LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10126, 8 May 1896, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. -Thursday. [IWore Mr. H. W. Northcro/t, S.M.I

Undefended Cases.—ln tint following cases jndginent was entered for plaintiff with costa:—Hancock and Co. (Mr. Battley) v. T. Brough, claim £2, costs 14s ; School Commissioners (Mr. BrookBeld) v. W. Morgan, claim £16 10s, costs £2 13* lid; Paterson mid Co, (Mr. Burton) v. To lion, claim £2 10s, costs 169; J. L. Campbell (Mr. Hauna) v. G. H. Gilding, claim £21 -Is '.Id, costa £3 Is: J. Burns and Co. (Mr. Reed) v. J. W. McDuff. claim £32 7s 9d, costs £3 Is; Inspector of Stock v. W. Paul, chum 3-), costs 9i; J. Butcher (Mr Jackson) v. 12. C. Murray, claim £51, costs £4 9a (3d ; J. Burns mid Co, (Mr. Reed) v. J. el ton, claim £59 !9s 6d, costs £'4 9s 61; J. Buchanan v. A. J. Maickie, claim £15 19s, costs £1 Is; J. Buchanan v. A. W. Moselcu, claim £34 13s. costs £1 10s.

A. Stewart v. French.— £1 18s 6d, rent due. Defendant submitted that but £1 3s was the amount owing. Judgment was enterod for plaintiff for amount claimed with 6s costs.

N. McMillan v. J. Gilmqre.— was a claim for £3 12h lOd as rent due. The defendant stated lie had not taken the house on the date which would make him liable for the amount claimed. Judgment was given for plaintiff lor the amount sued for, and 7s costs were allowed

C. VV. Hassettv. J. Macpukkson. -Claim os, in lieu one week's notice, After hearing the evidence plaintiff was non-suited. C. Phillips v. B. Maxwell.—Plaintiff claimed delivery of a sold ring set with sapphires, or its value £15. Dr. Laishley, instructed by Mr. Napier, appeared for the plaintiff, mid Mr. Rtume for defendant. Dr. Laishley state! in his opening that the ring in question was given to Miss Phillips six years ago, when she was barmaid at the Pier lintel. Two years later her initials. "CM.P.," were engraved on the inside, and shortly afterwards thw box in which the ring was kept wan broken into, and the article stolen. Miss Phillips next saw the ring about two months since in the Metropolitan Hotel, where she was emuloyed as a barmaid. It was then being worn by the defendant, Miss Maxwell, who was also a barmaid in the sumo hotel. Miss Phillips recognised her property, and asked the wearer for it, but the latter replied that a man had given it to her to keep, and therefore she could not. Counsel said that man was named Harvey, and was at present at the Coslley Home, and ho had stated that lie nicked the ring up in the United Service Hotel, and had given it to Miss Maxwell as stated. Being unable to regain possession of her ring, Miss Phillips had taken the present proceedings. Charlotte Margaret Phillips, stated she was a barmaid at the Metropolitan Hotel, and that the ring in question was presented to her six years ago, whiln she was engaged at the Pier Hotel. Two yoars later hor initials "CM. P." were engraved iuside the ring. .Shortly af tor that, it was stolen and the next time witness saw it was on Miss Maxwell's linger, about three months ago, in the Metropolitan Hotel, where Mis* Maxwell was also employed. Alias Maxwell allowed witness to look at the ring, and she (witness) recognised it as her property, and related how she had lost it. She asked Miss Maxwell to give it to her, but the latter replied that it could not belong to witness, as a gentleman had given it to her (M iss Maxwell). Witness know the ring "by its peculiar make, and the initials. Wlion she could not get? possession of the article, she communicatee! with Detective Chrystal, and subsequently saw the ring in bis possession, and again identified it. 11. H. Barter described a ring he had seen Miss C. Phillips wear about four years ago. It was a plain gold band sot with three sapphires iu a rather peculiar style, known as Gypsy setting. He also saw an engraver engrave the initials "C.M.P." on the inside. About three months since he had seen a ring in Detedtivo Chrystal's possession identical with the one Miss Phillips lost, Mr. Baume handed witness a Hug, and asked him if that were the one that Miss Phillips had lost at the time he spoke of. Witness replied that it was the article. Detective Chrystal deposed to a description of the ring given by Miss Phillips at the time she lost it from tire Pier Hotel, tallying with the ring worn by Miss Maxwell three months ago, and now produced. From investigations made witness had learned that the man Harvey, who bad given the defendant the ring, had found it under the carpet of a room in the United Service Hotel. Witness also traced it back to a pawnshop, where it had been pledged by a person named Hayes, who said he got it from a man named Walker, who, to witness, denied all knowledge of it. Mr. Baume said if the Bench were satisfied that the ring belonged to Miss Phillips, he did not wish to take up the time of the Court. Ho did not, however, wish to have any reflection cast on his client, who only thought that Miss Phillips should prove the ring to be hers. Dr. Laishley said they did not wish to reflect on Miss Maxwell in the slightest, as they were satisfied she had become possessed of it properly. His client only wanted her property returned. His ..Worship said he thought from Mr. Barter's and Detective Chryatal'a evidence, there could be no doubt about the identity of the ring. He did not, however, think there was the slightest reflection on Miss Maxwell. Ho could quite understand iu the case of a valuable ring like thai), Miss Maxwell wishing Misß Phillips to prove it "/as hersbeforo parting v, ith it. The peculiar part of the story was that after such ft length of time it should come back to the hotel where Mis 3 Phillips was employed. The ring was then handed back to Mis* Phillips, and she wa'i allowed costs. Mr. Northoroft said it would be rather interesting to know the ring's history stuoo Miss Phillips lost it.