THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5119, 2 December 1903, Page 3

THE COURTS.

MAGISTRTE'S.

Tuursdat, 26th November, 1903. (Before G. Cruickshank.Esq., S.M.) BREACH OP THE STAMP ACT.

Police v. Joseph Smith. — Ghara© of giving a receipt for £2 without affixing the requisite duty stamp. Defendant pleaded guilty.

Sergt. Bowman stated that the receipt in question came to light in a case tried at Naseby. As the de f endant had admitted the offence and as he was a married man with a family he did not ask for more than a nominal penalty. Fined 5a and costs (7a). ASSAULT.

11. Sre Qaco was charged OO (he iafornmtfon of the police with assaulting a Chinaman named Fan Sen at the Chinese Camp on 7th November.

Mr Haggitt appeared for the accused, who pleaded guilty, and urged in mitigation of penalty that the offence hu,d beeu cammitted when the accused was the worse of liquor and that he was prepared to take oufra prohibition order against uimself; further, that his aged lather and Bister were dependent on him, and that if a severe fine were inflicted they would suffer to a greater extent than the accused.

Convicted and fined £2 and costs (11s). The accused was further charged with damaging property. Mr Haggitt explained that the damage had been made good, and asked that he be simply conriofced and dis» charge, which was done on payment of Court costs (13s).

John Hore was charged, on the information of the police, with stealing a bottle of whisky from the Masonic Hotel, Lawreuce, on 9{.h November.

Sergt. Bowman conducted tho prosecution, and Mr White appeared for accused, who pleaded not; guilty.

Sergf. Bovrraaa stated the circumstances of the case, and called

Geo. Leslie, licensee of the Masonic ! Hotel, Lawreuce, who deposed that the accused, in company with Philip Real, visited his hotel on the afternoon of the King's Birthday. There was a swagger present at the samo time. They stayed only a. few minutes* and shortly after they were gone ho missed a bottle of D.C.L. whisky. There was no one else in or out between the time accused left aud when he missed the whipky. He informed the Sergeant of bis loss aud told him who had been in the house. Accused was subsequently brought to the hotel by Sergt. Bowman. He asked witness if he had not bought tbe whi»ky from him that day, and, being told that he did not, suggested that he bad gotit the previous (Sunday) nJobb. He was satisfied accused did not buy the whisky at his hotel either that day or the day before. He might have sold him a bottle of whisky a long time ago, but had no recollection of doing so. He gave him no authority to take the whisky. Accused wished to take him (witness) aside to talk tbe matter over bofi the police would not permit it. Tho whisky stolen was of the same brand as that produced. —To Mr White : Tho three did not go out together ; the swagger went away first and Real next. V* bile the three were present he was in and out of the bar. The three might have been two or three minutes in tbe bar. Would swear he did not give tbe accused any whisky on Sunday night and arrange to have payment aftorwards. — To the Bench ' i The whisky was lifted off the middle bar-shelf. — To Mr White : He did not tell Real on Monday morning that he had given Hore a bottle of whisky. — To the police : Had been offered a pound to square the matter, but would not saywho it was who offered it.

T. Dwyer, licensee of Royal George Hotel, Lawrence, deposed that on the afternoon of tbe 9th November accused left a bottle of D.C.L. whisky with him to keep till he called again, Sergt. Bowman called in the meantime, and witness handed it over to him.

Sergt. Bowman deposed that about 5 p.m. on tbe &th November he was iuformed by Leslie that a bottle of whisky had been stolen from his bar, Was told accused, P. Real, and a swagger bad been tbere. He went up the street and met accused coming out of Dwyer's, and asked him what he had done with the whisky he had taken from Leslie's. He replied that be had. not taken any. Witness then went into Dwyere's and j was informed that accused had left a bottle of whisky with Dwyer. It corresponded with the brand taken from I eslie's, and he took possession of it. Got tbe accused and took him to Leslie's when he tried to get Leslie to say that be had bought it that morning and then the previous day (Sunday). Accused tried very hard fco get Leslie i aßide, bub "witness objected. — To Mr White ; Acoused was very nearly drunk,

rJ« did not think it necessary to look up Ihe other two persona who had beeu in tbe hotel when he found ihe missing whisky in accused's possession. Mr White addressed the Oourfc on bobolf of accused, pointing ouD fcb&G their waa no direct evidence to connect him with the theft, that all the evidence was purely circumstantial. He called

Accused, who slated that he got the whisky at Lewie's on tho Sunday evpniug on credit, aud had carried it about in liis pocket during the day. His Worship said he was satisfied the whisky was stolen. Accused would be fined £2, with costs (11)*.

CITIL CASE.

Simpson and Hart (Mr White) v. Mr and Mrs Cahill.Ternnku.— Claim £27 Bs. Judgmentby defau!' '.!?- •.mountclaimed, with Court costs (£1 6 ), and solicitor's fee (£1 lla).

CL'IMS TOK TRESPASS.

M. O Donneil (Mr Finlaypon) claimed £5 /ram Mary Young (Mr Huggiti) for trespass of defpndaot's cattle on his land between tha 25th October and lOt.h November, urd Mrs Young claimed £10 for the trespass of O'Donnell's cat do on her wo.-cry at diflerout dates during the past three years.

Frpm the facts as elicited in Oonr*, it, appeared that tho parties ownod nHj->in-ing sf etions under the AJiitiiis; Lands Occupation Act »n<? fhah what; dividingj fence there once had been was destroyed, and practically theie was now nothing in the nature of a fence Lo prevent the cattle ranging over tho two areas. Both parties admitted trespass, but ia Mrs Young's case i1;i 1 ; was pointed out by counsel that she was claiming for damans tbafi had occurred dllting her husband's lifetime, aud before fche was registered as owner of the property. Both admitted their willingness to erect a half of the dividing fence, but there was some gorso growing on the line the responsibility for clearing which both repudiated. It was pointed out by the Court, and admitted by counsel, that the parties were jointly liable for this work and ibe Oourfc decided that 6be best solution of tho difficulty was to make an order for the erection of tbe dividing fence, which was done ; Mr O'Donnel gallantly giving hia opponent 1 choice of ends.