from Woodend in defendant’s company, and they walked their horses nearly all the way and parted company at Whalebone cottage. Mr Gresson put in a medical certificate showing that Henry Keetley, the person who had opened the horse after death was too ill to attend to give evidence, and it was agreed that his evidence should be taken some other day. Counsel on both sides having addressed the Bench, his Worship adjourned the case for a week to hear Keetley’e evidence. 0. Oram v. J. 0. Boll; claim £l9 10s for rent, and application for defendant to vacate premises occupied by him in Cookson street. Order made for amount to be paid at once, and premises to be given up to the landlord on Friday next, at noon. Quarterly Licensing Court.

(Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M,, 0. Dudley, and J. F. Fletcher, Esqs., Assessors.) Transfer of License.—A transfer of the license of the Junction Hotel, Ohoko, was permanently transferred from J, Lewton to G. Glover on Inspector Barsham’s report that Mr Glover was conducting the house well, and there were no complaints.

Police Reports.—The reports upon the licensed houses in tho district were all of a satisfactory nature. It was stated that the Woodend Hotel, which had been destroyed by fire, was now re-built and opened. It was well furnished, and altogether a superior house.