CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11046, 25 February 1898, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, February 23.

(Before Messrs A. J. Burns, A. Burfc. and G Caldei, J.P's.) Djiunkenness.-A fir*!;..offender, wis convicted nd discharged. \ a Alleged Theft op a Brooch —Nita Gallagher a young woman, was ohanrui with stealing a iw \ ' fJ *u- e f d H f l2- ProPßrty <* ai«y a™ nf tfc t f.e-*'- fß,? f J£ hn Al«xa»J*'- Boyd, licenses th'i Utb. Becamber.-Mv Hanlna appealed for the accused. -Chief Detective O'Brien stated that accused had been in the service of Mrs Boyd for about JO weeks. About the cud of November or the beginning of December Mrs Boyd went to .Lawrence to atteud a marriage ceremony Wheu she returned about the 24th January she noticed tin e/L UBh box, in which the bro ich in ques.tion had been kept,, lying on her-dressing table, I bu. she did not examine it. She op-nnd it, ho<vl I ever, about th, 28th January. a.,d found that the I brooch had been abstracted. In ths meantime i tne accused had left Mr* Boyd's service and came I to Dimedin on th« 4th January sb.e went to Mr .Solomons pawnbroker1* shop and exchanged « J" 00* *** » Hug. tolling Mr Solomon that the brooch was her own property. About Vr , aX? ? e <Pstec«ve O'Brien) and Ueteotive U ,lnte!; vri<r we< 1 the accusad, and she | Wo! Jll> \ t 9 h ooc)x ia a stable near the hotel at Roxburgh. She .picked it up, and when nlifl* DuU,f' iin *V* too, k li t0 ** Solomon's place, vrhere she ex-.hangfid it. She further said sha did not know whom the brooch belon *ed to, or she would not have disposed of it. Sirs Boyd however, said that tffin was not very probable No one- who would be likely to take «?e brooch « w*°if 3 ) »he VOom BXcept the abused, and as Mrs Boyd often wore the brooch it would be a very strange thing if the accused never saw it I^l v ■'"' lf i aC(i tue' i (l' ;d ft"d tl»9 brooch she hail no business to kesp il.— Mr* Boyd gave evidence in support of the chief detective'? opening statement. Cross-examined, she said that she did not state that the brooch was valued at £10 It cost about £7 Ids. She had not worn it fov some WB4ks on account of a, serious illness in ths place. Her room was on the gro.ind floor and of course anyone could go into the rooni. It was not! locked.—Walter Rossiter, assistant of Mr A ! holomon pawnbroker, appraised the value of the I brooch at £llos. When accused brought it into the snop it was battered as if it had been trodden upon.-fMective M'Grath also give evidence,— Mr I'anlon said there were two featuros in tha caoe which required attention. The first point ' was waether the accused was properly charged j bue was charged with stealing from a dwelling Now, it could not be said that the accused stole from the dwelling. If a person went into a strange house and 3tqle something out of it then it misht come within the definition of stealing i trom a dwelling, but here she lived in the very house where the brooch was said to be stolon ! from. Then if she found it, as she frankly told I the aeteotive she did, she had a perfect right to keep it until it was' demanded of her by the owner. She h»d a legal title to it as against everybody but the owcer. Further, the brooch had valued at 10*s, next at £10. n«xt at £7 10s, and lastly the expert, Mr Kosaite.-. stated I its value at 30s. Evidently the prosecution were determined to put the case outaitte the jurisdiction of the lower cciurt. Counsel submitted that their Worships would hesitate before sending the accused for trial on such flimsy evidence -Uhiuf Urftectit'e 0 Brien combated Mr Hanlon1* argu■mer,t 4 regarding ihe law oa the subject of stolen •;pwpftvty, und called their Woruhip3" attention to the fact than the girl had said that the brooch belonged to her. That was a preliminary investigation, and if their Worships h»d any doubt whatever it was their duty to convict—Their Worships cims to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove theft, \and dismissed the case.

j Thursday, February 24. ' i (Before Mr K. H._CaM,«\ S.M.) i. OnuELTr to a HoiiSE.-Joseph Dix was charged with cruelly ill-treatiusr a horge on the 15th inst by working it in * weak state -Ths d-ifandant pleadud not Kiiill.y.—Mr W. O. Ma.-.Gregor, who appeared for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the defendant was an aged man, and in very poor circumstaue'es.' From time to timti awing to the charity of certain wellmeaning individuals, he had been psovidet? with horses to keep him going iv his business as an expressman ; but unfortunately he did uot appear able to give hia horses proper food, and thesa animals had died. The horse that he was charged with ill-treating wan the last one, and the society were forced to bring the na.se into court. The facts of the case were: On the] sth of the present mouth the nodety's inspector received information which made him go to the Octagon, where he found Mr Dix with his express and hors«. The horse was standing at the corner of the Octagon, harnessed in the express, and wa3 in an extremely enfeebled state, and appeared to ba starved. Mr Aitken told the defendant that he had had many complaints about the starved appearance of lih horse, and that defendant would require to »top the horse from working and give it food The inspector also added that if defendant did not feed »he horsß he would be summoned. Dix replied that ha had been out late on the previous night cutting grass for the horse, nnd he would work it if ho chose. Constable Browaiia also told defendant that if he did not feed the horae he would be locked up. There was another charge against the defendant referring to what to .t place on the following d»y. The result of defendant's treatment of the horse wai that it died before the end of the week, and apparently there was no dinease at all. It was simply a case of starvation.—Richard Donaldson, inspector of nuisances, deposed that he knew the defendant, who was an expressman. On the 15th of the present month he saw the defendant standing with his express at the corner of the Octagon. He went np to Mr Dix and asked him to move. He then saw that the horse was poorly and hardly able to draw the sxpvess. Witness said defendant had batter turn the horse out, but defendaut said he could not do that as the horse was the onjy means he had of getting a living. In witness's opinion the horse was starving Incrass-examination, witness said that defendant told him that he cat grass for the horse every

day.—Robert P. Aitken, inspector for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, deposed that he saw the horse in the Octagon on the 15th' jnst, and it was then in a starved condition. The defendant told him that he was out on the previous night till 10 o'clock cutting grass for the horse. Witness said to him that that was not enough ; the horse vFlnted some oats and chaff. He aho told the defendant that he ought not to work thehdrseih the condition it was in.—Constable Brownlie, who also saw the horse on the 15th inst., said in his opihion it was in a starved condition. Ifc was the thinnest and weakest horse he ever saw in harness. He threatened to lock the defendant up if he continued to work the'horse "m the "condition it wa* in.—Alexander Hamilton veterinary, surgeon, deposed that he examined the horse on the ISth inst. It was then feeding on a little grass in the right-of-way of the stable where it was kept. The horse was in a very le»n state. He attributed th>t to want of food. So far as he could see the horse hadlio symptom of disease.—Tliis concluded the evidence for the prosecution.—The defendant said he cut grass regularly for the hor*e every night, and also gave him a little chaff and bran whenever he could buy ariv. The la«t food he bought for him was on the 13th inst. He had been accustomed to horses for about 14 years.—ln answer to Mr MacGriigor, witness said the horse was bought for him by subscription. This was the second one that hart been bought for him. He had had three hor3es. They had nat all died of starvation. The last horse, was all .right on the night before he died; Witness was an old policeman. — His Worship said he was of opinion that the case had been proved. It appeared that the horse had been starved for want of food, and it was crueito work it in the state ifwaß in. Before giving his decision he would hear the evidence in the other ease,—Defendant was then charged with omitting to supply hi? horse with proper and sufficient food on the 16fch inst.—Robert T. Ailken stated that on the 16th insti he saw defendant's horse lying harnessed in the doorway of the stable. He asked defendant what had happened, and he aaid that the horse slipped down coming put. Constable Brownlie and witness not being able to get the horse to rise pulled biaion to a patch of gra-je. The horse then' commenced to eat the grass ravenously, and seemed as if it had not had food for a week. Witness told the def«tidant not to work the horse, which was quite unfit for work. Constable Brownlie threatened to lock, defendant up if he worked the horse, aad he replied that he would work it; he did not care for the Government.—Evidence was also given by Alexander Hamilton, iftßr which defendant stated, as in the previous case. that, he fed the horse on grass.— Mr MacGregor said while the society recognised that this was a very bad caae the man was too poor to pay a heavy fine. He ought really to be m the Benevolent Institution.—His Worship'innicted s, fine of Is, without costs, in each case. let doing so he said the tine did not show his opinion of the case. He. simply inflicted a small fine because the defendant was unable to pay a heavy pedalty. If, however, the. defendant had a horse again and ill-treated it in the same manner a heavier penalty would be inflicted, and if defendant did not pay it he would have to go to gaol.— Tne defendant said he had no money to pay the line, and his Worship informed him that he would be allowed a month in which to pay it.