MAYORS COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3250, 6 July 1872, Page 2

MAYORS COURT.

Fimimy, nth July. (Before His Worship tho Mayor.)

' Duunkbn'nksh. — Henry Otitridge an<l Archibald M'CaJlmn were each fined 10ig^ with tho alternative of bdng sent to gaol fot 24 hours. Stkay Goats.---John Thomas was summoned for allowing two goats to trespass on the Bcnith Recreation Ground. Mrs Thorium, said that some naughty boys had loosed them, from their respective ropes. The case wits dismissed with a caution. crrAKOB ok THBrr. Catherine Ann M'ClcUan Francis was charged with having feloniously stolen a. pinafore, a piece of tartan, and a woman's singlet, whoso united value amounted to I!b fid, and which wore the property of Sarak Todcr.

Sarah Toder said she was the wife of Jamca Toder, arid lived at Roslyat Cottage, Breakneck Hill, Canongate. On week the accused carno into her house, and asked her for a comb, am she wanted to comb her (accused's) children's heads, and could not find one. Witness left accused in her house, telling her that she wort Id not be ft way long, and when who came back she found accused there. Accused left afterwards- Witness missed the child'as pinafore that nighfc, and on Sunday missed the scarlet singlet and the Rob Roy tartan. On the articled taken from the accused being shown, witness said that the Rob Roy produced was beta, but ifc had been cut in twat pieces since aho had missed it; that the singlet produced..was hers, but pieces hadl been cut from it, and it had been altered int the shape, but she < would swear positively to» it by hcrßewiug upon it, and that the child's pinafore was flic ostfe she had lost. The pinafore had been talwn from the line, and. the other articles fron) her house. The accused lived at the house of a Mrs NortonWitness did not notice $he loss of the pina~ fore, thinking it might have been taken bymistake, as, said she, " Jlrs Norton and I peg on the one line." Witness, in answer tat accused, said she did not gee her take anything away from the house. Accused naked the witness if the little girl in the houne was. not old enough to notice herUake anythingaway, and witness replied that^she took good cai-e to turn the little girl out Lefore she took the things ; and witness knew thai* because the little girl told her so*. Mrs Margaret Norton said the (accused had. been living at her house for gome\ time past. Witness being ehown tlie clothes £iakon from. accuHed, exdai:j»:(i to the Bench, with gre.ifc volubiiity, "Them's not Mrs TodeV's, thenx. belongs to har own self, sir." Sergehnfc MaF* lard begged of her not to go so Last, atul elicited from her that she had eeen tlie pinafore with her atmut a fortnight ny^>, whea she was ironing it, and saw her altcHog the? singlet on Saturday night. Witness hiul not scon the pieco of tartan with her ;till tha previous day. \ Constable CL-irk deposed that w»eni h& went to bins Norton's, on the previoim\ni,ght» he taxed accused with having property o£ Mrs Todcr in bar possession. , She said aha had found the pinafore in the mad, bif t had bought the other articles in a shop, i Tho accused admitted that the pinafore was not here, saying sho had picked! it up, and washed it for her little boy. TWewngr, let was hers, and she had lately bought the flannel, and la worth of yam at t&e nuna time, from Herbert, Maynes, *n4 Co/*. She could not tell which, clerk r«he lutdL iwught it from. Having informed &h> Courfe i

'that her husband waa away, and that she was tho mother of ten children, and had • only two now—» little boy of mx, and another of three yearn-*be burst out crying. Sergt. Malhml only -wished that the accused had «xpre«««:d the same contrition when brought to the station on the night before as »lie did now. Her conduct then was reaJJy outrageous, and she wild she regretted that hU*.- did not commit a larger rob- : bery. The nccutsed said she had to go to the Benevolent Institution for 5a per week. Her husband had sent her only £1. during the ;last twelve month*, and it was out of that nhtt bought the tilings. What she said to Sergeant Mallard was that it would be better for her to go to gaol where she would have a home, and her little boys nbo knew would bo then looked after, than that she be I ■driven to do worse.

Mrs Norton, being recalled by the Bench, wan asked if there was any peculiarity in the sewing of th<; winglet by which it could be recognised, x.-v,! B J»« could nottdJ the Rawing was Mm To.t, r'w, but knew Mrs Francis (accttHcd) cyuid not make so good a " herringbone."

Ifia Worship naked the acensed if the witnesses had any ill-filling towards her. , Accused replied that they had, but she had to Jive there as they offered her a home when she^ could not pay rent, and she had to put up with rr very tiling. They were cursing, -swearing, and quarrelling always. Detective Karrell waa called by accused to five evidencfj of character, a« she said be new her, and knew nothing against her, He stated that she was the wife of an engineer on boar 1, he believed, the Omco, and who wan well able to keep her, but he thought he had not done so latcl}', though he was in good employment, fn the month of April «he wan «ti«j»eet«d of stealing a gold brooch from a hotel in Port Chalmers, but the brooch h;ul never been traced. It was the firet time she had been before the Court, arid personally he knew nothing bad against her.

Hi« Worship said the evidence given tended, to a certain extent, to fix the charge upon the awiiscd. He had gome doubt as to whether a person could swear positively to a piece of tartan, or to a Kinglet by the bcwmg. With regard to the pinafore the accused bad, upon her own Ftatcrnent, done wrong by detaining what she knew must have belonged to ojiu of the neighbours. The value of the articles being less than 20a, the law allowed him u> dismiss the caae. As she apparently had no ono to support her, and had two children, lie should dismiss the charge. He did n»r go so far a.s to nay it wa« entirely proved- there was a little doubt in his mind, and that doubt be should give her the benefit -of. Accused wan discharged. On application being made for the articles, His Worship Hard h« thought then? was Hnill•cient evidence of the ownership of the articles as to induce him to order that they be given to the prosecutrix, FJCHTIN':. John Knv and George Johnson were charged with fighting at the corner of Cumberland and Howe streets. E&eh pleaded guilty. .Sergeant Mallard said tj;o police had, from enquiries made, deemed it necessary to summon these men. He would put a witness in ' the box.

Duncan M'Arthur, surveyor, deposed that when lie v.hh going lifine on the night of the 24th ult., at about six o'clock, be saw these man (defendants) Hcuflling on the pathway at the- corner of Howe and Cumberland streets. He had to separate them. Jf there bad been a policeman near he should certainly have informed him of the fight. •Sergeant Mallard : May I a«k if, as a gentleman citizen in Dunertin, you deemed it to be your duty to take public cognisance of this assault ?

Witness : Well, yes. Sergt. Mallard : My only reason for asking you in to show that the police have some bumi Jiiln ground of action. Of course, we cannot be übiquitous—wo cannot be everywhere—and I ask so as to show that the police have reason for taking action in the caae.

His Worship : I suppose the witness informed the police?

Witne.au

Serg^t. Mallard : In what way did you deem it necessary for the public interest to notify the fact ?

Witness : I did it that such might not occur again, and because 1 have never seen a policeman beating about the neighbourhood. •Sergt. Mallard : In what way,, may I ask, did you do it '! Witness : By writing an article to the

papers. b'ergfc. Mallard : I do not wish for a moment to be impertinent, but I ask so as to show that the police were justified in making enquiries and taking action.

Each defendant was fined 20s, the costs of Court, and between them 10a, the expenses of a witness who was not called, but who attended. The witness who gave evidence, and another who was not called, did not claim expenses.