GORE.

Otago Witness, Issue 1974, 19 September 1889, Page 17

GORE.

September 17.— Last Monday an election of three councillors took place, and resulted as follows: — Thomas Hewitt, head of the poll with 103 votes ; J. Q. Fraser, 95 votes ; William Hume, 90; the defeated candidate, F. S. Canning, 76 votes. ] ' Mr Gardner's Hounds.— A second visit was paid to Wantwood by this pack on Saturday, and a good run was enjoyed by about a dozen followers. A similar day's sport waß held on Monday. J.P. Sitting. — Messrs Souneas and Canning cat on Tuesday afternoon to her an information for larceny of part of a sewing machine that had been laid by Jeffery, a bailiff, against a travelling agent of the Wertheim Sewing Machine Company. The case was dismissed, as the justices were satisfied that there could be no larceny, and that the accused had a bona fide claim to the sewing machine from which the part was alleged to have been taken. The facts were, however, somewhat interesting. A tenant's goods were distrained for rent, and amongst other things distrained was a sewing machine. The tenant hels. the machine on hire from the Werthejm Company., and had only paid a small deposit on it. He told the bailiff that it was owned by the Wertheim Company, but notwithstanding this the bailiff seized it, and advertised it for sale under the distress warrant. The. accused, as agent for the company, gave written notices, claiming the machine, bo.th t,o the bailiff and to the auctioneer. A witness for the plaintiff swore that he 'saw accused enter the auction room, and take off part of ajsewing machine, but he could not swear which machine it was. This accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Henderßon'appeared for plaintiff (the bailiff) and Mr S. Edward* f.<?r the accused- A Jong legal argument ' took place, the defence being that eveM if accused had been seen to take a part of the machine, which was doubtful, there could have been no criminal intention as h,e had a bona Jide claim to the machine. The bailiff ought' to have taken civil proceedings in the R.M. Cauft, and not laid an information for larceny in such a case of disputed ownership. As already reported, the Bench concurred with the defence and dismissed the case.