RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3590, 13 January 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day-IbS^ , • (Before Captain Preece, R.JI.) I'ItUIT STEALING. Charles Qucree, Charles Erieksen, Andrew Sellars. Patrick Sellars, Jeremiah Bedingfield were charged, ou the information of Detective Grace, with having on the sth instant, stolen a quantity of apricots, valued at 2s, from the garden of Charles Lambert, of Napier. Mr Dewes appeared for the prisoners, who pleaded not guilty. Albert Wrightson, a lad residing in Carlyle-street, said he knew the cottage near Mr Williams' place in that street. Saw the five defendants on Friday last on the footpath outside the g-arden attached to the cottage. He did not receive any fruit from them, neither did he see them insido the garden. Detective Grace said on the oth instant ho was passing the place in question. Mr Williams called his attention to a tree in the garden being broken, and from enquiries lie made he saw the two boys Andrew and Patrick Sellars in presence of their father and mother, and spoke to them with regard to the broken branch of a fruit tree in front of Mr Williams' house. They admitted having taken some fruit from the garden in conjunction with the other three boys. On the following day witness saw Ericksen in presence of his father and mother, and he also made a similar admission. The other boys he was unable to see. By Mr Dcwes: Witness did not sec any of the boys in the garden. He did not take them to the garden, and ask whether tha was the garden from which they took the fruit, but he described the place to them. Richard Williams deposed that ou the oth instant he was passing near the cottage and heard some conversation about boys having broken a fruit tree in same. Detective Grace was near, and together they went to the tree and saw it was broken. They heard some boys running away, and Mr Grace followed them. A day or two afterwards witness asked Wrightson if he had been in the garden. Wrightson said, "No he had stood outside the gate, but one of the Sellars' handed him out some fruit." By Mr Dcwes: Witness was not the occupier of the cottage, and had no ownership to it as a tenant further than that he considered the tree was his, and lie had a right to sec it was not broken. He did not see any fruit taken from the garden. Mr Dewes contended there was no case proved. His Worship said lie would dismiss the case, although he considered there was sufficient evidence to justify him in giving , the boys a caution. He would remind.

them that the person convicted of going into a garden and stealing fruit therefroni ■wae liable to be imprisoned, for six months, in default of paying a fine of £20, while for s V the second offence a sentence of imprisonnicnt might be inflicted without the option ef a fine.