Police Court.

Southland Times, Issue 11485, 18 June 1890, Page 3

Police Court.

♦ Tuesday, 17th June. (Before C. TC. Rawson, Esq., R.M.) DISTURBING THE SALVATION ARMY. A.- youth named Robertson was charged with having on the 16th inst. created a disturbance in the Salvation Army Barracks in Tay street. — From the evidence it appeared that the defendant, while in the barracks on the evening in question, talked loudly and in such a way aa to disturb and annoy the meeting, and although repeatedly asked to be quiet persisted in his unseemly conduct. Eventually one of the officers of the Army endeavoured to eject him, he resisted, and was Baid to have used very bad language, although the witness could not remember its tenor. Constable Burrows, who came along at the time, deposed that he heard offensive expressions and arrested the defendant. — His Worship said that the clause of the Act tinder which the information was laid, rendered an offender liable to a fine of L 5. He thought it was a great pity this clause was not oftener enforced. Persons throughout the colony who went to public meetings and entertainments were often annoyed by noisy persons in the galleries, and in consequence of this people often refrained from attending public gatherings. He intended, so far as he could, to prevent this nuisance so long as he was in Invercargill. As it was a first offence he would only impose a small fine, but if the offender appeared again on a similar charge he would be punished very severely. A fine of 10s, wifch costs 2s, was inflicted. LARCENY BY AN EMPLOYE. Charles Hunt was charged, on remand, with having on the 13th inst., stolen two buggy lamps the property of his employer, W. H. Mathieson. — Sergeant Macdonell conducted the prosecution and Mr Macalister appeared for the accused. — The evidence against the accused was to the effect that, assisted by a lad named Moir, he had taken a couple of lamps from Mr Mathieson '9 carriage factory, where both had been working, and that he had left them with William Brown, hotelkeeper, of A venal, for the purpose of selling them to him. Moir had obtained the lamps from the place where they had been kept in obedience to instructions from Hunt and had put them in a bag. In the evening, after working hours, Moir, acting again under Hunt's instructions, went to the shop and took the lamps, rolled in a bit of a bag, from there out to Hunt's place. Hunt took them to Brown's the same night, and Brown, who had previously told the accused he wished to procure a pair of lamps, looked at one casually, but, being busy, placed them under the counter for future examination, and they remained there till the detective got them on the Monday following. When the lamps were missed Mr Mathieson asked those in his shop whether any of them knew anything about them, and Hunt answered in the negative, and when Detective Maddern went to search the accused's house he denied any knowledge of them. It was also alleged that Moir was overheard telling Hunt that the lamps, being of a special design, might be recognised by Mr Mathieson. — The case for the defence was that the accused had simply taken the lamps out to Brown to let him see them, and that he had had no intention of stealing them. Brown had asked him some time before if he could get a couple of lamps from Mr Mathieson, and Hunt had answered that some new ones were about to be imported and that if Brown would wait he would get him a pair of nice lamps. Brown consented to wait, and when the lamps arrived, Hunt, anxious that Brown should get a pair, sent the boy Moir out with them to Brown for approval. He did not take them out himself because he had another engagement, and so the boy took them to his (Hunt's) house, and when he got home he took them to Brown's and left them there, to be returned to Mr Mathieson if not approved, and to be paid for by Brown to Mathieson if they suited his requirements. The manner in which the thing was done was accounted for by the fact that only one. pair of these special lamps remained in Mr Mathieson's stock, there having been originally two, and he was afraid they would be disposed of. The evidence showed that the accused had asked the foreman of the shop where the lamps were kept and sent the boy Moir for them, and it was contended that if he had wanted to steal them he would not have acted in so open a way. Mr Brown's evidence was to the effect that he* had no idea the lamps had been stolen, and that if he had kept them he would have gone to Mr Mathieson to pay for them unless the accused brought him a proper bill from his employer. The only difficulty which Mr Macalister considered he had to contend with was the want of discretion on the part of the accused in subsequently denying any knowledge of the lamps and not at once giving a full explanation, but his explanation was that when Mathieson asked about the lamps he said nothing because he thought he was referring to other lamps, that the police had only accused him when they came to his house of making a cart for another man, and that when told it was a serious case, and so forth, he got anxious and thought it best to keep his own counsel. — In connection with this case the boy Moir had been charged with Hunt on the previous day and had pleaded " Guilty," but now stated that he had only meant to admit having taken the lamps out of the ahed and out to Hunt's place.— After hearing evidence at length, as well as the accused's own statement, his Worship said he was very sorry to say that, the accused being a young man, a good workman, intelligent, and apparently respectable, no other conclusion could be come to by the Court than that he was guilty. No Magistrate could have any doubt that had not action been taken the lamps would never have been recovered at all. If the accused's intentions had been honest there would have been no necessity for him to tell so many lies about the jmatter. Besides having been asked by Mr Mathieson as to the lamps he knew that the police were searching for them, and he had had a number of opportunities of making an explanation. His failure to do so and the secret nature of his act when he took them, pointed clearly to bis guilt. As he (his Worship) had said before he was sorry to have to find the accused guilty, but it was clearly his duty to do so. The sentence would be one month's imprisonment with hard labour.— Mr Macalister asked that the accused should be admitted to probation for a fortnight. There was some doubt, he submitted, about the case.— His Worship said he had a doubt about the case, and he did not think it was one for probation. —Sergeant Macdonell said it was not the accused's first offence, as he had previously been charged with resisting the police and with drunken and disorderly conduct.— Mr Macalister said the accused s previous offence was of a quite a different nature and was the only thing known against him. He submitted that if the accused were admitted to probation it would give him another chance. — His Worship, after consideration, said he would not admit the prisoner to probation, but would reduce his sentence to fourteen days' with hard labour. In connection with the charge against John Ernest Moir, his Worship said that although the circumstances against him were suspicious he would give him the benefit of the doubt and dismis3 the case.