RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3612, 8 February 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day

(Before Captain Preece, R. 31.) DRUNKENNESS. John Smith, convicted of drunkenness at Taradale for the second time this year, was fined 10s and costs, or iv default -IS hours' imprisonment with bard labor. George Presling pleaded guilty to having been drunk in Napier yesterday.—Sergeant Burtenshaw said the prisoner was taken ill with pains in the stomach while in the lock-up last night, and Dr Spencer had to be called in to prescribe for him. He would ask the Court to make an order on the prisoner for payment of the medical fee and cost of filling the prescription.—A fine of •3s and costs was inflicted, with medical fee 10s 6d, and in default of payment 48 hours' imprisonment with, hard labor. LARCENY. Ramiha Teaomahuta was charged on remand with having, on the 2nd instant, at Hastings, stolen five pounds of the moneys of Gustav Naumann. Mr Lee appeared for the accused. Gustav Naumann, a laborer residing at Hastings, said on the 2nd instant he had a £.3 note in a purse, also some change in another purse in his possession. He went to Knight's timber yards for firewood, and when there he took the purse containing the £5 note out of his pocket and put it back again. Before starting- to load the firewood he took his coat oft', and when he had finished he put it on again. Ho then went to Frank Knight to ask if he had sufficient firewood, after which he got on the dray and rode home. About five minutes after getting home he searched Ids coat for the purse containing the £'> note, but could not find it. Witness then rode back to Hastings on his horse, . but could see nothing , of the purse. He noticed that a dray that whs iv the timber yard when he was loading had gone, and lie asked in what direction it had gone. He spoke to a policeman about the matter first, and then went in the direction of the Bridge Jin. two or three miles, where he overtook the dray above-mentioned. There was a man driving (he dray, and in consequence of what he told witness he returned back to Hastings, and iv company with a policeman went to Kelly's hotel, where they saw the

prisoner. A man named "Willisinterpreted, and they held a conversation with the native. Mr Lee objected to evidence of this kind. Mr Willis w:iis simply acting as interpreter, and there was no evidence to .show that he had interpreted the exact words the native used on the occasion. The witness did not understand Maori. Examination resumed : The prisoner said in English that he had not got a.£s note; what money he had (sonic £3 lS.s) he had got at the Spit. They then all went together to Beecroft's hotel, and the barman there said the prisoner changed a ,£'o note. Witness would not know his £o note again. At the request of the policeman witness returned homo and brought his wife into Hustings. By Mr Lee : Witness was only going to buy" firewood when he left home. He had lls or 1.3s in the second purse. The firewood came to 2s Cd. He carried the £.3 note to pay insurance to Mr Playe.s. The amount of the insurance, was not settled. He did not call upon or sec Mr Hayes on that occasion. He got the Co note from Mr Wall, watchmaker, the clay before he lost it. When the note was shown him in Beecroffs hotel he did not notice what bank it was on. He only noticed one dray besides his own in Knight's yard when he took liis coat off. There was nobody but himself about the yard. He did not know of his own knowledge that the dray he overtook on the road was the identical one he had seen in Knight's yard. By the Court: The purse lie lost was a brown dark one. It was his wife's, and lie was not in the habit of carrying it. From the time he missed the purse until he overtook the dray was about half-an-hour. By Mr Lee : The purse he lost was a flat one," and fastened with a catch at one side. Could not give an exact description of the other one. Philip H. Loyland said he was a laborer in the employment of Mr Kinross. Had known the prisoner for three or four months past, also knew the last witness. He saw j Xaimiaim ooine into Knights yard for a load of firewood, and witness left a few minutes after Naumann had taken awa}- his load. When leaving the yard witness saw a brown leather purse having the appearance of being a lady's purse lying on the ground. He picked it up, and endeavored to open it, but could not find the clasp. There was no one prosent then but prisoner and himself. The prisoner said, in answer to witness, that the purse was his, and must have been jerked out of his pocket. Witness then handed it over to prisoner at once, and after getting his dray ready they adjourned together to Kelly's" hotel and liad a drink, after which witness drove along the road to Raukawa. When about two or three miles along the road Namnann overtook him, and after they had a conversation Naumann left him and rode bade towards Hasting. By Mr Lee: Did not think the prisoner saw the purse on the ground at the same time as witness. Could not, say what the purse contained. When prisoner got it he put it in his pocket, and did not open it again while witness was with him. W. 0. Fisher, barman at the Railway Hotel (late Beecroft's) recollected the prisoner coming into the hotel on the 2nd instant. He had some drinks, and paid for them with a £.5 note. Witness took no particular notice of the note, and did not think lie would know it again. He handed a £.3 note over to Constable Leiteh that eveninjr, but could not swear if it was the same one he received from the prisoner. Ho had live or six similar notes all together. To the best of his recollection the note lie handed to the constable was the one he received from the prisoner. About two hours elapsed from the time he got a £■> note from the prisoner until he handed one over to the constable. Ida Naumann, wife of Gustav Naumann, said she saw the prisoner at the police station on Friday last. On that day her husband went to Hastings for firewood, and before he left witness gave him two purses, one containing a. £o note, and the other some silver. When he returned with the firewood he had lost the purse containing the .£-3 note, and went back to Hastings to look for it. Later on he returned and took witness to the police station at Hastings, where she was shown two £5 notes, one of which she identified as her own. She knew the number ; it was 100809. By the Court: Witness thought the note was oil the Bank of New Zealand. [Note produced.] That is the note. Witness placed it in the purse that she gave to her husband. By Mr Lee: Witness did not write down the number, but" carried it in her head." She always kept the numbers of large notes. Last Saturday she changed a £10 note at Mr Kinross's at the Spit. It was on the Bank of New Zealand also, and was numbered ■■v-v-i-.n. Constable Leiteh gave evidcTiec as to having interviewed the native at Kelly's hotel. He asked the prisoner what had he done with the purse he found in Knight's yard. Mr Lee: That question was a very wrong one to ask. This is just the very stylo of questioning witnesses that Judge Gillies lias recently been condemning so strongly. Ii is preposterous. His Honor concurred that the question was a wrong one. Witness : Prisoner denied having a purse. Witness asked the prisoner to accompany him to the Railway Hotel, where he asked the barman, in prisoner's presence, if prisoner had changed a £-3 note since noon that day. The barman said he had, and produced a note numbered IGOSO9. Witness then saw that the note was not the same as that described by Naumann, and gave it back again. Subsequently he got the identical note from Mr Tuck at his hotel, and took it along with another note on the same bank to the police station, where Mrs Naumanu, who had meanwhile been brought to Hastings, identified it as the note she had given to her husband. When the constable was locking prisoner up the latter said, "I was in the yard with the pak'ha when the purse was found, and I took it from Leyland and shouted for him at Kelly's hotel. I changed the note afterwards at Beecroft's hotel. I would have given the money up only ' Skylark ' advised me not to do so. ' Skylark' has the purse." The statement was voluntary, and was made in the presence of Constable Lawless. '' Skylark ' : was the nickname of a man named Kodgers. Witness found £3 18s in the prisoner's possession. By Mr Lee: Witness had time to see the number of the note when he had it in his hand at the hotel. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Lee addressed the Court at length, and pointed out that there was no evidence whatever to prove that the prisoner had stolen either the note or the purse. The purse had been lost and nothing" more. A purse had been picked up by Leyland, and handed over to the prisoner unopened, neither of the two knowing , at that time what was in it, if anything. The case came within the law of lost property. The only I wrong thing the prisoner had done was his telling a falsehood about it in the iirst instance when questioned by thepolice. According to Archibald's Criminal Law the prisoner was not guilty of any crime, as it could not be held to bo larceny when a person found a sum of money, or indeed anything, and retained it until the ownership was definitely proved, a thing that had not been done in the present case. There was no satisfactory proof of ownership before the Court, and, even if there were, a case of larceny could not be made out against the prisoner in the face of former rulings recorded in the law books. The Court considered the offence proven, and sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment with hard labor.