MAGISTERIAL.
ASHBURTON—TUESDAY. (Before Mr H C. S Bindery and Mi' P. Th in is, J y ) ALtEOKD LARCENY The hea i >g or th - oh ri« o' 1 vcMiy agamst T*re ick 'Wim.i. war oj--cl’lce > w.i went to P'O'S yes erd vy : The xtmmav.--a < f >1 lam Nichola* was r“Riimod. In aavo i*‘ r- o)rt 5 'ft-!-ie suoiuions w»s issued wisnw m« the aroused who invited hi.a to hs offi When they arrived the e the aecns >■ asked witness if ha woo d withdraw th charge if he were pud what it cst him, Witt.ee-. repded t'n-t he tu thing tdo with the niat-ter ml • t.a ! i had pvaet cut o f hia hand An used hen tor k witness to Mr Pulloak'a cßce. where in rop’y tr Fu-rlmm, Mr .Bullock said he could offcir uo advice. Oe understood that M; Wilding was acting f.r wines and he was fu> proper person to whi m >o go. Ho also said that Ferriraau should have taken action before the charge was laid when the accused replied that ha did not think witness would have done what
he had. Witness replied that he did not think he could do anything as the matter was in the bands of the police- The accused then said " would you if you could ” T > this witness replied tha’ it rest’d with Mr WT-ding. The accused asked witness now in ch he was “ out ” ~ver the mater—meaning how much money :ad ho on'. showed him a bill ho had lo p iy, a-nd also p int-d out that aerr jsiio had charged him £3 10s for a por.ion of t'>a m-ohmo that oma d be got in Chris church for £2 The accused said ho would refund tho .:oi. The expenses were then reckoned up uni came to £lO 10». Accused sake! how much Mr Wiidiug’s fee would be, adding that, he did not suppose i* would he more then £lO , and this amnui the would pi; . ' o
accused said he adrairtud taking toe knotter ofl the mvihme hot corrected himself by adding that it was by hi'inaruc ions that It W4i tak-n off but he did not know “ for why.” Witness said that scoused knew the ma'ter had been advertised an 1 that it was witness's. f >n Saturday evening the accused said to witness “ C»n’t you get o it of the way for that day.” Witness replied that he could not do such a thing. Declined to go with accused to see the Act, say Ins that he had no occasion to hide, and that If anyone needed to hide it was accused Accused replied, “ For you it means only hiding for one day but for me it means to go away aUngeth r ” -T e witness wis orose-txamlned by Mr Purnell at some length but nothing material wa elicited -John Hunt, farmer, was called to give evidence as to Perrlman and Nicholas getting the kn tier from his farm, but it appeared that he knew nothing of the transao’ion, it hong hts brother who gave the article In qutsion to Nicholas The witness I" cross examination by Mr Purnell «aid h« 'y authorised the accused to sell a reaping machine upon c munission The machine was sold after having b- en in Forrim m’n possession
for about a month There was a knotter upon it. Witne-is could not swear if lha produced was the same, lie could not swear .0 an> of that year’s knottara, they being all so much alike - ! homas Bullock, auctioneer, stated that Nicholas and Ferric an had machines in bis store in West -tr«et Portions of these machines were taken away, and witness offered a reward of £2O fur the conviction if the offender Fnrriman was aware of this In reply ti dr'Purnell, the witness said that the doors 0? th- store were not in a very .good state —John Bland, in the employ of Mr Bullock. ;,ave evidence as
to parts of the informant's reaping machines being taken away, on advertisement offering a reward for th > conviction of the offender, w:;a inserted in the local papers Of this the accused knew, and ho said that hecoult tell who took the things away from the Arcade, but lie didn’t want to become aa infer ner. (This witness corroborated the evidence of
Nichols as to the accused’s a mission that ho had jtaken the knotter). — After the suramins had been served accused asked witness to see Nicholas and try to got him to withdraw thcharge. He said he w aid pay anything there was to pay in connection wiih the matter. —By U" 1 Pa mil ;-The acoas-d had nojerted that he alno had lost things out cf the Bto>-o. —John Wilhams bought a reaper and binder from the accused. Remember Nicholas and C notable Renter coining to hie piao ' with u search warrai t and taking possession of a knotter. Wit ness told accused of the circumatao|(| and he pave him a new knotter saying that he did not wish to see witness lnoonvenle ced. (This witness wa asked to see if ho could find certain marks on the knotter which the informant said were file marks and his me ms of identification. The witness could see no such marks and only wh»t ho took to be the result of wear aad tear.—The Bench, at t >ls stage, intimated that they also could see no file marks on the knotter )- This
was the case for the police In opening the ewe for hla client Mr Parnell made a lengthy and a >le address In favor of the accused. He rc-oapitulated the history of the reaper and binder wh'oh had been bought by Nicholas from Ferriman and said that when the first knotter broke, Nichol s who was in the middle of harvest came to Ferriman and begged him vers hard to borrow another for him. Mr Ferrio an said he would see what ho conM do- Mr Hunt had at that time just finished reaping and to hi u they went He agreed to part with his knotter on condition that Ferriman should give him a new one and, in case that new one would not suit that he should get his old one. On .heae conditions Nicholas got Hunt’s knotter, Subsequently Ferrman sent a new knotter to Mr Hunt to. replace that which had been lent but this it was f nnd would not suit at all, and Mr Hum
naturally called upon Mr Ferriroan in pursuance < i the agreement made to get Lsck the old one. Nicholas' machine was at that lime standing In Mr Bullock’s store in West street and Fen iman removed the k<,otier, sending it d wn to Hunt’s and getting back hunt’s new knotter which he placed on Nicholas’ machine. What had become of the new one the deferc did not know; thoprf sumption waa that someone had taken t from the store which was ia an open condition and at that time a aum er of thin s wo^emi-S'd from machh es, M>: Burnell claimed that ail the de ecce had to shew to clear them selves of the present charge was that agreement he had mentioned was made. Even if the Court decided that proper precaoilons had not been exercised in re-
placing the new knorter that was merely matter for a civil aotl ■». He regrett- d that hi; client was preceded from giving evidence because were ho allowed t > do so the nutter would be speedily cleared up. T< e accused o< uld put a very difi' nm face 00 the offers which it bad beat alleged by the informant he had made to have UlO matter settle'’. There were no overtures to “hide.” and although the accused had expressed a desire to pay, sooner than the case should be gone on with, that was merely to keep it out of Court, because a charge of such a nature was bound to injure the standi ig of any business man, wtootherlt was proved ornot. —The following evidence was called : —Henry Hunt remberod Ferrlman and
ft iohola* coming to his farm about two years av-o In regard to a reaper. W&oess had post finished reaping. Witness agreed to lend Nicholas his knotter on condition that he should net a new one in place of it or if that did not suit to get tba ohj one back. Nikolas took the knotted away. Ferrhnan sent down a new one to witness several months afterwards bat it did not suit. la pursuance Of the Agreement witness called li^ou
Ferrlman to replace the old one and it wan sent down soon nf'erwsr >e- —Th s wi'nesa also filled to see the file marie* “ii (he kuotte wh ch the Inf -rmitu cUlm-l were there . Alfred M ilford remembered Ferr man sending him to Mun’s with a kn-itt r livt year Tie ko- ter was no old one —Henry Hu t recillid said th ' b« hi lieved the new hiio ier had been aunt back to Ferrimao’s.— Photnis -ealy g-v evidence as to the good character f .be •ceased. - The B -nch after a brief retirement r -viewed the evidence a.;, d sn-is ied r.lus c-.°p The Court then ro»o. A h id R U HT..)N— W K D N T ES DAY. (B fo'.- Mr H. r’ S B-’deiey, f.*) DbUNKEVNESS A fi at offender was fined 10s and with the usual alternative. LUNACY A man suffering Horn lunacy was, oo the coitificato of two nvdical rnen, committod to the Snnryside Asvhim
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18861222.2.12
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1438, 22 December 1886, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,597MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1438, 22 December 1886, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.