MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4384, 15 June 1901, Page 3

MAGISTRAT E'S COURT.

FRIDAY, JUKE 14. (Before Air W. F,. Haselden. S.M.J Annie Russell was charged with haviur' stolen three pairs ol shoes valued at° iG.-> Gd, tho property of Edward Pearce. She pleaded not guilty. Constable Pearce deposqd that he saw accused examining bools outside Pearce's shop on Thursday night. She removed three pairs from the rack and walked olf with thorn under her cloak. Ho then arrested her. She smelt of drink. Accused said she had no recollection of the occurrence. His Worship convicted accused, and remanded her until Monday, so that tho police might make intiinries as to her charcter and antecedents. George Benjamin Nicholls pleaded guilty to a charge of having stolen a bicycle from A. B. Pownall and a Chesterfield coat from William Henry Broom, of New Plymouth. Accused had current sentences of an aggregate of nine months’ imprisonment, five of which had yet to run. He elected to bo dealt with summarily. Sentences of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, were passed, to bo concurrent with terras now being served. As tho outcome of a case brought against James Walden, junr., by the Wellington Acclimatisation Society last week, in wiiicu the defendant put in a license issued to “James Walden’’ by the society as being his, James Walden, senr., came before tho Court, charged with having been in pursuit of game witiiout being jmsscssed of a license. .Mr Gray appeared for the society and Mr Wilford by tho defendant. Tho clecndant’s story was that when asked by the ranger to produce his license ho told the ranger ho would find “the” license in a tin box in a game bag. Tho ranger deposed that Walden said the license was his own. The license was really that of James Walden, junr. Mr Wilford took the point that the place where the offence was alleged to have taken place waS not within the jurisdiction of the Acclimatisation Society. Walden gave evidence that he was only out for duck-shooting. There was nothing whatever in their possession when the ranger met tnein. The latter assertion was not disputed by the ranger. His Worship characterised the defence set up by Walden as disgraceful. He would be fined £2 and costs (£1 10s). The adjourned case against two girls named Lavinia Jessie Skiltoil and Annie Ashby, that they were found in a house of ill-repute in Haining street, "associating with reputed prostitutes, was finally dealt with. Police evidence was called, wdiich proved that the girl Ashby (whoso"'age was only thirteen) was a frequenter of such houses, and was in the habit of being about the streets after eleven o’clock at night. There was nothing known against the girl Skilton beyond tho incident whicn formed the ground of the present charge. His Worship dismissed the case against Jessie Skilton, but ordered the girl Ashby to be sent to an industrial school. Daniel Coronna. a of Tory street, was charged on the information of ConstabTe Tanner, that he did work at his trad© on June 2nd within view of tfnT public, such day being a Sunday. The evidence established that the constable, who was abroad seeking whom ho might prosecute, heard a machine going in accused’s shop, beard the hammering of leather and similar sounds of toil. There was a glass panel in the door through which he looked* It had a blind over if. Ho knocked at the door and defendant opened it. Could

see he KSd been working. His Worship dismissed the case, on the ground that to commit an offence within the meaning of the Act it was necessary that a person work at his trade within view of the public. Mr Htmtmarsh, who appeared for defendant, said his client had not “worked” at all. lle> had only been preparing a machine for_ work by the men on Monday. Ini dismissing th e case, his Worship‘said, in reference to some remarks from Sub-Inspector Wilson, he thought it a good thing to warn people against Sunday' work. If a' case like the one dismissed was not brought occasionally people would go- too far. A number of cases were brought by John Drummond, of the Rabbit Department, against a number of land,owners for alleged failure on' their part to destroy rabbits. Robert C, Cook was fined £3 and costs (£1 8s), Whitehouse Brothel's were fined £5 (costs £1 13s), and Henry Hume was fined £4 (costs 8s). Dr Findlay appeared for the department. ■ HE ALLEGED BURGLARS. Thomas Ramsay and Edward Burrows were brought up, charged with being rogues and vagabonds in that they had in their possession a picklock. Mr Wilford asked what the police intended to do in regard to the further charge against his clients—that they were idle and disorderly persons without lawful means of support; and that on May 24th, 1901, at Lyttelton, they did break and enter the premises of Campbell Brown, and steal therefrom th e sum £4. After discussion between Inspector Pender and Mr Wilford the two charges were withdrawn. Chief Detective McGrath said he arrested the two accused in an hotel in the city on the morning of the 6th June. Told them they were suspected of safe-breaking and robbing. Burrows said he arrived in the colony three months before from Sydney; that he had been in Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin. He had done no work since h e came to the colony except following Up race meetings and doing a bit of betting. Burrows had over £2O cash on him and a bank-draft for £6O, issued at Christchurch, and payable to Edward Thorndcn Edmondson at Sydney. Burrows said that was his name. An eleotrlo lamp and storage battery wag in his possession. The second accused gkve his name as Ramsay. He had previously given his name as Pender Told him that whenever he and his mate visited a town a safe was broken into. He replied that in Wellington a few days before a safe was broken into, and they were not there. Witness him that was the work cf an amateur. Burrows; “It’s a wonder ybu clidn t arrest him.” Detective McGrath: Accused said he came from America through South Africa to Sydney a few months ago. He claimed to be an electrician, and asserted that the articles produced—a “picklock” and a “housebreaker’s master-bit” (an article for opening a locked dcor by catching the key on the inside) —were his tools of trade. Witness could open any door with the articles found in accused’s possession. (A large number of articles were contained in the bag—including saws for ironwork, files, a hand-vice, centre-punches, a rimer, pliers, oil-lamp, blow-pipe, etc., etc.) Ramsay had £l4 5s Ojd in his possession and a bank draft for £SO, issued at Christchurch on June Ist, payabl© to Thomas Phillips at Sydney. Accused sqid to witness that Phillips was the name of a man he met in South Africa. Afterwards he said it was his own name, adding that there was no harm in having a nom d e plume. Witness did not know the men at all. Burrows said he brought £6O to the colony with him; Ramsay said he brought £IOO. When Burrows was being arrested, he walked into Ramsay’s room, and placed his hat in the latter’s box without saying a word to him.

Alfred Cedric Cederholm deposed that be was an electrical engineer doing business in Manners street, Wellington. Ho had examined the tools (mentioned by Chief Detective McGrath in his evidence. There were only one or two tods in the list that would be used by an electrician. They might be of use to an amateur electrician. Had never .seen a tool like the " master-bit used by a mechanical engineer or an electrician. It had been converted from a plier. It was not a tool manufactured in that shape originally. To Mr Wilford; The battery produced was an ordinary storage battery. A rimer was used by an electrician— it was an ordinary instrument. Th e battery would show light for about four hours. It would take about six hours to charge it with electricity. It would take about five volts to charge it. Thomas Tolley, a locksmith, of Dock street, Wellington, said he recognised the “master-bit” produced as one used for opening locked doors from the outside. He had often used one for such purpose. He called it a pair of pliers. Ho would be surprised to find such an instrument in an electrician’s kit. To the Bench : Used skeleton keys and picklocks in his calling. Mr Wilford applied to his Worship, under section 6 of the Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act, of 1900 to commit the accused for trial by jury. His Worship, after hearing argument, decided to take the case as an indictable offence, and commit the accused for trial by jury if he found tho evidence to bo given sufficient to warrant a committal. Ho considered that cases of the nature of the present one should be tried by jury. The question would continually be coming up, and it would bo as well to have it settled. Mr Wilford said ho would not, in that case, cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. Mr Wilford applied to have the case against Burrows dismissed. It was necessary for the Crown to prove that Burrows had been concerned with the accused Ramsay in the possession of the articles. There was not a scintilla of evidence against Burrows beyond the fact that he had, in the presence of the police witnesses, put his hat in the box of Ramsay. It would be useless to put him on his trial before a jury, for there would be no chance of his being convicted. His Worship said that the accused had asked to be sent for trial, and that was the course he would take. After Air Wilford had twice risen, and twice sat clown by special request, his Worship fixed bail in sums of £SO for each accused, with two sureties each of £25. At tho Mount Cook Police Station one first-offender was convicted of drunkenness, and discharged. Sarah Aldridge, against whom there were previous convictions, was fined 60s, with the alternative of fourteen days’ imprisonment. Mr W. Hildreth, J.P., presided.