Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1167, 14 November 1871, Page 3

Magisterial.

♦> CHRISTCHTJRCH. - This Day. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Laeceny. — Robert Bartle answered to a summons charging him with having, on two separate occasions, stolen plants from the garden of Mr W. Wilson. Mr Joynt appeared tor the defence. John Stone, gardener to Mr W. Wilson, said he resided on the nursery premises iv Lichfield street. Defendant was in prosecutor's employ during September last. He was discharged, but witness could not say on what date. On the night of the 15th of. September witness was at the garden, and about eight o'clock lie heard a noise of rustling. It was dark at the time, but on going towards the spot he saw defendant, whom he intercepted, and found he had two rhododendrons in his possession, one i.nj each hand. Witnes3 did not know it was defendant until he intercepted him. He said to defendant, "Is this what you're up to ?" and he replied, in a confused sort of way, " They are for myself." Witness said it was an unprincipled way to act, and ho would hear more of it in the morning. Witness then went to his house, but soon after went out again and saw defendant lying on the walk near where he first saw him, and on raising him up,found he was very drunk. He led defendant down the walk towards the road, and left him, but in an hour returned and found him lying on a heap of rubbish near the gate. Witness led hiniout of tho gate leading into Cashel street, and said to him, " I will overlook the offence this time, but if you do it again I will report the matter to Mr Wilson." The value of the rhododendrons was 3s 6d each. Witness could not say how defendant got into the garden, as the gates were locked. He had no permission from witness 'to take any plants, nor from any one else, to witness' knowledge. When employed in tho, garden, defendant ctid ganeralwoik. This concluded the first case, and the sacond one was then gone into. The same witness said, on going into the garden on the morning of the 28th, he found some rhododendrons had been; taken. He followed the traces into the street, and thence towards the junction of Liehfield and Manchester streets. 'He then went to defendant's house, and found a rhododendrno newly planted. There were two missing from the garden, and the woman at the house told him the other was in the house. The one in the garden was like those he missed. He identified it by a peculiarity m the leaves. Subsequently witness sent a man to defendant's house, and he brought back two rhododendrons, which were like those he had missed, and were worth 3s 6d each. By Mr Joynt : Witness planted the two rhododendrons removed on the 15th on the following morning. The two removed on the 28th wero not, to the best of his belief, the same as were removed o.i the 15th. Witness could not say where defendant was working all the time from the 28th September to the Oth of November — the date 'of laying the information. He believed he was working part of the time for Mi' Wilson. Witness reported the theft to Mr Wilson four days after the 28th September, but the information was not laid until the Gth of November, because he had not authority from Mr Wilson. Ho- did not see defendant i?i the garden on the 2Sth of September. He coidd identify the plants from a peculiar yellowness of the leaf, caused by over-watering. Ho never knew defendant to. give Mr Wilson any plants. Mr W. Wilson said defendant was in his employ up to about a ironfch ago. He leit of his own accord, to go down to Temuka. He was chieily employed in the garden. He was in the garden during the month of September. Witness never gave him authority to take any plants' from the garden, nor had he any right whatever to take any. The hours for working were from eight to five, and defendant had no right whatever to be on tho ground after the latter hour. Witness heard soon ;after the theft was reported to him that prisoner had gone to Teinuka, and therefore the information was not laid. By Mr Joynt : As soon as the theft was reported to him, or ; within a day or two, he sent for Detective j ITeast, and requested him to jnake careful injuries, and, if good grounds to act upon were foun J, to lay an information. This was quite throe weeks or a month ago. He waa certain he never gave defendant any authority to take plants from the gardens. * He (defendant) nevor asked for any, nor "did he ever mention rhododendrons. At oub? time defendant went . to collect samples of t variegated flax at the J Halswcll for witness,£phd on the night he returned he had refttshments at witness' house. He did not oii^fchat occasion ask to be allowed to take sonic fjjants from the garden. Witness could recognise the rhododendrons taken by several pee uliai-i ties. Defendant once brought witness some specimens of variegated j flax some years ago, and subsequently a specimen fern from the West Coast. Thomas) Glennie said, at the instigation of the witness Stone, he went to defendant's house some weeks ago for two piaffe. Two rhododendrons were given to him. Tjiey were at the back of the house, but were nqfcjk-oncealed or planted. Defendant was not there. It was defendant's wife who gave him the^plants. He saw where two rhododendrons had-been pulled up in Mr Wilson's garden. By^Mr Joynt : He never saw any rhododendrons sold 'from that bed whilst lie was there.:: He had been in Mr Wilson's employ abouii three months. The plants were about three feet high. Ho did not know of any pcctfsaHtie3 about the plants. William Bates said he was a cabinet maker, and resided in Lichfield street cast. Defendant resides m the adjoining house. In September last, defendant did up.Tvitness' front gardens. Witness could not recollect the date. When lie commenced the gardens, defendant said two rhododendrons would improve their appearance, as they were fine plants. Witness agreed to take them at a certain price, and some i ime afterwards defendant brought two. He did not mezition Mr Wilson's name in

connection with the plants, except that he had got them from Mr Wilson's garden. It was about six in the evening when he brought them. Defendant put one into the ground, but next morning witness found that they were both gone. Subsequently he said he had been down to Mr Wilson's and made arrangements about the plants. By Mr Joynt, he was quite sure one of the rhododendrons were planted on the night defendant brought them, and the other was put into witness' shop. It was dusk when defendant brought the plants. The plants weie about three feet high. This concluded tlife case. Mr Joynt said he must a*k for an adjournment, as he was informed that a witness could bo brought, if time were allowed, to prove that Mr Wilson, notwithstanding his denial, did give defendant permission to remove the two plants. His Worship granted a remand until Thmsday, defendant to be bound over t in his own recognizances to appear on that day. LYTTELTON. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) cnriL cases. J. W. Julian v. H. S. Bolt, claim £2 ; judgj ment for amount and 9s costs. Nalder v. • Call". well, claim £7 17s ; judgment for amount j and £1 83 costs.