MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 4059, 6 June 1903, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TEMUKA, FRIDAY, JUNE sth, 1903. (Before Messrs J as. Blyth and G. McS. Gentlemun, JVsP.) Police v. William G. Joynes, charged with stealing a rug, a blanket, a piilow, etc., of the value of £2, the property of Whitau, a native. Accused pleaded not guilty. Constable G illespie, in stating the case, said that the theft was of a peculiar nature. The facts were, briefly.: —On or about the 7th March last, tho owner of the alleged stolen property was driving from his work along the Epworth Road on his way home t.o the' Arowhenua Pa. When he reached his destination he discovered that the property, which was in the form ol a swag, had fallen out of his trap somewhere on the road. It was dark at the time. He passed two men en his way home but did not recogn se who they were. When he missed the swag, he immediately went back and searched along the road for it. Not finding it he reported the loss to tho police,, i Search and enquiry was made by both Constables Gillespie and Brown, but no trace could be obtained. About a week after the loss the latter advised Whitau to go to Heron's threshing mill and explain to the men there that he host his swag and if any of them knew anything about it. This was done, but nothing resulted from this action/ The accused was one of those present at the mill when Whitau made inquiries and he was informed of the loss along with others there. On Thursday afternoon last Whitau was in a Temuka hotel when he saw accused come in with a swag under his arm. The former immediately recognised the rug the swag was wrapped in as being the one he had lost. He spoke to the accused about it and told him it was his rug. Accused said he had bought it about three weeks ago from a man and was to pay 2s for it, but he had not done this yet Accused said he knew it was Whitau's rug and it was them given up to Whitau who brought it to the police, explaining how he came by it. The police then went to the hotel and saw the accused. .He was asked to give an account of how he came in possession of the rug. Hie explanation not being satisfactory, he was arrested on suspicion of having stolen it. Evidence was given by Whitau and Constable Brown, which went \.o support the statement of the police. The accused received the usual caution by the Bench as to giving evidence on his own. behalf. He Selected to do so and stated he could prove an " infernal " lot. This would showthat he did not steal the rug, which he bought from a man named Robert Williams,- a tent-maker, employed at Heron's mill. Cross-examined by the Police : The accused admitted he knew the swag belonged to the native, and he had had th.e°rug in his possession since aboutthree weeks after it was lost. Witness further stated that Williams had the other contents of the rug in his possession. .. As the accused's statement implicated other persons, he was, on the applideation of the police, remanded lor s days. As a result of tho above case Nonstable Brown, accompanied by Whitau, proceeded yesterday afternoon to Milford where Heron's mill is working at threshing. He found Robert Will.-ams who had in his possession another iuj, and a pillow, which Whitau identihoc as his property. Williams was ask.'d as to how he came by the articles. His explanation not being satisfactory,, be was arrested on a charge,of having stolen the goods, and later on he was charged before their Worships with the theft. After hearing the charge read accused was also remanded for eight days. The Court then rose.