Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 6273, 24 December 1881, Page 6

' was dismissed. Mr. order. , tor cos ts against the Browning PP jj; s 'Worship declined to informant, uui By-law.—James McLaughlan , setting fire to rubbish in pleaded g\ £ o bur"-street, without the con'the City Council. Fined 10s and °°SI7KDAV Liquor Trafftc. —William Pierce w.-S charged with supplying beer, at the p," s tilT Hotel, to Edward Flaherty and James Moore, on Sunday, the 11th December Mr. A. E. Whitaker, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Mf. Pardy stated the facts of the case, and called Edward Flaherty, a labourer residing at the JSoi tti Shore, who deposed ths.t he went to tlie hotel, on Sundav, with James Moore and William Forbes, and asked for three drinks. Forbes had come from Auckland, but witness and Moore were residents in the district. Witness and Forbes were supplied with beer and Moore with ruin. Witness paid Is and Mr. Pierce asked for Gd more, but witness said he had not got it. He had only been in the habit of paying 4d for drinks, and Mr. Pierce gave him a smack over the eye, because he would not pay tlie other (id. In cross-examination, witness said Forbes cave him tlie money to pay for the drinks. He owed money to Mr. Pierce before. Ho laid the information, because Mr. Pierce had struck him. His Worship pointed out that it was the constable who laid the information. James Moore, carpenter, residing at the North Shore, gave corroborative evidence. William Forbes also gave evidence. It was witness who called for the drinks, and he gave Flaherty the money to pay for them. For the defence, Mr. Pierce deposed that he only knew the witnesses slightly. He knew Forbes, who ordered the drinks, lived in Auckland. He did not know that Moore lived at Devonport. He thought he livsd at the Lake, where lie was working, and when he served the drinks it was in the belief that they were bona jidc travellers. He had not seen the others when Forbes ordered the drinks. His Worship said he must convict the defendant, but looking at the circumstances, ho would impose a nominal lino of 20s and •93 ts. AN ASSAULT AT TATTERSALLS CLUB.

"WilliamWes'ou was charged with violently assaulting Alfred Stewart Rathbone, by pulling his nose with his hand. Mr. Laishley appeared for the informant, and Mr. A. E. Whitaker for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Laishley opened the case for the prosecution. The informant was, he said, editor of the Observer, and the defendant was a public gambler and a fighting man. Mr. Whitaker objected to such unjustifiable statements as this. It only showed animus.

Mr. Laishley said they were prepared to prove that he wa3 a gambler, and had been convicted.

His W r orship told Mr. Laishley to confine himself to the case, and not introduce auything foreign to the case. Mr. Laishley then referred to the circumstances of the assault which would be detailed in evidence, and urged that the infliction of a fine would be no punishment to the defendant, and that no punishment would reach him but a term of imprisonment.

S. S. Rathbone, the informant-, deposed that on Friday last ho was in Tattersall's room at the Occidental Hotel. He arrived there about S o'clock, and defendant arrived there about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes after. There were about half-a-dozen others present—Messrs. Drake, Lyons, Bloom, Joseph Gallagher, and others. Witness was sitting down conversing with those near him. Drake was alongside. When defendant came to the door he said, " Good evening, Mr. Rathbone, I hope you are quite well, and hope your rag is quite well." Witness replied, and took no further notice, but defendant ■walked up, aud making a grasp at his face, wrung his nose. Defeudant made no remark or complaint, or had given him the smallest notice of liis iutentiou. When he had wrung witness's nose, he told him to put it in the paper, and witness said he would oblige him. He gave defendant no provocation, and defendant gave no indication or warning of his Intention. Witness did not strike him, for he had nothing to strike him with, and from his appearance he thought that nothing would please liim better than to have an opportunity of rolling into him. He was afraid if the defendant was seized with the impulse he might strike him on the stomach or kick him behind, and lie certainly was afraid the assault might be repeated.

Cross-examined: Plaintiff was editor and proprietor of the Observer. There was .1 paragraph stating that Drake, Harris, and Belcher had arrived from the South, that they were the only Southern men with whom it was safe to have any large transactions. Mr Whitaker put in several other paragraphs. Witness did not know-defendant was a fighting man, but he knew he was a gambler, for he had had one gambling transaction with liim. He was therefore a gambler himself. He also made a book 0:1 one occasion. He had had lotteries and drawings connected witia his paper. He refused to answer the question whether he had not drawn a lottery recently, for it might subject him to a criminal prosecution.

His Worship: I do not think you need pursue that subject farther. Air. Kathbone admits that so far as bookmaking and gambling transactions were concerned, the plaintiff and defendaut started fair, except that defendant was the larger operator of the two.

Cross-examination resumed : The usual day of publication of the Observer was Friday, aud he sometimes advertised the contents in other papers. Mr. Whitaker put in a Star containing an advertisement about a sporting man being found in the Auckland Hotel, but Mr. Laisliley objected.

Re-examined : He did not make his living by bookmaking, but he unfortunately had lost a good sum of money to the bookmakers. He put in the notice of the arrival of the three bookmakers, because, as they were advertisers, he thought they were entitled to have their arrival noticed. Weston did not advertise, and therefore got no notice.

His Worship : If Mr. Whitaker adver-

:iiwith you would you think yourself justified in stating that he is the only honest lawyer in town'!

Defendant was questioned as to the other paragraphs put in. The paragraph regarding the Southern bookmakers being unable tosettle up with Lance and Robinson, in consequence of the double victory of Grip, had no special reference to Weston. It might refer to any one of six or seven. He had no malice against Weston, and never wrote anything to intentionally injure or wound him.

William Lyons was called by the plaintiff, but was not examined. In reply to Mr. Whitaker, he said he never heard of Weston being a, fighting man. He considered him a safe bookmaker, but not a gambler. George Belcher deposed that about ten Southern bookmakers had bets on Grip's stables.

To Mr. Whitaker : Mr. "Weston had bets on that stable, and paid over £1000 on settling day. Weston was not a fighting man. This closed the informant's case. Mr. "Whitaker then addressed the Court, admitting that Weston had pulled Rathbone's nose, but pleading justification in consequence of the paragraphs published by the plaintiff | which threw out a slur that defendant was not a safe man to have dealings with. These paragraphs were an annoyance to Mr. Weston, and an injury to his business. He was proceeding to comment on the fact of the publication of the paper being delayed to-day, but Mr. Laishley objected that it had nothing whatever to do with the case. Mr. Whitaker was then about to comment on the general policy of 9' )se rver, but Mr. L.aishley objected. ■tlis Worship said that if that paragraph •was a, justification for pulling Mr. Ratlibone's nose he would have no nose left by this time. Mr. Whitaker said the policy of the Observer had been if Mr. Ratlibone took a dislike to anyone to hound him down, and if possible drive him out of the place. Mr. Laishley objected to such statements.

Mr. W hitaker then roferred to the facts of the assault. It was not an aggravated one, and he submitted that a fine of Is without costs would meet the case. TTia "Worship said the counsel for the prosecution had opened with a very violent attack. To branch out from the occurrence, to call man a gambler, a fighting mailj an j a coward, was sot justified. On the other hand there was nothing in the evidence to iustif'v Mr. Whitaker's statement that the i, at)er was employed to hound the defendant Sown. One of the paragraphs was to his credit, and the evidence ot the informant was given very faiily, so much so indeed, as | *n hp accepted by the defendant s counsel, so that th£e was nothing to justify thi ma de by the counsel on either sWe Tle was not without a The defendant being a betting cause. j-uo , . debts o£ honour, man, and bets a necess ity a character for stauiuiy ; n f erence to carry on his business, Xhe mierence

from the first paragraph was that the defendant was not a Bafe man to have large dealings with, and was in effect injurious to the defendant his business, and the defendant w*as justified in taking it to himself as being likely to preju dice his business. In point of fact, it transpired that Mr. Weston was as good as his fellows, and therefore the accusation was not true. But, on the other hand, the defendant was not justified in taking tlie law into his own hands, and lie would convict the accused, but the difliculty in these cases was what penalty to inflict. He had to deal in this Court with the assault, and not with any feeling of indignity or wounded feelings. It was possible that the assault was committed by the defendant to compel the plaintiff to bring him to this Court, so that his character might be cleared. So far as the sureties of the peace were concerned, there was nothing to show that they weie required. It was more in the nature of insult than an assault. He would treat it as an assault not without some justification, and he would meet the merits of the case J>y fining the defendant- £5 and costs. 1 lie witnesses did not claim any expenses, and the cost 3 were therefore only £4 -Is.

TIIK KORBKKIfctf FKOM MH. NATJIXN. John Ormstein. on remand, was charged with stealing a case of potteil beef, a bag of .sugar, and a box of mustard, valued at £G 2s 9d, tito property of A. li. Nathan. I lie value was reduced to £'), and prisoner pleaded guilty, as lie had done to the previous six cases, which had been heard betore Messrs. Baber and Hurst, justices. After the adjournment for lunch, Mr. B.iber and Mr. Hurst took their seats on the bench with the Resident Magistrate. He was sentenced to a term of nine months for each of the six offences, the sentences to run concurrently, and for the last charge lie was sentenced, by tlie Resident Magistrate, to nine months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with tlie other sentences. KECKIVISfs STOLES' PROPERTY. Richard Best, storekeeper, Hobson-street, was charged with foloniously receiving from John Ormstein, goods to the value of £5 Ss, knowing the same to be stolen. Mr. Pardy reduced the value to £o, so that the Bench might dispose of the ease. Mr. Tyler appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Pardy opened the oase. Tno first witness called was John Ormstein, the prisoner already sentenced. He deposed that till recently he had been storeman for Mr. A. H. Nathan, and knew tlie accused. He came to the store to buy goods in October, and witness referred him to Mr. Nathan. He went to Mr. Nathan and bought some good, and then came to tlie back of the store and asked him to let him have some things cheap. Witness refused. The proposition was made several times, and at last he took the two bags of sugar in witness's absence, and paid him £1 afterwards. Witness was then afraid to tell Mr. Nathan. On Saturday, end of last month, witness took some goods to him. Prior to that prisoner had asked him to liriug some goods, and told him to bring stores. He asked witness if lie had any power to sell. Witness said no, and yet accused knew it was Mr. Nathan s property lie was sending. On the Friday he told him to send two boxes of tea, a box of mustard, and two boxes of sugar, lhe office was not open on Saturday. Mr. Nathan closed his store on Saturday, but witness and Lee were down to take some tea in. Witness got the sugar, mustard, fee., to Eaton's store, and then, after locking the store, obtained a spring cart and delivered the goods to Best, who gave him £2, and told him that would be all right. Witness did not know the wholesale value of the goods. Witness gave him no aecoun-, but gave him the goods, and received the £2. Witness kept the money. He identified the goods before the Court as those he had taken to prisoner and received £2 for. The witness was cross-examined closely as to goods which he delivered on that day, and the ideutity of the goods before the Court which were delivered to the accused. The whole thing was a made-up affair between the witness and the accused. Prisoner had previously asked him whether he had a show to send the things up. Best paid the carter, and then paid the witness. He did not deliver goods to the value of £o IGs and receive a £o-note in pay. and after deducting discount return Is change. It was through prisoner that witness was himself in the dock. He pestered him to get things out of him, and when prisoner stole the sugar witness was afraid to tell Mr. Nathan.

Mr. A. H. Nathan deposed that in consequence of what he had heard he discliargejl his storeman, Ormstein, and went to prisoner's place. He told prisoner that Ormstein had confessed to having stolen goods and sold some to him. Prisoner denied having received any goods from Ormstein, or having any from witness's store. Witness pointed out a box of tea, and cautioned prisoner, but he denied having anything to do with Ormstein. Witness asked him to show the invoice, but prisoner do clined. Witness went to the police station to complain, and got a warrant for the prisoner's apprehension. They found two boxes of tea, sugar, salmon, and an empty box, which he recognised. Prisoner said he had receipts for all that was there, but he failed to produce them, although he produced an old file. The value of the goods wholesale was —the tea, £2 10s ; sugar, 08s; mustard, £1 ; in all, about £5. The accused had on several occasions purchased goods from witness, but little since last April, and not such goods as those before the Court. [The witness was closely examined as to his identification of the goods.] George E. Lee, storeman in the employ of Mr. Nathan, also gave evidence, corroborating what was stated by Ormstein. Pr.or to this prisoner had offered witness os for a bag of sugar. Witness said to him, " You want to get yourself three months, and me six months."

Cross-examined : Witness had never any transactions with the prisoner. Alfred Sindon, licensed expressman, deposed to being employed by Ormstein in the end of November to take goods from Eaton's store. A box of tea he could swear to, for it fell out of the cart, and struck his sore toe. He threw it back. He took them to Best's, and was paid by him. He left Ormstein there with Best. There were five packages in all.

Cross-examined : He could not recollect what the other packages were. James Hendry, of the firm of Hendry and Whitley, and formerly of the firm of Hendry and Dacre, deposed to accused having come to his store ou Thursday, the Sth instant, and wanted a receipt for two boxes of tea and two bags of sugar. Witness had not sold him the goods. Prisoner wanted him to date it back, saying a friend had got into trouble. Witness declined to give him the receipt, saying if he bought the goods lie would give him a receipt dated 1000 years back if he liked.

Cross-examined : Witness had sold prisoner tea and sugar some time before. [He was cross-examined as to whether receipts had been given.] Re-examined : He never had any sugar of the brand before the Court, and never sold a case of mustard to Mr. Best.

Sergeant Gamble also gave evidence as to making a search of accused's house, and finding the tea, sugar, mustard, and other articles before the Court. Prisoner gave no explanation of how he came by the goods, further than that he bought and paid for them.

George Sibbin made a declaration, and was examined. The prisoner had bought some tea from witness iu May, June, and July. Witness had the numbers of the boxes. The boxes did not bear the brands, and was not the tea he bought from witness .

This was the case for the prosecution,

Mr. Tyler then asked that before he addressed the Court the prisoner should be allowed to make a statement.

The prisoner said he had bought the goods at Nathan's store on the Friday before they were delivered. The prices were 19s and 30s and £1 18s for the tea. Ormstein

fetched up the goods in the cart, and asked witness for 2s to pay the carter. He paid Ormstein £5, and Ormstein paid him Is back. The boxes of tea, mustard, and pickles were delivered tiiat (I;'.}', but no sugar was delivered.

Mr. Tyler then addressed the Court, on the evidence, to show that Ormstein's evidence was not corroborated, and, further, there was no evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant. He commented at length on the evidence.

His Worship summed up the evidence, referring to how far the statement of Ormstein was corroborate.!. The great point which convinced him that accused was guilty, was the fact that, when informed that Ormstein was suspected of robbing Mr. Nathan, he denied ever having any dealing at all with Ormstein. He had previous I dealings with Mr. Nathan, and knew that the method in which he obtained these goods I was different from the ordinary method of 1 transacting business.

The further eases against the accused, four in number, were adjourned till next dayl