Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 65, 29 July 1868, Page 3

Magisterial.

' "fr OHRISTOHUROH. Twi.-Dav , Jt/r.v 28, (Doforo T, W, Moudo and A, Jlaok, En __„,) Laiioknv as a Haii.rh.— Charles Haukott, on remand, was brought up charged with thin offence, Mr 3, S. Williams for tho dofonco, i'olloo florgcant Partly said i tho prisoner arrived hero ou tho 2 ith Instant, on remand from Wellington; and tho watch producod was forwarded with him, under cover. Prisoner had sinco thon boon In tho look-up, antl had adinlttod that tho watch bolongod to Mr Wilson, from whom ho had got it to clean. Sarah Simpson said, I am tho wifo of woven Hlmpßon, and ronldo on tho Papanui road. I know tho prisoner. On or about tho 23rd of Juno last, ho enmo to our houso for a watch, ho had previously had to repair, I gavo It to him, an It would not go, He .aid ho would return It In a day or two, but did not, lie did not say. whon ho took tho watch, how long It would tnko to ropair it. 1 had received tho watch from Mr Wilson, to whom it belongs. I cannot swear to tho watch produced being tho ono I speak of, Sloven ■.Simpson, husband of hint witness, said, I am a storekeeper on tho Pununut road. I know tho prisoner. Homo time In Juno lv. t, £ gavo prisoner tho watch produced to repair, Ho repaired it and returned R, hut the day after It stopped again. On the Monday following I told him of It, and asked him to mako it go. 110 oamo up -on tho Sunday, and nsU ho would do It whilst Mr Wilson waited for It, If ho would tako It to his house, I said I would not lot him havo it to do on that day, John Wilson said lam a storekeeper living on tho Papanui road. Tho watch nnd chain produced aro mlno, I was wearing thorn about thrco weeks ago, I had occasion to go up country, and left the watch with last witness, who Is my partner, to get ropalrod. I havo not hooii It nlnco until today. I never gnvo tlio prisoner permission to tako It away wllh him whon leaving tho provinco, Hy Mr Williams ; I novor told prisoner tho watch was mine, nor do I know that ho had any rcanon for knowing It to bo so. Hy tho Bench i Tho watch originally cost mo _!(!, and I consider It to bo worth ,66 at the present time, Horgoant I'ardy applied for a further remand lo enable full parilciilursof prisoner's arrest to bo obtained from Wellington. At present It was only • known that tho watch was found on him, bub under what olroum* atnncon, tho police woro not uwiiro, A tolcgram had been Hon. to Wellington, but no reply received, Mr Willlanni applied for tho charge to bo dhimisKod. Ho contended that no .una hnd boon mado out against tho prl» sonor, as thoro was in ovidenou to shew that ho had tho slightest Intention of converting the watch to his own use, It had been given to him to ropair, and tho more faou.f that could not ho expected to prevent hlin going to Wellington if ho ho desired. Ho might roturn from there, and It was In cvhlonco thut ho had neither denied his identity nor the ownership of tho watch, To substantiate a cliargo of larceny as a halloo, actlvo conversion of tho property must be provod. Sergt. Pardy miid there woro olhor clutrgos of a similar nature to bo brought against prisoner, Tho Bench ultimately remanded him for eight (lays, offering to accept ball of hlmiolf iv £60 and two sureties of £'26 each. OlVir, OAHKB, Wim.iam RoiiKUTfl v. il, FAM.OON,— CIaim of £ID amount duo for pur.hiuo of a mare, Defendant disputed payment on tho ground of au agreement having been made whon the maro was purchased, that If ho did not rood vo payment for a horso ho had himself sold, tlio bargain was to bo declared oil, and the plniiitltT was to take back tho mute. In support of this ho called his wife who hoard (ho bargain made, do had not rocclvod pay* uu'iit for tho horse, nnd had offered aovorul times to roturn tho mure, but plaintiff! would not take It,, Plain-Mil 1 denied tho bargain as suited by defendant, but having no ovidenou iv support of his statement, judgment was given for defendant with costs. F, A HHi/onn v. Josiu'jt Htij.mi ani. Thomas SaW-on,— Claim of _>l_ for ironwork, Mr Slater for tlio plalntlfl!, iv whoso favour judgment with coiitu was recorded. Judgment for full amount and costs was

glvon In tho following canon •— -Proprietor, of the Press v. I). Hayncr, £15 10a ■ John Whalo v. Q. Hammoll, XI ids. In tho caaoof 11. Wykeav, Hurli l.onnottx, 1.18 0(1, iudKinont wan filven for defendant for Xi) 8a Bd costf), Hr?trmmrmimm'"''"""mrmm*jmuwt\Mtwmm»imtin\n