RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1983, 13 September 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. The following persons, convicted of this offence, were fined the sums named, with the usual alternatives :—A. Chrystal, 20s ; T. Sullivan, 10s ; S. Hamilton, 10s ; A. Mathieson, 10s. STEALING FROM THE PERSON, David Hay alias Thompson, was charged on the information of John Duncan, with stealing from his person a tin box containing Ll6 10s, comprised in eleven one-pouud notes, one five-) ound note, and half a sovereign. The prosecutor stated that he was a farmer residing at Green Island On Friday he obtained LI9 13s in cash at the Bank of Australasia, for a cheque drawn Mr Fleming. produce merchant. He placed it in a tin box, and went afterwards to Mr Jago’s yard, where he met the prisoner. He (the prisoner) and Mr Russel, clerk to Mr Jago, had a nobbier each, and the latter, seeing that the prosecutor was worse for drink, wished to keep the box and money for -afety. To this the prosecutor demurred ; when Russell after receiving three pounds, tied up the remainder with a string and placed it in Duncan’s pocket, sewing it in for safety, in the presence of the prisoner. The prosecutor and the prisoner then went to the Provincial Sale Yard. After that he recollected not ing more. The prisoner, he was informed, had gone just prior to his discovering his loss, and he saw no more of him until he saw him in custody. He knew the L 5 note by there being three small dots near the signature, and a blot of ink underneath the number. He noticed them when he received the money at the bank. He identified to note pres nted to him as the one he received at the Bank of An tralasia. He was quite sober when he received the money at the bank. In reply to questions by the prsoner, the prosecutor said he di I not ask him to walk with him from the Commercial Sale Yard. He was certain he had the money at the Provincial after he left Russell. He was along with Jack Mi chell at the Provincial, and believed he took off his coat to fight with a wa goner. James Russell, laborer with Mr Jago, Stuart street, knew the prosecutor. He confirmed the statements made by him, but did not know the amount of money in the box at the time he tied it up. Ascertaining that the prisoner was not to accompany the prosecutor, he wished to keep the money until the latter became sober. This he would not consent to, so he (the witness) not < nly tied up the money in the box, but sewed it tightly in his waistcoat pocket. Observing the witness do this, the prisoner remarked that he did not know the number of the notes. He asked both prosecutor and prisoner to go up to his house to tea, but saw no more of them that night. Duncan saw him the next morning, and told him he had been robbed. On examination of the pocket he found the stitching taken out. E. Machin, proprietor of the London Tavern, Walker street, said the prisoner went to his house about three or four o’clock on Saturday afternoon. He paid a shilling or half-crown, and afterwards a five-pound note—he believed of the Bank of Australasia—in payment for some drinks and for money owing. He was in the act of changing the note when Detective Farrell went in. Farrell enquired of the prisoner his name, and whether he had changed any money, and was replied to that he was just about to receive change for a five-pound note. The five-pound note was given to the detective, and the prisoner was taken into custody. He took the number of the note, which was 2587.

Detective Farrell proved arresting the prisoner in the Loudon Tavern, Walker street. He confirmed the evidence of the previous witness, and added that the prisoner at the time of his arr st had on his person one one pound note of the same bank as the five, 'The prosecutor identified the five pound note on its 1 eing shown to him. In reply to his Worship the prisoner said his name was David Hay Thompson. The

case was postponed for a short time at the request of the prisoner for the production of a witness. E. Webber, salesman at the Commercial Saleyard, saw the prosecutor at the saleyard. where wished to purchase sheep The prisoner joined him in conversation, and the prosecutor asked him to drink, they left the yard together, returned, and left a second time. The prisoner afterwards came back and said he did not wish to continue in his company, as he was attracting attention by his condition. The prisoner declined to say anything, and was committed for trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court. Civil Cases. Mitchell v. Mackay —A claim for L 5 7s. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff, and Mr M‘Keay for the defendant. The cause of action arose from non-fulfilment of a contract for the purchase of a calf, and the consequent cost of sustenance of the animal, and a further damage arising from refusal to pay for a cow that had been purchased for LlO, and killed by the defendant, in consequence of the accident. On the animal being killed, the defendant would only pay L 5 instead of LlO. This the plaintiff refused to accept, and had sustained two or three pounds loss in consequence. There was a cross account for 18s, for beef supplied and slaughtering. In cross-examination, the plaintiff stated the cow was purchased after the accident. Mrs Mitchell confirmed the evidence of her husband. The defendant denied purchasing the calf, but said he offered LlO 5s for the cow, which was refused. There was no bargain made as to the price of the cow afterwards. He killed her at the request of the plaintiff. In answer to Mr Stewart, the defendant admitted that the cow was taken to a particular spot fur slaughter, to facilitate his taking the meat away Verdict for the plaintiff, L 5 3s fid with costs. King v. Donelly. —A claim of LlO for wages, as seaman, on board the E. U. Cameron. The plaintiff said that on the 3rd April he shipped as seaman at L 5 a mouth. He received his wages in full to July 3rd. On the sth July he was engaged as mate at L 6 a month. Verdict for the plaintiff, LlO and costs. Robertson and Mathieson v. Sloane.—A claim for Ll6 16s lOd, for goods supplied. Phe defendant not appearing, a verdict was given for the plaintiff by default. Jane Mitchell v. Brooks.—The plaintiff claimed L2 8s for wages as a general servant. There being no defence, judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Thomson and Co v. same.—Ls 7s fid, for goods supplied. Judgment by default for the amount, with costs. Beliner v. Fogel.—A claim for LI 15s, for cash lent The defendant admitted the original debt, but said he had sold the plaintiff goods to the value of Til 15s fid. In reply, the plaintiff said he bought the brushes at fid apiece, and could buy them iu any quantity at the price. The purses were to be Is each, the razors 9d, and could buy similar goods at any time at the price. Judgment for the defendant, each party paying his own costs.