RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 143, 25 April 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Masterton, April 24,1879,

[Before H, S. Wardell, Esq,, R.M.] Criminal Cases, Mason v. Wordsell. Larceny. Mr Bunny for the prosecution.. The prisoner is a tall, gentlemanlylooking young man, with more the aspect of a saint than a sinner. The charge against him was that, on the 17th inst,, lie stole 12 one-pound notes from Mr T. G. Mason's shop. • T. G. Mason deposed that he left prisoner in charge of his shop from Tuesday, 11th inst., till Thursday, the 17th. On the latter day, at 6 p.m., he went to the shop and found prisoner missing, also some money taken away. There were

L 7 orLB iiithe jlpanfl.a number of' notes in the 'desk, ;iiicluding a five pound note; some orio pound notes, and three sovereigns, There were also cheques there, but these were not taken. No one had access to the cash box and till but prisoner and himself. The prisoner wished to know how much prosecutor missed, Was it more than the Ll2 in the warrant? i: ■ Witness had sworn to Ll2, but from a subsequent investigation he believed 'the amount taken to be from L 22 to L 24. Prisoner: That amount is not correct. Did you leave your cash box open ? Witness—Yes, Constable Brunskill stated that he arrested prisoner on Sunday, the 19th instant, at the Pakuratahi Hotel. Prisoner, when he heard from witness that ho had a warrant for his arrest, said thnt he was very sorry, and supposed that MiMason knew the amount which had been taken. Prisoner told witness that it was £l7. Prisoner gavo witness two envelopes, £ll being in one and £5 in another, also a packet of gold containing forty sovereigns, which he said he had brought out from England with him, and another packet containing four sovereigns, _ The Court, after looking at the sovereigns, declared that thoy were all Colonial coin,

Witness also received from prisoner certain private letters, which lie' was requested not to read, But on looking through them he found in one envelelope a £2O bank note and two £5 notes.

The Oourt asked the prisoner if he wished to make any defence, giving him the usual caution.

The prisoner wished to correct tho prosecutor as to amount missed by him, but beyond this reserved his defence, The prisoner Was then committed to tako his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. Civil Cases. C, Brown v. R. Greening.-Debt, £2 9s. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v. Here Maalk—Eebt, £4 19s 3d. Judgment confessed.

Sanie v. Ratima.—Debt, £ll 19s 3d. Jndgment confessed. G. Coker v. John Hall.—Debt, £9. Judgment for amount and costs.

0. Brown v. K, Te Korou, -Debt, £l2 13s lOd, Judgment for £lO 17s and costs.

Tlios. H. Murray v. T. Bentley.—Debt, £7 Is Od. Judgment for amount and costs.

The Public Trustee v. F. Morgan.— Possession of premises and rent £2O. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. In this case the property in dispute was vested in an absentee. It had been included in a reserve nnder the Masterton and Greytown Town Lands Act, but from an omission in the schedule the title was not perfect. Land unclaimed and unoccupied for a term of 10 years becomes vested in the Public Trustee, and the question arose as to whether tho occupation of land by the defendant prevented the Public Trustee from claiming it, The Court reserved its decision.

W, T. Ti Whakakarangi v. E, Meredith.—Debt and damages, £45. Dr Buller for plaintiff; Mr Bunny for defendant,

The Counsel for the plaintiff stated that some considerable time ago a mare belonging to plaintiff was placed in the hands of Mr A, Gillies for stud purposes, Mr Gillies sent the mare to Mr Walter Morison's advising him that the mare was the property of the plaintiff. Mr. Morrison, however, gave delivery, of the marc to Mr R. Meredith, who subsequently disposed of her to MrHitchins, from whom the defendant in the present case purchased her. If lie could the original ownership, and that his client had in no way parted with his interest in her, he should ask the Court for an order for the delivery Qf the mare, irrespective of the interest of third parties, and such damages for detention as might be proved.

Mr Bunny, for the defence, stated that they had no animal such as was described in the hill of particulars. Dr Bulk stated that his client would not be able to identify the animal satisfactorily without an adjournment, which he trusted the Court would allow.

Plaintiff, sworn, deposed that he was the owner of a reddish brown (chestnut) mare with small spot on forehead, branded Gon one shoulder. Saw the animal last in 1877, when he gave her into the charge of Mr A. Gillies.. The mare was now in possession of Mr E. Meredith, who admitted having her on the Bth of February last, and would not give her up without an order from the Magistrate. At this point a question arose between counsel as to how the case should be conducted.

Dr Buller said he had developed the whole of his caso, and was bound to adhere to the course he had indicated in opening. He wished his friend to be equally explicit in stating on what points lie made his defence, arid not spring half-a-dozen defences on to him at a later stage of the case.

The Court said that it considered the defence was a simple denial of the possession of tlio animal as described, and that the case would be decided on this issue.

Dr Buller expressed his readiness to stake his case on this issue.

_ Mr Bunny declined to narrow down the issues in the case, or to make any admissions. He simply gave a general denial to the various allegations of thd plaintiff. The case then proceeded, Dr Buller claiming some latitude in examining his witness, as lie would have to meet, by anticipation, all kinds of defences. Witness valued the mare at L4O, which he had paid for her, and, in answer to Mr Bunny, could not tell her age, He bought her when horses were fetching a large price. It might be 15 years ago. He gave Gillies two mares-on the understanding that he should have one foal and Gillies the other. One of the mares was returned to him by Gillies; the other was the one sued for in the present action. Walter Morrison proved that the mare was sent to him from Otaria, He sent an account to Mr Martin for her, amount £9 Is, which Mr Martin refused to pay, on the ground that the mare belonged to Mr A, Gillies. He then saw Mr Gillies, who sold him the mare for L 10; subsequently he sold the mare to R, Meredith for LIG,

T, B, Hitching,? proved that he bought the mare from Mr R, Meredith for Ll9 : some months later he disposed of her to Mr E. Meredith, in whose possession he believed her to be at the present time. At the request of Dr Buller, the case was then adjourned till next sitting of the Court,