LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7799, 19 November 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Thubsdat. [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.] Judgments roe Plaintiffs. — New Zealand Timber Company v. G. B. Hull, £3 2s 4d, costa 34s 6d ; Bell Bros. v. H. O'Brien, £8 li 5d f costa 16s ; Hesketh and Aitken v. £. Jones, £7 14s, costs 37a; T. Bray v. R. Garrett, 30s, costs 21s 6d ; W. 8. Whitley v P. Clark, £8 8* 10d, ooets 375; J. and D. Oxley v. E. Shadgitt, £21 16s 6d, costs £2 13s; G. MoCaul v. J. A. Petherick, jun., £23 17s 10d, coata £4 18s ; J. Wilson v. P. Cork, £116s sd, costs 6s ; W. O'Brien v. P. Jenkins, £14 16s 6d, costs £2 6s; Peel and another r. Mrs. Knight, lie Bd, coste 21s 6d ; same v. A. Ferguson, 13s 3d, costs 21s 6d; T. Cooky v. Singleton, £2 14b lid, costs lie; W. 0. Dennes 7. 0. Purdie, £7 2s, coats £2 Iβ; Nathan and Co, v. S. D. awaineon, £58 8s Bd, costs £5 9a. J. P. Kino v. A. Browning—Claim, £3 6s Bd, u rent of premises which defendant left without giving notice. Mr. G. N. Braseey for plaintiff, and Mr. R. Browning for defendant. J. P. King, plaintiff, stated that defendant rented a house from him, and left in August. Met defendant about middle of June. He said that he might not be able to leave the house for a few days, and he (King) said he could ■top that time. Defendant said he should oertainly. pay the lent. After the expiration of the lease, he found that defendant had been for ten days, or a fortnight, and he (plaintiff) told him he should require a month's notice. Defendant oontinued to occupy the house during August, and paid the rent, £3 6s Sd, to his (plaintiff's) son. The defence was that plaintiff bad said that bo long as the rent was paid defendant could atop as long as he liked. Defendant and Mrs. Browning were examined. Judgment for plaintiff; coste, 30a 6d. L. Moses t. H. Williamson.—Claim, £2 ss. Mr. Barton for plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for defendant. The case was struck out, as a statement had been made by Mr. Barton to Mr. Cooper that the lOU aued upon was given without consideration.

POLICE COURT.— Thursday. [Before Mesim. B. 0. Bawtow and A. Boardman, 1 J.P.'s.] Drunkknnkss.—Four persons tor first offenoee were maloted in the usual penalty, and two men were also fined 10a and costs. Alleged Larohny of Wool. — Martin Oasey, senr., Martin Casey, junr., and Michael Casey were oharged on summons with the larceny of a number of fleeoes of wool, valued at 32e, the property of James Goodfellow, at Dairy Flat, on or about November 8. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the defendants, and pleaded not guilty. From the opening of Sergeant Pratt, the oirounutanoes of the case seemed to be as follows:—The proaeoator was a farmer at Dairy Fiat, and also kept saeep on the run. Amongst the 173 sheep were five of a partioular breed. The run was about two miles away from the farm. The defendants were also farmers, and resided about midway between the run and Mr. Goodfellow's. It had been the custom to •• round" the sheep up every day. The flock was counted on 7th, but on rounding them up on Monday following eight were missing, amongst them being the five of the particular breed. There were no other persons in the distriot with sheep of that breed. The wool was of very fine quality, and also conld be identified by the brands upon it. It was branded with a "D," and also keel marks down the baok. Mr. Goodfellow searched again that day without suooess, but on returning from his search his met the eight missing sheep, within about 200 yards of the run, coming down to the feeding ground. All of them were freshly dipped. He saw the younger Caseys and asked them if they had seen any of hii sheep, but they replied that they had not. Mr. Goodfellow interviewed Casey, sen., on the following day, and he said that his sons bad done all the shearing, and he knew nothing about it except to brand and pack the wool. Hβ then aooompanied Sergeant Gillies to the house, and on examining the bale, after paying 5s for doing so, he found eight fleeces similar to his sheep, and that there were 42 fleeces in all, instead of 32, as stated by Casey. Amongst them was one of the five fleeces. James Goodfellow, farmer, Dairy Flat, deposed that the defendants lived about two and a-half miles away fiom him. He was a breeder of sheep, and had 173 sheep when he "rounded" his flock. On November 8 he counted up 151. There were then nine missing, and after searching for them he returned towards his home, when he met eight of the missing sheep coming on to the feeding ground. The sheep were all newly clipped, and were coming from the direction of the defendants. On the following day he asked Casey, sen., if he bad seen his sheep, and if he (Casey) had clipped any of his flock. Casey said they had clipped five sheep. His sheep were branded "D" on the far side of the rump, and also with tar brand down the back for hoggets, and on the head for ewes. Casey and the Messrs. Wilson were the only other sheepownere in the distriot. Defendant's were branded with a " C," and also a tar brand. There were no other eheep in the distriot like the five he possessed, and which had been brought from Napier. On Thursday, 11th, he accompanied Sergeant Gillies to the defendant's. The sergeant asked to be allowed to examine Casey's bale, but the defendant said he would have to be paid five shillings first for the trouble of unpacking his bale. He paid the money, and on searching the bale found one of the missing fieeoea at the bottom. Defendant first said they had 38 fleeces, and then 40, but there were 42 fleeces in the bale. He also found half a dozen bearing his raddle mark, but he was not positive, so he did not take posesaion. One of his was clipped in the presence of Sergeant Gillies, Mr. Body, and his family. The brand of the fleece was identical with that found in the bale. He aaw the younger Caseys when he was returning from learohing for his sheep, and they said they had not seen any of his jheep. The elder Casey said they had clipped five, sheep on Monday, but his sons had attended to the clipping, and he only branded the sheep and rolled the fleeces up. He valued the fleeces at about 4s each, being the present market quotations, making 32s in all. The witness was cross-examined at great length. Hβ had been only six weeks in the distriot, and had purchased the sheep and farm from Mr. Dodd, but had not brought the five particular sheep from Napier. The five shillings was demanded for the trouble of opening out and repacking the bale. Joseph Body, farmer at Dairy| Flat, deposed that he had considerable experience in sheep, and on Monday last he sheared a sheep for the last witness. It waa a half merino, and was not of the same class as the rest of the flook, the wool being finer in texture. It wan branded with a " D," a raddle mark, and another brand which he could not make out. Thomas Wilson, settler, at the Wade, deposed that the defendant Casey was his neighbour, and kept sheep. Goodfellow and Sergeant Gillies called to inquire if any sheep had passed through his land. Witness's brand was a mark on the right ear, but he did not tar* brand his sheep. Sergeant Gillies deposed to visiting the defendant in company with Goodfellow. The marks on the fleeces found in the bale were identical with the description given by Goodfellow. After going over the whole of Casey's farm, they could only find 32 sheep branded as desoribed by defendant, while there were 42 fleeoes in the bale. At the next farm, Mr. Wilson's, the eheep were "rounded up," aud none of Mr. Good fellow's were amongst his flook. The fleece shorn from the remaining particular sheep was left in his bedroom during his absence at the Wade. It was the fleece produced in Court, and similar in texture to that found in the bale. Cross-examined: Goodfellow, h* be* lieved, said that " If you find a particular brand or mark in the bale, it was the missing fleece." The fleeces appearedito be baled in the same manner. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Cotter contended that there was no case against the younger Caeeys. The Bench said there was no evidence against Michael Casey, and he was discharged. Mr. Cotter continued to contend that there was eo case against Martin Casey, jun., and that he should also be discharged. The Bench replied that they would hear the evidenoe for the defence before deciding the point Counsel for the defence argued that the ruling should be stated first. Mr. Cotter asked to have a note taken of his objection. Mr. Goodfellow was recalled, and said at the time he met the young Casey* he had not miseed his sheep, and they {the Caseys) asked him if any of their sheep were aboet. Mr. Cotter then addressed the Benoh for the defenoe, submitting that the evidence failed to show the elements of felony in the action of the defendants, and -that the fleece had gQt shorn and packed in the bale through the sheep becoming mixed upon the run. Martin Casey, deposed that he had been a settler at the Wade, bat

was now residing on hie son Martin's farm for three montbe. He did not own any of the sheep on the farm. Me was present when Sergeant Gillies counted the sheep, and pointed out that there were other sheep behind the wood, but the sergeant did not go to find them. There were 40 fleeces in the bale, but in counting them some of them had been counted as two, when really one, and he protested at the time The property was Iα his son's name. Martin Caaey, jun., deposed that he did not shear the sheep, and at no time did he shear sheep that did not belong to hia flock. When they met Goodfellow they asked him if he had seen any of his lambs or sheep. Michael Casey deposed that he assisted to shear the sheep. Thirty. two were ehorn on Saturday, and five on Monday, bat they were all branded with their earmarks, &o. Patrick Casey, who also assisted at the shearing, was called. Jamea Dodd was called for the defence, and stated that he sold his property to Mr. Goodfellow, bat declined to say whether he had oomplained of his aheep being shorn and branded for him. fie had spoken to Casey, sen., but did not blame him, aa his sheep had got mixed up. In cross-examina-tion the witness admitted that the loss of his sheep had caused him to leave the district, The bench said they had no doubt that.the fleece found in the bale belonged to Goodfellow, but as a doubt has been raised, through no felonious intent being shown, the oase was dismissed. Alleged Larobny. — George Camwell (17), Edward Lavery (18), and Frank Doran (19) were charged with stealing a watch and chain, valued at £2 10s, and £5 10s in coin from the person of Thomas Kennedy. Mr. Keetloy appeared for Camwell, and Mr. Blaydes for Doran. Remanded till Monday and bail granted, jthe accused each in one surety of £20. Pbttt Larceny..—William Calvert (12), W. Evans (15), Robert Johnson (12), Fred Murphy (15), George Jaokson (15)— five lads of the larrikin class—were charged with stealing a pair of boots, valued at 9s, property of Fred Moore. Calvert pleaded guilty. The oase was put to the foot of the list, on account of a witness not being in attendance. From the evidence, it seemed that the aooused had roamed along Karangahape Road between two and three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, fingering the goods displayed for sale at various shop doors. First they tried hats on at Mr. Williams', where one of the accused put one on, but had it knocked off. They then turned over some boots at the adjoining shop, and resorted to hats again at Mr. Caughey's and Mr. Gilmour's, and then went along to Mr. Warren's, where they turned over a number of tins of salmon, «tc. After purchasing lollies in another shop they hied back along the street, calling at Mr. Moore's, where a pair of boots was made off with, and the accused were subsequently chased and oanght in Pitt-street George Cornish and Fred Moore were examined. The latter expressed a wish not to press the charge against Calvert, as there was a temptation in the goods being exposed for sale. The Bench. remarked that the Resident Magistrate in Christohuroh had made it a rule not to convict in cases where the goods had been exposed outside the shop doors. The parents of all the lads were in Court, and promised to see that they were kept under control in future, with the exception of Calvert, who had been convicted before, and his father said he had lost all control of him. The Bench said although they could not order the parents to chastise their sons, they hoped they would do so, and ordered the convictions to be recorded, and the lads were discharged, except Calvert. He was remanded till next day (Friday) in order that he might be brought before the Resident Magistrate, and an application made in his behalf.