MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11686, 20 March 1900, Page 2

MAG ISTRATE'S COURT.

' Monday,. March 19. ■. - (Before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M.) Judgment for the plaintiff, with' costs was l^en^n/each- of thejollowing eases: Frederick by DrMilne.uppearccl), v". "W. "B. Duffey ttroripor in the'fourth contingent),-"claim-*2 ISs, goods' supplied; same v. W H. Stewart, claim £4 6s, .goods.supplied; Amelia Bilson (for whom Mr Hanlon1 appeared), v. James Davidson (Nasebv) daim.£2 11s>l fish supplied; G. and T. Young(for whom Mr Moore appeared) v. J T Taylor (Christchureh), claim £i 6s 6d, price of a lady's ring; Maasey-Harris and Co. (for whom Mr Cook appeared) v. Samuel Beynolds (Studholms), claim £14 8s Gd,.balance of account due on a bicycle. , . . . A. Smyth (Brockville, Kaikorai) v. W. Smvth -Claim £9 13s Gd, for the hire of a dog cart and repairs .thereto.—Miss Benjamin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Ir.win for defendant.— After evidence,, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs (£2 3s). Emanuel Solomons- v: Mary Ann East (wife of Laurence J. East).-Claim £5 7s Gd, value of a watch sheeting spoons, and a, cup full of tea w-luch the defendant was alleged'to have wrongfully converted to her own use.—Mr Solo-> mon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hanlon for defendant.-Mr Soiomon stated that if the facts .proved m this case bore out his instructions it was a very sad case arid a very bad case. The circumstances weft that the plaintiff who had no Wife, was compelled by'his oecupWoi to be away from home continually. He was a dealer m jewellery and other articles, a con- i "siderably quantity of which was about the house.-.. His young chil-lr -i «ere not as sensibl* of their duties as they ought to be and were very easily tempted to do wrong. Unfortnnrtely the tempter had been there at hand, ft was suggested that the defendant, Mrs East had persuaded.tb.ese little cKildren to steal differentarticles, from their father's house and sel! them' to her for next to nothing; Thus a gold "watch, valued at Si, had been stolen and sold for 2s 6d, ai;d when.the children'asked for it back =he refused to give it back. uule'ss she were'paid 17* Gd, which she said1 she had paid for repairs to the watch. If these facts were, proved there could be no doubt that a cause of action was shown, and it would require very strong language to adequately describe the transaction.Plaintiff gave evidence that he was a dealer lor many, years in' Dunedin. "His wife was dead and he had children and a ■servant in the house' His business took him away Irom home a lot! When he missed the watch he suspected Mrs hast, and charged her with it. She denied it but subsequently she admitted that she'had got the watch and that she wanted 17s Gd before she returned it. Witness missed other articles, but these were recovered. One of the "iris afterwards admitted that she fold the watch to Mrs East for 2s.Gd, the woman havin» told her to, take articles from her father's place.— F. Z. Moore, solicitor, gave evidence as to having gone down to',plaintiff's house at his request, and made investigations as to the missing property. Be questioned the servant girl first, and afterwards the children. The servant told him that the children took various articles andsold them fo Mrs East for small slims,'including the'watch,-sheeting, and tea. The children Afterwards admitted that,- and witness and Mr Solomons went to defendant's house. It. was not true that they went there to bounce the woman. She asked them to come into the house.' Witness . told her that a prosecution would take place if she did not return the goods. Witness got articles of jewellery, and another watch from another neighbour and from a. servant. Witness believed that ths woman had the -goods. He .told her that the goods had been stolen, and demanded that they should be delivered up or else the matter would

.be placed m the hands of the police. Mr bolomous wanted to take.criminal proceedings ' .but'witness -advised him iiot to: do so'for the sake of his family. "Witness wrote to'defendant .-.and told her if the articles were not sent by 10 o clock.the next morhing a prosecution would ensue. •; ihe police would,not lay. the informa- > iion; but they. said, they would'"go-on with-the .case if the iuformation were laid. He denied -that the letter was written to " bluff" the .woman; It was noti a fact that it was intended to stifle the proceedings,.but probably no prosecution woulcVhave been taken if the goods had been returned.—To Mt Solomon: ■'Witness wanted, to do the best'lie could for ' his client—to get. his goods back in the speediest possible way .—Fanny Solomons, a, small- child,' gave evidence that she took a watch, some spoons, and some sheeting from her father's place and sold them to defendant.' Defendant, told her to steal the-articles. She told her W another girl to get the sheeting and to put it underneath their pinafore, so that they 'would ;not be seen. Mrs East told her not to'tell' anyone- or she would be .put into gaol.—The proceedings at this stage were adjourned.