DISPUTE OVER WATCH AND CHAIN

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 124, 23 February 1928, Page 8

DISPUTE OVER WATCH AND CHAIN

PAWNBROKER’S POSITION SUPPORTED BY MAGISTRATE A dispute over a gold watch and chain, said to bo worth Al 7, was heard by Mr. E. Page, S.M., m the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Charles Hamilton asked for an order to have the watch, which was held by a pawnbroker named James William Batten, returned to him, as it was his property, and had been stolen. Mr. A. B. Sievwright, who represented Hamilton, said that recently his client’s sister, who resided in Sydney, got a seaman from one of the boats to bring a gramophone over to Wellington for her mother. The seaman delivered the gramophone at Hamilton’s house, but after lie left the watch and chain were missing. The detectives were informed, and Hamilton went to Batten’s pawnshop, which was in the vicinity, and asked if his watcli and chain had been pledged. The pawnbroker refused to give any information. Detectives later went to the shop, and found that the watch and chain had been pawned for <£'3. Batten went down 4 o tile ship to which the man who pledged the article said he belonged, but the latter could not be identified. Mr .Sievwright said that he thought there was something sinister about Batten not giving his client the information about his watcli and chain. It had been stolen, but the man who bad pledged it could not be found. It was peculiar Mint Batten could not identify the man o'i the ship who had pledged the watch with him. Mr. H. F. Johnston, who represented Batten, said that his client was quite willing to hand over (lie watch and chain to Hamilton, providing he lias paid the 403 which lie bad lent on it. It was unfair to expect him to hand it over without being given the money. Hs had been quite fair aliout the transaction, as he had told Hamilton to go to the police. Tljere was no proof that the watch had been stolen, for the man who had nawned it could not be found. If it could be proved that the watch was stolen and nawned by the thief, it would be different. The Magistrate said be was willing to believe that the watch belonged to Hamilton. and he would make an order (hat it be returned on the condition that the pawnbroker bo given the «£3 which he had lent on it. He thought that Batten, had been quite fair, and had acted in a bona fide manner over the transaction. The Court saw no reason why a pawnbroker should tell a stranger of his operations, and Batten had done right in referring Hamilton to the police, when the watch was mentioned. Under the circumstances, as the pawnbroker had taken in the pledge in an ordinary wav. he was entitled to the money he had given on it. No order as to costs would be made.