THE PAWNBROKERS ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8556, 26 July 1889, Page 4

THE PAWNBROKERS ACT.

The remanded caie, in which Thomas Hisbet Wilson complained that a gold watch belonging to him had been unlawfully pledged with one Abraham Myers, and in which he prayed that the said Abraham Myers might be required to deliver the said watch up without payment of money, was brought before Messrs B. H. Carew, E.M.. W. Hutchison, and J. Logan, J.P's.. at the City Police Court yesterday morning. Mr B.C. Haggitt appeared for complainant, and Sir B, Stout for defendant. Mr Haggitt said there was no dispute as to the facts of the case which had been heard by Messrs Hutchison and Logan on Tuesday la(t. The case was pretty fully reported in the Daily Times, and both sides were willing that the bench should take that report as a statement of the facts. The matter •imply resolved itself into a question of law; whether because an article had been produced as an exhibit in. a case before justices in a preliminary examination for an indictable offence, the owner of that article was bound to leave it in possession of the person who produced it, or in the possession of the policeman into whose - hands it came in the course of investigation, and whether the owner was deprived of his remedy and recovery of that article. Sir B. Stout said that was not the point. From his point of view there were three points involved,: and they were: First, in whose possession was the watch;? He said in the possession of the police. Second, it passed out of the pawnbroker's hands by the operation of the law. The third was that it was an exhibit in a case in the Supreme Court -Mr Haggitt said it did not altei what he had to say In the slightest. He then went on to state the facts in connection with the case, and continued that the main question was did the fact of the watch being stolen in any way alter Mr Wilson's rightto it. That It was his property was admitted.

Sir B. Stout: That is to be determined by tbi Supreme Court. . J

Mr Haggitt said it had been sworn that it was Wilson s property, and it remained uncontradlcled' and the question was whether the fact of there being a. charge of larceny as a ballse now pending affected the property in the article-that was to say* whether the fact of the article being stolen affected Wilson's possession of it. The fact of a maa'i property beinii itolendidnot alter his rightto it. and therefore to the possession of it. Unless It oould be shown that someone had a better right to the property than Mr Wilson, then he (Mr Haggitt) maintained there was no provision for an order of the court for the retention of it. Another point was tb.it if it had been a civil action to recover the article or its value, the nlaintiff would be dearly entitled to recover. Sir R. Stout: Not from us.

Mr Carew asked, was not a pawnbroker in a better position than an ordinary person, who, if found in the possession of etplen articles, had to give them np, but under the act the oourt might order compensation to the pawnbroker.. . . Mr Hapgitt said there could be no reason for ordering compensation against the plaintiff in this case as he hadomittednothing that itjwaj'necessary ror him to do. In all the cases in the books the pretence was that there could be no suit for the recovery of the things because the thief had not been susd for the theft—that was, that a man must link his private rights and assist the oriminal law in the first place. How could it be said that because a man peifcrmed his public duty he was therefore deprived of hia right of recovery? A man web entitled to the possession of his property unless the Uw deprived him of that right, and he knew of no law that did so.

Sir E. Stout said the first point to be decided wat in who«e.possession the watch was. Mr Hacgitt assumed it was in Mr Myers'poiseasion, but that was not so, for he had never had possession of it since giving it up to Deteotive Walker. Their Worships' power under the act onlj existed if Myers had posaetsion of the article." Mr Haggitt said the mere fact of Myers giving up possession to a peison who was not entitled to possession was not parting with possession. Sir Bobert Stout replied that Myers had parted with the watch at the instance of the prosecutor The other side said that an exhibit in a cate to come before the Supreme Court could be taken out of the cmtody of the police and held by its owner. If such a thiDg were laid down as a new law it would be impossible for justice to be done in criminal cases, especially in cases of larceny, where identification was the most important consideration. He contended that the watch was not in the possession of the pawnbroker, but was in the custody of the law, and it waß in the oustody of the law by the direction of the preient plaintiff. On the ground that the watch was not in the possession of Mr Myers, he contended that the court had no jurisdiction. After further argument, Mr Carew intimated that he would give a decision on Monday morning at