RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 265, 27 October 1874, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fbiday, October 23,1874,

(Brfore W: Lawrence Simpkon, Kiq., R.M., and I. Luutfhnan, Esq., J.P.) LAKCBNY. John Levy, aUna John Ooldburg, was charged with having, on the sth'October, stolen a pocketbonk, the property of John Millar, said book containing £9 in notes, 17s in silver, a fourpenny piece, an I 0 U for £6 sa, two nuggets, and two quartz specimens. Mr Inspector Moore conducted the prosecution, and Mr W. Johnston appeared as solicitor for the accused. John Millar detailed the circumstances of the robbery. He was working in Marsh's yard, at the Bridge Hotel, and laid his coat on a chair close to the door of a room in which prisoner was lying on a sofa. While he went to the bar with some others for a drink, he left the coat lying, and when he came back, he noticed that the coat had apparently been disturbed. On examining it, he found the pocket-book gone. When, on the 19th, Sergeant Cassels showed him nuggets he had taken from the prisoner, Millar recognised them as his, and swore very positively to them, and the specimens. He could not swear to any of the other property found, which did not include the pocket-book or the 10 U. Mr Johnston subjected this witness to a rigorous cross-examination as to his ability to swear to the nuggets ; but could only succeed in eliciting a more thorough and positive identification of them as his property, they having been obtained by him while mining at the Eraser River six or seven years ago. Johu Marsh then gave evidence. The most important portion of it was that referring to the prisoner having dropped the bag with the nuggets when called by the Sergeant. When Marsh told Cassels, all three went back to the spot, and prisoner fcaid, "That'« mine; it's a bag with some gold I have dropped." In cross-examining this witness, Mr Johnston questioned him as to whether the bag was dropped purposely, or if it fell from a nuckmf osh coat prisoner had over his arm. The witness was perfectly certain the bag dropped on the right side of the prisoner, but was not prepared to swear positively over which arm the coat was hanging, although he " honestly belived" it was the left arm. Sergeant Cassels gave evidence of the capture and searching of the accused. When he was first told of the robbery, he searched the prisoner, and found £26 in notes, but no nuggets. Millar could not identify the notes, and therefore he'released the prisoner. On the 19th, he saw prisoner leaving Cromwell, and called to him, " I want to speak -to you ; come up the street." The prisoner at once came back, and Mr Marsh then drew the Sergeant's attention to the bag dropped by him. Mr Millar identified the nuggets in it, ; and then the prisoner was placed under arrest. A fourpenny piece, also, was fouiid among his silver. Mr Johnston, in addressing the Bench on behalf of the prisoner, submitted the information must be d ism issed in to to. There was no shadow of evidence connecting prisoner wijh anything but the nuggets and specimens ; and no shadow of evidence to connect him with the possession of these on the sth, or until the 19th. It was only reasonable to suppose that in a mining district, such things changed hands frequently ; but, at any rate, the possession of them by the prisoner was not so recent that he should bo called on to account for it. The conduct of the prisoner was certainly not that of a gui!ty person. He remained in Cromwell most of the time between the sth and the 19 hj. When Sergeant Cassels allied him as he was leaving Crom well, he actually came back and met the Sergeant ; did not attempt to go on, nor did he even stand still, but ncfaid without any fear such as a guilty man would be expected to show ; and he at once admitted ownership of the bag he had dropped. In no way had a case been made out against the prisoner, except as regarded the identification by Millar of lost property ; and the possession of it by prisoner at a date a fortnight from the robbery left it non-requisite for him to account for such possession.

The Bench said, notwithstanding the nVe manner in which accused's counsel hid addressed them on prisoner's behalf, they were of opinion , a prima facie case had h-en established ; the identification of the nutlets by Millar was so complete, they were justified in sending prisoner for committal: The point raised by Mr Johnston as to the fortnight's lapse of time would doubtless have considerable weight with a jury, but it could not weigh with ibem to such an extent as to allow of the prisoner's acquittal. The prisoner was therefore committed to take his trial at the Supreme Court iu Danedin, reserving anything he might have to say in defence until that time. CIVIL CASKS. David Hloag v. John Perron.—Claim £5 17s 6d. \ T o appearance. William Mpnnab iv Goodirer and Kuhtze Claim £43 Os 6d. Settled out of Court. RE-TIEARTNG. In the case of W. Reid Robertson v. Goodger, Mr Johnston, for plaintiff, said his client informed him that no notice of application for a re-hearing had been serve l on him as pMntiff until Friday evening, afte- the Court had heard and gr.wted the application. Mr Wilson, f„r Mr Goodger, said Mr Colclough, who acted as agent for Mr Goodger, stated to him that he had seen a person start off with the notice on the proper date in order to serve it on Robertson. Robertson was put in the box, and swore to having received it on the Fridiy night, through Mr Taylor, his employer. Some argument, ensued, (luring which his Worship sai I he mnst have affidavits of service of notice in future attached to the (amplications, and it was agreed to proceed afresh with the application for re-hearing. This was then granted, and tixed for next Friday.