A Case and a Fiddle.

Woodville Examiner, Volume VIII, Issue 805, 25 November 1891, Page 4

A Case and a Fiddle.

The violin stealing case was concluded at Danevirke on Monday. Briefly stated the facts elicited w ere as follows; Laurvig, a charcoal burner, is a lover of _ the “ joyous science,” and usually carries a violin with him. Some two years ago he put up at the hotel of which L. Fries, was licensee, and appears to have fiddled away all his spar® cash ( and then to ha\e fiddled at the landlord’s expense to the extent of some Jt'9 when he elected to go in search of more remunerative employment. Now the landlord liked music, and decided to keep the voilin as a small memento of the hours spent so pleasantly unless Laurvig could, would, or should pay the £9 odd appearing against his name. Laurvig left, not only fiddleless but swag less, and consultiou with a lawyer failed to recover his effects. Mr Fries evidently aspired to fame as a collector for before Laurvig’s visit lie had procured another fiddle from his own brother. Two years passed and Laurvig returned. Fries was out of the hotel, and had left his violin at the house of a relative where Laurvig came, saw, and took it to his sylvan camp. At length Fries heard that Laurvig had the fiddle and was about to sell it, in consequence of which he laid an information and Laurvig was run in, the fiddle appearing against him in Court. Witnesses were examined to prove the ownership, and Laurvig cross-examined them to prove two things, first that he did not lay claim to the instrument but borrowed it with the consent of the custodian, and second that the fiddle was his own lost love which had been seized by the heartless landlord. The evidence called proved that the instrument produced had never been Laur•vig's, Mr Fries proving beyond doubt that he had bought the violin and case some years ago, and had bought the bow at Takapau, where the original purchaser of the violin now resides. Ho also said that no one acquainted with fiddles and fiddling could for a moment mistake the violin for that which had formerly been Laurvig’s. Laurvig was sworn and was equally positive that the violin was the one detained by Fries under section 140 of the Licensing Act. The other violin was produced, dan Laurvig was the only one present who could open the case., but he still swore he had never owned this fiddle. After a short retirement the Court gave judgment. They held that the disputed instrument was proved never to have been Laurvig’s, but even if it had, it had been legally detained under lien, and Laurvig committed larceny by resuming it without permission from Mr Fries. He was therefore fined £5, costs, witnesses’ expenses and solicitor’s fee £2 l6s sd, money to be paid by December Ist.