MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 553, 27 March 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, March 27. (Before G. L. Meliish, Esq, R.M.)

Drunkenness. —The following inebriates were dealt with :—Mary Maule was fined ss; William Calder, who appeared half drunk in Court, was committed for 24 hours for contempt. Creating a Disturbance. — Wm. Finley was charged with creating a disturbance in High street, and wilfully destroying private property. It appeared that the defendant was creating a disturbance in High street, and knocked a man through Mr Crobber’s shop window. He also threatened to strike other persons. The defendant said that he separated two men, who were fighting, and one of them struck the other, and knocked him through the window. The Bench fined defendant 10s, and ordered him to pay the damage £2.

Larceny as a Bailee. —John Hunt was brought up on remand charged with appropriating to his own use a watch, the property of Simon Lee. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the prisoner. Detective Bettington said that on arresting the prisoner on Fridaylast he asked for Lee’s watch; prisoner said, “ I have not got it. I have disposed of it.” Witness took the watch from prisoner, who said “ If that is the watch you can have it.” The watch does not belong to Lee. Simon Lee deposed that he was a labourer at Southbridge. On the 7th of this month he purchased a watch from prisoner, paying him £2 on account, and promised to send the other £1 to prisoner when he wrote. At this time the watch was at Petersen’s. Prisoner told witness to go there and get it. Prisoner called, and it was not there. To the best of witness’ belief, the watch produced is the one he bought. Gave no authority to go for the watch or dispose of it. Witness had the

watch in his possession for one night before he bought it. Cross-examined—Between the time I saw the watch and when I bought it prisoner had left the watch at Petersen’s. They were working together at Mr Bluett’s. Albert Gunderson deposed that he was assistant at Mr Petersen’s, watchmaker, High street. The watch produced was brought there on the Bth February, and taken away on the 9th March. It is entered in the name of “ Hunt.” From our books it was taken away by “John Hunt.” Was satisfied that the same man who brought the watch got it back again. A stranger could not get the watch without an order. S. Cohen, pawnbroker, deposed that about a fortnight ago he bought the watch produced from prisoner; that is, he exchanged it for another watch. Sold the watch he got from prisoner. Had it in his possession about a week. Got the watch from prisoner on the 9th March. Mr Williams submitted that no larceny as a bailee had been proved. The most it could amount to was simply fraud—a breach of trust. The prosecutor had never the watch an his possession after he bought it. Supposing the prisoner had done the act, it was mere trickery or dodging on a small scale. There was no delivery ; no watch had ever passed. Supposing there had been no watch at Petersen’s, and prisoner had obtained the £2, it would have been obtaining money by false pretences and not larceny as a bailee. There was no bailment, and there must be possession before there could be larceny. Prosecutor was recalled, and in answer to Mr Williams said that he was to write to prisoner if he did not get the watch from Petersen’s. Prisoner was going to Timaru, and it was understood that prisoner was to have the watch again and pay the money to witness. By Inspector Feast— Witness wanted prisoner to give him an order for the watch, but he refused to do so. Mr Mellish said that if prisoner had kept the watch in his possession, he was not sure that it would have been larceny, but the prisoner had appropriated the watch by selling it, and thus putting it out of bis power to restore it. He was of opinion that a conviction must lie, and prisoner would be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. Inspector Feast said that when the watch was missed the number was taken to the pawnbroker, and yet the watch was sold. Mr Cohen also gave him (the Inspector) a great deal of trouble respecting the matter. Mr Cohen denied this, and said that, having had previous dealings with Hunt on that very watch, and therefore he did not doubt him. Inspector Feast said that the matter was reported to the police on the 12th, and notice was taken to Mr Cohen on 13th. Detective Bettington deposed that on the 13th he went and told Cohen that Petersen’s number was 8788, and shewed him on his own watch where to look for the number. Inspector Feast said that he did not attribute any dishonesty to Mr Cohen, but there was a great want of care. Mr Mellish said that he hoped there would be no more want of care, or it would affect Mr Cohen’s license.