MARTON COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8796, 25 April 1907, Page 2

MARTON COURT.

-At Marton Court to-day, before Mr Stanford, S.M.,ConstableFitspatrick brought informations against L.Brown, G. C. Bruere, and L. Poster for a breach of the peace at Marton on the evoning of Marton sports. Brown and Bruere pleaded guilty, and were each fined 20s and 17s costs. The evidence* showed that defendant Poster had been assaulted, and ho was accordingly discharged. Bruoro was also charged with breaking a window, and pleaded not guilty. After evidence had been called his Worship said : "I believe you broke the window, Bruere," and .was proceeding to outer a fine of 20s and costs 355, when Brown made au unsolicited admission of the offence,and to this Mr Stanford replied, "I thought you did." The fine was paid by Brown. A charge was brought against John Marshall and Henry Gardiner of the theft of 6 pairs of men's drawers, valued at 15s, the property of Mace Walters/ Detective Siddells prosecuted and Mf Lyon defended the accused. The facts'adduced in evidence were that Marshall was Borough scavenger and Gardiner was his assistant. In consequence of information received Detective Siddells and. Constable Pitzpatrick interviewed Marshall at his residence and asked him whether he had found any wearing ' apparel at Mr McEldownoy's business premises. Marshall denied first that he bad, and on the question being pressed ho said ho had found two pairs of drawers in the rubbish they had removed from Mr Walters' premises. The detcetive and constable nest interviewed. Gardiner, who admitted that the articles alleged to have been found were sis in mimbor. Marshall then admitted that his previous tStatementas to the number, was.incorrcet.jj Mace Walters deposed that he was unaware the goods were missing until the matter was brought under bis notice by the police. Mr Lyon was proceeding to lay the foundation of a lengthy defence, when his Worship mentioned that he thought a small fine would meet the case, and thereupon counsel abandoned further argument, attd the defendants were each fined 10s and costs, and were-ordered to pay the value of the goods. His Worship said that he deemed it expedient to mention that men employed iu duties similar to those of accused should be particularly careful about retaining possession of any goods found in the refuse that seeruerl to bo new. They should at once—say, within 24 hours—endeavour to ascertain the owner and return the goods. They must not think they had a right to keep them.