MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2956, 30 November 1900, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—FRIDAY, NOV. 30, 1900. (Before Messrs F. LeCren, W. Howe, and R. Bowie, J.Ps.) TRUANCY. George Currie was charged with failing to send his child to school. Defendant said that the girl played truant from school; he had not time to look after her properly. She had not a mother to look after her. The Bench said that the child must be sent to school, and defendant was responsible for her. Mrs Tutton was charged with a similar offence, and pleaded that she was unwell with severe headaches. ' The Truant Officer produced a certificate of registered attendance showing a considerable number of absences. Defendant said that she was not aware the girl had been away some of the days. Fines of 2s were imposed in both cases. BICYCLE ON FOOTPATHS. G. Venning was fined ss, without costs, for cycling on the footpath, and warned not tol be caught again. THEFT. Arthur Adams pleaded not guilty to five charges of theft. Sergeant Green said that he would take the case of the overcoat first. On the 31st of last month there was a social held in the Oddfellows’ Hall. The coats and hats were left in the ante-room at the front of the hall, and when the visitors were in the hall the coats disappeared. The accused was seen about the hall, and when arrested last Saturday was wearing the coat. His statement was that he bought the coat a couple of years ago in Napier, but the owner would be called to identify it. Leonard G. Marsh gave evidence in support of Sergeant Green’s statement, and positively identified the coat as his property by the buttons and marks. Left a pair of driving gloves in the pockets of the coat.

T. G. Marsh gave evidence, identifying the coat as his brother’s. His brother had told him of the marks before the coat was found.

J. Thompson, employed by the Canterbury Farmers’ Association, gave evidence that Mr Marsh took delivery of the coat produced on May sth. The coat was made by Butterworth Bros;, Dunedin. J. A. Miller, who acted as doorkeeper at the social, gave evidence that he saw the accused inside the passage of the hall that evening. Detective Fitzgerald gave evidence that Mr Marsh gave him a description of the missing coat. Saw the accused at the Commercial Hotel, with the coat, and took Mr Marsh there to identify it. Mr Marsh identified the coat, explaining how the tear was in the coat. The accused then said his coat had the same marks, and that he got it two years ago in Napier. The accused said he was never round the street in which the hall was, and did not know where the hall was.

The charge of stealing a hat, value 7s 6d, the property of Henry Griffiths, was then taken.

H. Griffiths said that on the 9th inst. he was attending a lodge meeting in the Oddfellows 7 Hall, and hung his hat up in the ante-room About nine o’clock missed his hat, no other being left. Could swear that the hat produced was his. Accused was further charged with the

theft of a hat value 9s, the property of H Peake.

H. Peake gave evidence similar to that of H. Griffiths.

Sergeant Green said that the hat Tiad not been, recovered.

J. Sutherland gave evidence that the witness Griffiths bought a hat from him about 12 months ago. Iditentified the hat produced as the one sold to Griffiths. H. Whelch gave that he had no recollection of selling ; imilar hat to accused. The hat produced was not sold in Messrs Gabites shop. Detective Fitzgerald said that when he arrested Hr.', the accused was wearing the hat produced. Accused said that he-bought it from Messrs Gabites three weeks ago. A further charge of stealing boots from E. A. Irwin, value 14s 6d, was heard. E. A. Irwin gave evidence that the boots must have been taken from his shop, as they were a special brand. . No other sho pin T maru stocked them. Joseph Bryan, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, said that the accused had been staying at his In asp fo three weeks. He was wearing the boots produced, and witness noticed that they were squeaking, as if they were new. Accused was further charged with stealing a necktie. Sergeant Green said that the police would withdraw the charge. In reply to the Bench, accused said that he came to Timaru in June or July last, and had been employed at Kirk’s brickyard.

The Bench said the thefts were very mean ones. They, had been fully proved, and all the articles identified. A sentence of two months with hard labour was imposed.

Samuel Maher, alias Joseph King, was charged with the theft of a pair of boots, value 16s 6d, from A. E. Prosser. A. E. Prosser gave Evidence identifying the boots.

Mrs Prosser gave evidence that three pairs of tan boots were put out on the morning in question, and only two pairs were brought in. It was an impossibility for the accused to buy the boots, as the sample was not nut 12 months ago. E. A. Irwin gave evidence that the boot produced was evidently of the same shipment as the one from Mr Prosser’s shop. Shopkeepers had particular marks of their own. It was impossible for them to be procured in Sydney 12 months ago if they were 1900 samples.

The licensee of the Commercial Hotel said that he did not notice the accused wearing the boots when, he came to the hotel first. Mounted-Constable Crawford said that he asked the accused where he got the boots, and he replied that he got them from Sydney. Took them to Mr Prosser, who identified them as his property.

Accused said that there was no evidence that he stole the boots. He had been arrested merely on suspicion. The witnesses could, not swear that he could not ge'. the boots in Sydney.

The Bench said that from the evidence they came to the conclusion that the boots were stolen by the accused, and a. sentence of 14 days’ imprisonment was imposed.