MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 650, 19 July 1876, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, July 19. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly. Two inebriates, for a first offence, were each fined ss. John McKenzie, charged with being drunk, using obscene language, and resisting the police, was fined 20s. Larceny or a Coat.— Edward Turner appeared to answer to his bail, on remand from Timaru, charged with this offence. Mr Thomas appeared for the accused. The evidence taken at Timaru was read over. Detective Walker produced the coat, which accused had sold to Dr Mclntyre, and stated that he was present when the evidence read was taken, John Peters stated that he is a commercial traveller. On the 6th of last June he was a passenger on beard the steamer from Picton to Wellington. Accused was also a passenger on board the same boat. On the trip over ho missed a waterproof coat. It was a black cashmere coat, and one of Goodey’s patent life-pre-serving coats. He had hung it up in the smoking room of the vessel, and missed it

about half-past eight on the morning they arrived at Wellington. Accused was sitting in the smoking room professing to be writing a letter at the time. He (witness) first inquired of the steward about the coat when he missed it, and he said that it was not down stairs. Asked accused if he had seen anything taken away, and he said that a carman or bushman had taken away a portmanteau and some things some few minutes before that. Told him that it was impossible that anything could have been taken off the steamer, as they had not reached the wharf. No one could have taken anything ashore at the time. He next saw the coat in the detective office at Christchurch. The coat produced belonged to him, and was the one he lost on hoard the steamer. Valued it at from £4 to £4 10s. The accused had no right whatever to take it away, or dispose of it. Communicated the loss of the coat to the police at Wellington and Christchurch. By Mr Thomas—Bought the coat on the 10th February from Butterworth Bros, Dunedin. Believed that firm had no other of the same kind in stock. Mr Espio, who sold it to him said so. Had never said that the coat was sent to him by friends at home. Had worn the coat for about four months and a half; Thought hejcould pick it out from among a thousand. It had a peculiarity in the screw of the tube. It was somewhat loose, and there was a particular twist in it. Was not sure whether the screw was brass, and could not say how many turns there were in it. Noticed this peculiarity on ' the 10th February last. Tried the screw when he saw it yesterday. The only remark he made at the time was that he should “ see it in Court to-morrow.” Could not describe the peculiarity in the twist, but could show it to the Court. The screw to keep the air in was very loose, and he had to press it with hia thumb when he was tightening it. He did not try the screw the day before with his thumb nail, The looseness of the screw was the only peculiarity about it. Had worn the coat for over four months, and it fitted him very well. He did not travel around Auckland, and did not know whether coats of the description of the one in Court could be bought there. Had never seen one that had been purchased there. There were some pheasants stolen on board the steamer between Nelson and Wellington. These birds were missed early on the same morning that the coat was lost. Did not know whether the Wellington police were on board the boat immediately after she arrived there. Did not think the pheasants were recovered. Was not aware whether the vessel was searched, and did not know that accused’s luggage had been searched. Would swear the steamer had not reached the wharf when accused said that a ’busman had taken some luggage away. Did not reply to accused that he knew the passenger’s luggage which had been removed. He (witness) was on deck with the chief officer watching the passengers go ashore reached the wharf. Was on deck before that time and remained there until a plank was put out. Thought the accused was only professing to write a letter when he saw him in the smoking room. Reexamined —He did not always wear the coat which would account for its new appearance. He had never seen a similar coat before. He had to sleep in the smoking room of the steamer. F. W. Litchfield, commission agent in Christchurch, stated that Mr Peters had been using an office on the same floor that he did. In June last he (Mr Peters) complained of the loss of a coat. He (witness) had been in the habit of seeing the coat, and thought he would know it again. _ The coat produced was the one he had seen in Mr Peter’s possession. Had never seen a coat like it before. By Mr Thomas—Wouldn’t like to say whether he could pick the coat out of a dozen others of the same make. Mr Thomas called Frank Haughton, who stated that some short time since he was in Auckland and saw some coats in a shop there in Queen’s street similar to the one in Court. To the Bench—Those coats were called “ Boynton’s Life-preserving coats.” Examination continued—The coats he saw there were very similar to the one in Court with tubes and all. Did not know accused, and had no interest ia the case. The coats he saw were of the same colour and material as the one in Court. Cross-examined —Had not handled the coats in Auckland, but thought they were Boynton’s coats. Ann Turner, a little girl, daughter of accused, called, slated that her father had worn a waterproof coat. Knew that he had bought a black one in Auckland, but did not know what shop he had bought it at. Remembered his coming home one night with a strange coat on and they had some fun with it, as he blew it out. Her papa packed it in his medicine chest when they were coming here. Thought the ship called at Wellington on the way down. It was about two months ago that she saw the coat. Thought her father got his medicine chest and some other luggage when he came here. She had not seen the coat since she saw it in Auckland. The coat in Court was like the one that her papa screwed the tube of, and let the wind out. [At the request of Mr Thomas accused here put on the coat.J Examination continued—Had never seen the co .t since. [The child here blew the tube as she had seen her father do on the night at Auckland.] Cross-examined —First saw the coat at Mrs Mill’s house in Auckland, and never saw her papa wear it afterwards. Did not see it in Christchurch. The medicine chest was at their lodgings here. Had had no conversation with her papa about the coat since he was taken away by the police. Saw him with Mr Thomas that morning, but did not speak to him about the coat. This was all the evidence. Inspector Feast would ask the Bench to reconcile the statement of the child with that made by the accused to Dr Mclntyre, viz, that he had imported over 100 of these coats. Mr Thomas said it did not affect the case whatever stories accused had told Dr Mclntyre. His Worship said that it would be very easy to ascertain whether similar coats were for sale in Auckland. Inspector Feast said he wonld undertake that the necessary enquiries should be made, and in the meantime he would ask that accused should be remanded. Mr Thomas submitted that the evidence of the little girl was given in such a manner as to show its reliability. If necessary his client would go into the box and swear to the truth of the child’s statement of the circumstances, and also where he had purchased the coat. Mr Feast desired to call detective Walker, who stated that the child was present in Mr Gosling’s room when accused made a statement about the coat similar to the one she had made that day, Mr Thomas was about to recall the little girl, when his Worship said that in the interests of justice he considered it would be better to remand accused until full particu-

lars of the coat and trade mark were transmitted to Auckland, and a reply returned. It would also be better for the accused, as if innocent he would then leave the _ court without the slightest suspicion attaching to him. Remanded until Friday. Mr Thomas applied for the court to fix bail, Mr Feast objected to its being grauted, as some property seen by the detectives at the lodgings of accused had been identified as stolen from the Clarendon Hotel. Mr Thomas suggested that this accusation was perhaps only portion of what was intended, when his client was threatened by the detectives that they “ would make it warm for him,” ’ Mr Feast said that if the accused were admitted to bail be would be immediately arrested on another charge. He could produce a man who would state that accused’s name was not Turner but Osbaldston. Accused asked permission to say a few words, and said that he was the son of Dr Turner of Birmingham ; his mother was Lady Francis Turner, and ho had a brother practising in Melbourne, Ho (accused) had been surgeon on board several of the mail boats, and could produce testimonials signed by the captains and passengers. If the doctor of the Hydropathic Institution at Auckland were telegraphed to he would prove his identity. Mr Thomas here handed to the Bench the testimonials referred to by accused, one among them being signed by by Captain Grainger of the San Francisco mail service, and a number of passengers testifying to the attention of Dr Turner, while surgeon of the vessel. Mr Thomas said that Mr Gosling, who was in Court, desired to make a statement to the Bench of the indignities to which he had been put by the detectives. Mr Gosling, by permission of his Worship, stated that he had only had only had a short acquaintance with Dr Turner, who had attended his wife. Hearing of some indignities to which he had had to submit when arrested, ho had determined to watch matters and prevent the man from being jumped upon. He had brought Dr Turner’s little girl from Timaru, and that morning, on the bridge, near the mill, detective Feast had addressed him and said, “ Gosling, when did you come down so.” spoke about his having sheltered a thief, and said that as he had done so he was as bad as the man ho bad sheltered. The detective who came from Timaru had made a similar remark at his house in the presence of hia daughter, and as he (the speaker) was an honest man, known here for years, he asktd to be protected from such conduct. Inspector Feast explained about a gun and a goblet belonging to Dr Turner, which the detectives had seen at Mr Gosling’s house, on their first visit. Ho told the detective to take possession of them, and when he went to do so he was told that they had been taken away. From what Walker told him he did not think Mr Gosling had treated the police fairly, and he told him so, and said to him that he did not think he would have acted as he had done. Mr Gosling—“ You told me at the bridge that I had sheltered a thief.” Inspector Feast positively denied having done so. Mr Gosling—“Weil, after that I would not give much for your evidence.” Inspector Feast again denied having used such words to Mr Gosling, and said he had not seen him at the mill bridge, and ho was prepared to swear that he had not been over that bridge that morning. A gentleman in Court told his Worship that ha had been with Mr Feast in hia office since half-pasfc nine o’clock that morning, and they had come to the Court by the Worcester street bridge. On detective Kirby coming to the front Mr Gosling identified him as the man who had used the expression complained of, and said he regretted having wrongly accused Mr Feast. His Worship said it was evidently a case of misidentification, and the matter dropped. The accused was removed in custody.

LYTTELTON. Wednesday, July 19. (Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M. Drunkenness, —Robert Gilchrist, arrested by Constable Daley, and brought up charged with this offence, was fined 10s, or in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. Obtaining Goods by False Pretences. —Thomas Powell was charged on remand from Christchurch with obtaining a pair of boots from William Young by false pretences. The Bench after hearing the evidence dismissed the case.