RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3375, 13 December 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday , December 13. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Theft. Jane Kelysham, against whom there were six previous convictions, the last one being on the Oth inst., was charged with stealing from the premises of Mrs Hogg, dressmaker, Stuart street, on the lit 1 , instant, one black velvet’ bonnet, one merino mauve dress, and several pieces of green silk, the whole of the value of LI 15s, —Jane Hogg said that on Thursday last at about 12 o’clock in the morning, accused called at her residence relative to making a dress. She had occasion to go upstairs, ami left accused in the kitchen ; but on returning found that she had gone, and all the doors, including the shop one, open. She subsequently examined a box in her room, and found a mauve dress with .frills at the bottom, and a black velvet bonnet, missing out of a box in the shop. The goods would be worth about L 4 10s. Hid not see accused from the time she left her in the kitchen till she was in the lock-up last night.—lsabella Hogg, an intelligent looking little girl, saw accused in her mother’s house on Thursday last at about 12 o’clock. She again saw her oh going home at 3 o’clock. Accused had a mauve dress on at the time. It belonged to her mother. She crushed a black velvet bonnet and a shawl into a box, and dropped some green watered silk from her waterproof pocket.—Mrs Hogg, recalled, said that the silk produced was hers, and had been in the same box as the other property taken by the accused. —Sub-Inspector Mallard said that, sis the woman had only been arrested the previous day, he would need to ask for a remand, unless the evidence was deemed clear enough; but his Worship considered it sufficiently conclusive, and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASE. Spedding v. Doughty was a claim of L4O, for non-fulfilment of a transaction to purchase certain National Company’s shares.—Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiff, Mr A. Bathgate for the defendant.—Donald M. Spedding held some shares in the National Insurance, and Mr Doughty in a conversation asked if ho had any to sell. He replied he would dispose of one hundred : and defendant agreed to take eighty. He said that he would call at witness’s office, but not being in at the time he left a letter agreeing to take eighty. He said he wanted them for two parties; and subsequently got forty, but did not take the remaining forty. At that time they were worth from one pound to one guinea premium nett; but since then they had fallen considerably, being only worth now from eleven to twelve shillings premium, while he knew of a number having been disposed of at 10s. To Mr Bathgate: Would swear he agreed to take eighty. Was not a broker,* and formed hi? ideas of the present price from the papers. (Mr Bathgate : But then you must know the papers are not always to be relied upon.) This was also confirmed by hearsay.—Mr Stout put in some letters which closed plaintiff’s case.—Mr Bathgate submitted that plaintiff must be nonsuited, as there was no direct evidence before the Court as to the price of shares at the present time, the evidence of plaintiff being that he thought they wore worth 11s premium.—The nohsuit not being granted, counsel called James Doughty, the defendant, who stated that he met plaintiff mi the 14th November and asked him about National Insurance Company’s shares. He said he wanted to see a party about the matter, and afterwards, left a note at Mr Spedding’s shop agreeing to take eighty. He afterwards saw plaintiff, and in the course of conversation agreed to take forty ; and he believed plaintiff acquiesced to that proposal. He only wanted the shares for one person, and as that party afterwards said he would only take forty, and as witness did not want to sell’ the shares, though he might have readily disposed of them at 20s premium, he only took that number. - To Mr Stout: Shares were now saleable at 13s premium ; and witness could dispose of them through another broker for 12s.—.Plaintiff was recalled, and in answer to his Worship, stated that defendant distinctly stated that he wanted the shares for two persons, and in separate lots. He also gave as his reasons for not taking the second forty were that one of the parties had gone up-coun-try without definitely settling the matter.—Mr Stout said that Spedding might have sold the shares over and over again had he only known that defendant did not intend purchasing them. —Judgment was given f<n‘ IJ4, with costs,