Resident Magistrate's Court.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 173, 2 November 1877, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

I BALCLUTHA. October 31, 1877. (Before E, H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Poltoe v. Apps. — Charge of stealing a pair of boots at Stirling, the property of Thomas Scotland. Mr Taylor for accused, - who pleaded not guilty. Thomas Scotland deposed that on the Ist September last he missed a pair of boots from his house, value 265. Next time he saw them, a day or two afterwards, Mr Withers was wearing them. The boots produced are not mine. Geo. Withers deposed that he bought a pair of hoots from accused about seven or eight weeks ago. The boots produced are tlie same. Accused said then that the boots did not fit him, and he had bought them from Thomas Scotland. Cross-examined by Mi* Taylor : The boots were new when I bought them, and I can swear to them. Accused was sober when I bought them from him between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. D. Dunn identified the boots as having been made by him for Thomas Scotland in June last. He identified them by a peculiarity in the make. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor : He had known Scotland for about three years, and had made two or three pairs of boots for him. He could toll the boots produced as his make from, among 10,000, This closed the case for the pi*osecution, and for the defence Mr Taylor submitted that as Scotland swore the boots were not his the accused must be acquitted. His Worship had no doubt the boots were the property of Scotland, and were stolen from him by the accused, and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment in Dunedin gaol with hard labour. Police v. G. Towj-jsi-nd. — Permitting gambling on the 28th October. Mr Taylor for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Daly deposed that on the morning of the 28th October he went through the hall of the Crown Hotel to a sitting room and knocked, but got no answer. He went out and looked through the window, and saw two persons playing at "Yankee Grab" with dice. There were a few shillings on the table, and after throwing, one of the parties put some more money on the table. He again went to the side door and knocked. The door was opened about six inches and then slammed in his face. He then met Mrs ToAvnsend and asked her to stop the gambling and put out those persons who did not belong to the place. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor : I did not see Mr Townsend. It was about ten minutes past midnight of. Saturday the 23th of October* Two persons were playing, and one was looking on. There were two shillings on the tabic when 1 first looked, and either one or two shillings was added. I did not see any money lifted. I saw ho drinks or glasses on the table. I have known Mr Townsend for about eighteen months, and he has always had a good character. Constable Mulholland corroborated Sergeant Daly's evidence. Cross-examined by Mr Taylor : I saw one of the players lift money after two or three " shakes '* of the dice. Mr Taylor submitted there was no proof of the defendant being a holder of a license, but on his Worship allowing evidence to be called on that point, he withdrew the point ; also that there was no proof of tlie defendant suffering the game to be played, and argued at length on the meaning of the word, quoting a case reported in the New Zealand Jurist. He contended that to " permit" implied something active on the pare of the defendant ; to " suffer" implied tacit acquiescence. In this case there Was Hot the slightest "proof that defendant either furnished the dice or participated in the alleged offence. Tho persons might have brought in the dice themselves. It would indeed be a monstrous straining of the law if under such circumstances a landlord could, if absent, be made responsible for other persons' conduct, simply because he was tho landlord, when there was no proof that he either promoted or assisted in tbo offence. The case had been highly coloured by the police Wishing to show, from the infallible accuracy of their watches that tho offence was committed on the borders of a Sunday morning* Tlie object would be apparent. .Judgment was leserved for a week. Smith v. GaEffi. —Claim of LS Bs. Mr Henderson for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimod ; costs of Court, 235, and professional fee, 10s 6d. Brewer v. Heal. — Claim bf L 3 Bs. Mr Henderson for plaintiff. Defendant

wm-w-_n-m»m-.»>»to» «iranll-.tt«ta_o_rxjr'-friia»»'d,irt_^ k ,l'i „ i ■;-: _»i.-h^| had paid Ll since service of the summons, and judgment was -now given by default for the balance, L 2 8s ; costs of Court, 9s j professional fee, 10s 6d. „ .! AtjLast v. R.-jbte. — Claml of Li 6s.' Mr Henderson for plaintiff and Mr Reid for defendant, who pleaded not indebted. Mr Henderson applied to amend the particulars by adding several items, which was objected to, and he elected to take a nonsuit. Rattray v Mahbr.— Claim of Ll2 8a 4d: Mr Henderson for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed * costs of Court, 19s, and professional fee, 21s.