RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 89, 27 February 1862, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, ITeb. 24. j " (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 8.M.) DRirXKESXESS. 2 Andrew Herriman, Archibald Murchie, Wil- , liam Jackson, and John Anderson, charged with 3 drunkenness, were each ordered to pay 205., or ; undergo 48 hours' imprisonment, and Herrimau, for indecency, was fined 10s. additional. Thomas | Riley, for drunkenness, was iined 10s., with the r usual alternative. ' XUISAIS'CES. John Switzer, charged with having a source of nuisance cm his premises, promised its removal, , and an adjournment was made to give him time [to do so. John Gray, complained against for the ' same ort'enee, was reported by the officer as having given a similar promise. TIIKFT AND POCKET-riCKING. Thomas Wood, charged with stealing £19 from the person of John Campbell, pleaded not guilty. - . Campbell, examined, stated that he was a miner, : and was in Dunedin with the intention of proceeding to Melbourne. He had seen the prisoner on several occasions. The last occasion was ■ Friday, the 21sfc inst. That night he (witness) : slept at the Royal George Hotel, and when he ; went to bed he had 18 sovereigns, half a sovereign, and, Gs. in silver, in his possession. Ho went to bed between 8 and 9 o'clock. On waking about 2 o'clock in the morning lie found his trousers rc- \ moved from under his head, where he had placed | them, and lying on the floor. On searching the 1 pockets, he discovered that his money was gone. ! He immediately went downstairs, and found that i the backdoor had not been locked. He returned : upstairs, struck a light, saw who were his coin- [ pauious in the room, and afterwards gave infor- . mation to the detective police. Shown some so- ; vercigus, lie identified one of them as being part c of tiie money he had in his possession on the night in question. He knew them by marks he had put upon them, which he described. John Green, barman at the Royal George Hotel, " remembered having seen the last witness at that house on Friday last ; he had also seen the priso- ■ nor there on the same day up till half-past twe, in I the afternoon. The prisoner had slept there on the ) previous night, and had been about the house on ' several occasions. . William Frederick Hitches, detective officer, . corroborated the evidence of Campbell, so far as > related to his calling at the detective office and [ stating that he could identify one of the same [ sovereigns he had lost. ; Detective Tuekwell stated that on Saturday 1 last, between 10 and 11 o'clock at night, he arrested ' the prisoner and found on his person eight £1 '< notes, 9 sovereigns, 12s. in silver, a gold ring, a . chamois leather bag, a passage receipt to . Aucki land by the "Albatross," and a pocket-book. : Mr. Prcndcrgast, for the prisoner, held that there was no case made out against him by the , evidence. The finding of a marked sovereign amongst a quantity of money having no resemblance in character to that stolen from Campbell, was no fact against the prisoner, neither was there 1 any testimony as to his presence on the premises where the theft had occurred which could in any way connect him with the crime. The .Bench considered there was sufficient cvii denue to justify the prisoner being brought be- ! fore a jury, and accordingly committed him for . trial. Wood, was further charged, on the complaint of . Ebenezer Wyso, with stealing from him a pocket book, at the iloyal Motel, Port Chalmers. Wyse, on examination, identified a pocketbook produced, as his property. On the last occasion lie had it in his possession he left it in his bedroom in his hotel, and did not-sec it again, or miss it, until it was shown to him by the police. He saw the prisoner at the Koyal Hotel on Sa- . turday. Detective Tuekwell found the pocket-book identified by the last witness in the possession of the prisoner when he arrested him at the Provincial ; Hotel on Saturday evening. On this charge also the Bench committed the ■ prisoner, who, in a statement which he insisted upon- making, asserted that lie found the pocket- ; book on the road, about 100 yards from the Koyal Hotel. A third charge of a similar nature was brought against the prisoner by James Finlay, a painter. Finlay stated that he had met the prisoner at the Glasgow House, and was invited by him to ■ take dinner with him at the Koyal George Hotel. He went along with him, and had some recollection of wrestling with the prisoner, but was under .1 the influence of drink nt the time. He was sober |enough, however, to discover shortly afterwards 'that the money he had had in his possession— • about £o —was gone, and he informed the pro-! i prietor of the Koyal Hotel and the police of tkcjf fact. Three notes produced he identified as part f of the money he had lost. He had marked some'1 of the sovereigns in his possession at the time, but 1 could not now swear to their identity. J

John Green, barman, saw* the prisoner and the last witness together at the Koyal George bar on Friday. They were wrestling together until he (the witness) interfered. Observing IFinlay's trousers unbuttoned, he drew his attention to the circumstance, but being intoxicated Fitilay failed to fasten them, and the prisoner left him, saying lie was a " duffer," and ho would have nothing more to do with him. Immediately afterwards witness observed Finlay's pocket turned inside out, and he recollected that before the prisoner went into another room ho had stooped and picked up something which had fallen with the jingle of money, and he went away with something resembling a bundle of papers in his hand. Immediately afterwards Pinlay stated that he liad lost his monej', and, after a search, left to give information of the circumstance. Detective Tuckwell said he received information of the robbery from Knlay about 8 o'clock on Saturday morning. From the description given lie was enabled to arrest the prisoner, and found on his person eight £1 notes, three of which had been identified by Knlay. The prisoner was also committed to take his trial on this charge, and the several witnesses were bound over to appear against him at the first sitting of the Supreme Court. McPIIERSOX V. UItQUIIART. This was a suit brought against the master of the " Sea Breeze," by a shipper of stock by that vessel, for the freightage of some horses from Port Chalmers to Duhediu. The plaintiff's statement was, that he had shipped some horses at Melbourne for Dunedin, the understanding being that they should be landed there. On arrival in Port Otago they , were, however, landed at Port Chalmers, and he . now sued for a return of 30s. in the case of each \ horse, which was held by the agents in Melbourne 3 to be the value of the advantage he would have ■, by having them landed at Dunedin. \

?.fr. South, for defendant, contended that, in the absence of a bill of lading, which the plaintiff did not possess, no.suit, could be brought, and, more-; over, that tliu agents at Melbourne, and not the ! captain of the vessel, were the proper parties Ito pursue. ■ M>. Kettyon held that the receipt held by the plaintiff was snincicnt. recognition of liability, and I that liability necessarily rested with the captain, for whom the parties in Melbourne were only agents.. A similar suit was broujrht against the defen-1 dant.by a shipper named Whittakor for the same deduction on the freight of three horses lauded at Port Chalmers, instead of Dunedin, with expenses incurred, and he presented a letter from the agents at Melbourne stating that they were not the owners, and that their responsibility ceasjd on tin; sailing of the vessel. Mr. South, as in the previous case, based his defence on the fact that there was no bill of lading, without which a suit was untenable.

The defendant, on being examined, stated that this was the first, time he had been in Port Otago, and he was not aware until told so by the pilot, and he subsequently saw the beach, that horses could not be conveniently landed at Dunedin. There were no bills of lading, and he did not know until ho saw the receipt in the hands of the plaintiff that there was any sort of agreement made on the subject. The plaintiff stated that, understanding the road between Port Chalmers and Dunediu to be a bad one, he had brought his horses expressly by! the " Sea Breeze," for the purpose of avoiding the road, as she was specially advertised to laud the homes at Dunedin. . -

The Bench reserved judgment in each case till the following day. Mr. South renewed his application for the reilease, on bail, of the .master of the "Flying Squirrel," recently committed for a criminal] assault, and urged the previous character of the prisoner and the surety of the bail offered ; but the Bench declined to entertain the offer.

Tuesday, 25th February. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M. DRUNKENNESS. James Gowan, Win. Scott, and Patrick Cahille were each fined 20s. for drunkenness. BREACH Of THE PEACE. Patrick Caliill, Thomas Kavannah, John Campbell, and David Thompson, were each fined 10s. and costs for behaving in such a manner as to provoke a breach of the peace. IXDECKNCT. Philip Goddard was fin^l 10s. and costs, and Mary Ann Aicker 20s. and costs for this offence. NUISANCES. Two informations against T. C. Bowern, for nui sance were dismissed, the nuisances being abated. An information against George Urowhurst was postponed until Friday. Similar charges against Joseph Dyosrn, James Mills, and William Lyon, were also postponed until Friday. A summons was ordered to be issued against S. E. R. Jones, for a nuisance at the Commercial Hotel. CARELESSNESS. John Smith was fined 10s. and costs for leaving his horse and cart unattended to in the public streets. John Hay was also fined 10s. and costs for a similar offence. CATTLE TRESPASS. .■John Grant was fined 10s. and costs, for allowing a cow and calf, Ilia property, to stray within the limits of the town. James Waite, for permitting two horses to stray, was fined 2s. and costs. JUDGMENTS. In the cases of McPhsrson v. Urquhavt, heard at a previous sitting of the Court, and on. which judgment had been reserved, his Worship dismissed the case with costs. A similar judgment was given in the case of Whittaker v.- Urquhart.

Wednesday, 2b'th February. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. —James Win. Molmrst, Win, Simpson, Ann Dunbar, and Win. Cameron, were each fined 20s. for being drunk, and as they had all been liberated on bail (±'2 each), and did not appear, the balance was ordered to be paid over to the poor box.