SUPREME COURT.

Press, Issue 14828, 20 November 1913, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. The Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court was continued yesterday, before Mr Justice Denniston. Mr T. W. Stringer, K.C., prosecuted. ALLEGED THEFT OF RING. The hearing of the case against William Philip Edgar, charged with receiving a gold ring knowing it to have been stolen, was continued, Mr Gresson appearing for Ahe prisoner. Accused, giving evidence, said that ho had given 15s fouprhe ring. He bought the ring haJKc bar of the New Zealander Hotel, from a man ho believed to be Allen, but aiterwards ascertained was Reid. *

To Mr Stringer: He did not know the man's name was Reid until somo timo afterwards. He purchased a crucible from Reid after he bought the ring from him. He bought a watch at the same time as the ring, giving £2 for it, and selling it himself outside Hulston's shop to a man named Sherwood for £3.

After an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr Stringer said tho accused was closely associated with Hulston's shop, and seemed to have acted as an agent for the disposal of stolen goods. His Honour said the man had mixed himself up with the gang of robbers and swindlers, and must take the consequences. He would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. THEFT OF JEWELLERY. William Charles Merrett and Sidney William Aithur pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a bag containing a gold watch and various articles of jewellery, belonging to S. M. Din and Co. The affair took place at tho Lake Coleridge works ou October 22nd. Mr Donnelly applied for leniency under tho special circumstances involved. Thero was no settled criminal disposition shown on the part of the accused, and he would ask that probation should be granted the two men. Mr Stringer said that a large quantity of jewellery was .still missing. His Honour said that if he allowed probation it would only be on condition that they paid a substantial sum hack to Din to recoup him for what ho had lost. That would not release them from their civil liability to him. Ho would admit the accused to probation for twelve months, and would practically fine them a very substantial sum to recoup the man. Din said he had lost £277. but he had his own opinion as to the value of the goods. Mr Stringer said that if the amount wore divided by four it would probably give the true value. His Honour said he would order the accused to r>ay Din £40 each within twelve months at the rate of £3 10s per month.