MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 662, 3 August 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, August 3. [Before G-. L. Mellish, Esq, R M., Dr Back, and W. H. Pilliett, Esq., J.Ps.] Obtaining Board and Lodging by False Pretences. —Richard Abbott was charged on warrant with obtaining board and lodging by false pretences from Samuel Paget, in January. When arrested accused said he had made no false representations to prosecutor, and asked how long in gaol he would get for it, S. Paget stated that in January last he kept a boarding-house at the corner of Armagh and Manchester streets. Accused came there on the 27th of that month. Saw him on the following day. He said he was a draper, and had been employed at Ballantyne’s ; and that he was going next day to Cashel House, into Mr Stringer’s employment. He was allowed to remain on the belief that he was to be employed as stated, or he would have had to pay his board in advance. Would not have allowed him to stay in the house but that it was supposed he was going into Mr Stringer’s employ. He left the house without saying he was going away, and returned in a cab and removed his things, William Stringer, called, stated that accused had never been employed at Cashel House. By accused—You applied to me for employment, and you might have inferred from what I said that I would give you a chance. Accused, addressing the Bench, said that he was ill when he went to Mr Paget’s, having previously been in Mr Beath’s and Mr Ballentyne’s employ. His Worship said that after Mr Stringer’s evidence it would not be necessary for him to continue his statement. The charge would be dismissed. Larceny oe a Dog. —F. Sherrard and F. McDonald answered to their bail on the remanded charge of the larceny of a dog, the property of F. G. Cradock. Mr Joynt appeared ffor the defence, and by his request the witnesses were ordered out of Court. Inspector Feast said the case had been adjourned for the production of evidence as to the dog being tied to the buggy. He called Mary Josephine Bailey, who stated that she resided with her parents at Dunsandel Hotel. She remembered the 15th June last. Saw both of the accused drive up in a buggy from the direction of Leeston. Saw a dog behind the buggy. It was tied to the buggy. The dog in Court was the one to the best of her belief. Both of the accused stayed in the house for a short time. Did not see them leave. By Mr Joynt—Was upstairs when the men came to the house, and saw the dog tied to the buggy. It was tied with a piece of rope thicker than a clothes line. Did not notice whether it was tied by the collar or not. Was not in the room while they were there. They drove to the stable, and did not see them take the dog away from the buggy. Saw the dog running about afterwards, but did not notice anyone untie it afterwards. Sherrard sold her mother some stuff for cleaning plated ware, which did not turn out well. She did not hear the expression used in the house that they were a pair of swindlers. Did not know how long it was after they arrived at the house that she saw the dog running about. She knew it was Thursday, 15th June, they were there, as when she heard of the case she looked at the almanac. That was how she came to remember the date. She knew it was on a Thursday they were there, and looked up the date afterwards. She could see from an upstairs window that the dog was tied to the buggy. They passed by the window when going to the stables. It was when the buggy was passing the window that she saw the dog tied. It was about five or ten minutes afterwards that she saw the dog running about, She glanced out of the window and saw the dog tied, and glanced a second time and saw the dog running about. It was following Sherrard, and was not tied to him. She had heard what her brother had sworn about the dog being tied. The police had been to her place twice about the charge. Did not see the men go away. The dog was running about before they had dinner. It was one of her sisters that waited on them. She was not in Court, and was away from home, but the police had seen her. The length of the rope by which the dog was tied was about a yard in length, She could see the whole of the dog’s body when the buggy was passing the window. It was not because they were two men that she drew her head back. Re-examined—Had only seen them at the house once. Did not know whether the owner of the dog was enquiring about it afterwards. Wm Sharp, carpenter and builder, residing at Dunsandel, could not swear that he had seen either of the accused at Dunsandel in June, but remembered a buggy driving towards the hotel in that month. Saw a buggy coming through tne railway gates, about a chain and a quarter from the hotel. Saw a dog tied behind the buggy. Could not swear to the dog, but it seemed to him to be like a retriever dog, but the way the dog was working it looked as if it were tied, and he wished at the time that McKenzie’s Act was in force in Canterbury. By Mr Joynt—Was in the middle of the road, coming towards the gates, when he saw the buggy and dog dragging behind the buggy. Would swear he was walking along the road towards the gates at the time. Know Robinson Brother’s store there. Would swear he couldn’t say whether the buggy stopped at the store. Would swear he was not employed on the top of the store when the buggy drove up with the dog following near it. Could not swear what date in June this occurred. Would not like to swoar that on one day he was on the roof when a buggy drove up with two gentlemen in it and a dog running about; that he came down and had a conversation with the gentlemen in the buggy. Could not swear that since the case was last before the court a gentleman came up and said he was Mr McDonald, and spoke about the case. Now remembered that such a gentleman did speak to him, and he told him he said he was sorry about this case. Did hear that Mrs Bailey had been swindled wiih some plate cleaning stuff. Believed ho (witness) was drunk when a buggy drove up one day, and ho had a very bad memory; was not always drunk. It was a fact that a detective had been up there speaking to him about the case. Did not remember telling McDonald that it was no use his speaking to him, as the detectives had been up there seeing them. Did not know th« length of the rope with which the dog v as tied. He (witness) lived at Mrs Bailey's bouse, Now that he came to re-

member it, he was on the top of the house one day when he saw a buggy in front of the store. There were two gentlemen in it. He didn’t recollect speaking to one of the men. He saw the dog afterwards tied behind it. Re-examined—Had had a little too much on Saturday. James McKenna, barman at the Selwyn Hotel, remembered two men driving up to the hotel in a buggy. Sherrard was one of them. Was not certain about the date. Never saw them there more than once. Sherrard came into the hotel and McDonald remained in the buggy. Believed he saw a dog in the trap, but would not like to swear to the dog. They asked him the way to Christchurch, Saw them go away. Believe the dog went away in the trap. To the Bench—Was quite certain that a dog was not following the trap. By Mr Joynt— Did not look out more than once. Could not say how long the dog remained in the trap. Could not swear that the dog was not following the trap when they went away. Did not notice the dog being pushed out. Saw the head of a dog in the trap; only looked for a second, but thought the dog’s body was in the trap. To the Bench—Did not know anything about dogs. Joseph Bailey, called at the request of Mr Joynt, stated he had been examined last week. He saw both of the men when they drove up to the stables. He (witness) was at the back of the stables at the time. They stopped for a moment, when they got out and helped ;him to take the horse out. Did not see them do anything else. Did not see the dog follow them into the house. He (witness) was behind the stable for the three-quarters of an hour that they remained there. Did not see the dog all the time. Mr Sherrard told him to put the horse in. They drove away from the stable, and for the first time he saw the dog when they were driving away. He had said before that it was with a piece of string that the dog was tied with. Did not say before that the dog was tied with a string about four yards in length. Could not remember the kind of stringjit was tied with. Had had conversations with his friends about this matter. Was not in the hotel while the two defendants were there. When told to put the horse in the stablest,was by.Mr,Sherrard. By Inspector Feast—Witness looked more after the horse than after the movements of the men. By Mr Joynt—Sharp was working on the top of Robinson’s store on that day. Mr Joynt called the following witnesses for the defence :—Edward O’Keefe, who deposed he knew Mr Sherrard. Saw him on the 16th of June driving into town. There was another gentleman in the buggy. He saw a dog running after the buggy, a sort of a pointer, red and white, similar to that produced. They were then out about three miles from town, By Inspector Feast —Was not certain as to the date exactly. Charles Parker was called, but did not appear; F. McDonald recalled, stated that on the day they were leaving the Dunsandel Hstel they stopped for about five minutes at Robinson’s store. Sharpe came down from the roof, and came over to the gorse fence and spoke to him. Would solemnly swear even after the evidence that at no part of the journey was the dog tied, nor did they induce the dog to follow them. To the Bench—The roads were rather muddy and the dog was in the buggy when they were near one of the townships. By Mr Joynt—lt was he (M'Donald) who told the boy Bailey to put the horse into the trap, Sherrard had gone to the telegraph office, and he believed the dog had followed him over there. Sherrard, recalled, repeated many of his former statements, and would positively swear that at no time on the journey was the dog tied to the buggy. It was near Leeston, and near the Selwyn Hotel, that the dog jumped into the buggy and he had told M'Donald to turn it out. His Worship called Sergeant Burtenshaw, who stated that he had had experience with all kinds of dogs. Did not think that the dog in Court would be likely to do the distance from Southbridge to town in muddy weather in six hours. They were too soft. By Mr Joynt—Did not think that a dog of that description would have followed the men the distance without it had been first induced to do so. Did not think it would have done the distance in the time without some assistance, Mr Joynt, in addressing the Bench, said he did not often feel very strongly in cases of larceny, but it was his positive conviction that a case of larceny was trying to be forstered on these men, whom he honestly believed had not been guilty of tying the dog in any way. Having reviewed the evidence given throughout, he said that the police had no occasion whatever to be proud of some portions of it, as some of it was given in a manner to show its utter valuelessness; and the remaining portion was quite consistent with that given by both of the defendants. They (the defendants) must have passed other hotels besides those at Dunsandel and Selwyn, and no doubt the police had been along the road to make enquiries, and yet the police had only been able to produce two witnesses who had seen the dog tied. Mr Joynt then remarked upon the conduct of both defendants regarding the dog on their return to town. Sherrard had not seen it after he came to town, and it had been shown on oath by witnesses that McDonald had sent his brother down with the dog when he heard that a similar one was advertised, and had repeatedly endeavored to get rid of the animal by turning it out of the house. They were not sportsmen, and the dog was of no earthly use to them. Mr McDonald had stated that he would not accept it as a gift; and, taking all the facts into consideration, he could not suppose that either of the defendants had any intention of stealing the dog. His Worship said that, looking at the whole of the evidence, the Bench could only come to one conclusion. In the first instance, he believed the statements made by accused to a certain extent that the dog followed them at first, and was taken into the buggy after a time in the manner more of a stupid trick than with the intention of stealing the animal. After commenting on the evidence his Worship said he could not think that the boy Bailey and his sister would from some diabolical feeling against these men have committed wilful perjury, Had they trumped up the story their evidence would have been more connected than it had been. After further remarks on the evidence given by other witnesses, his Worship said he did not think defendants had started with the deliberate intention of stealing the dog. They had induced it to follow them, and after it had followed them so far they thought they might as well take it into the buggy, and had afterwards tied it behind. As the Bench believed, defendants did not start with the full intea tion of stealing the dog, they, in this instance, would exercise the discretion held

in such cases, and fine each of the defendants £5, with costs. Obstructing Cathedral Square. Mr Cowlishaw wished to mention to the Bench that the case against his client, partly heard last week, for obstructing Cathedral Square, had, he understood, been withdrawn. He was surprised that in courtesy alone the notice of intention to withdraw had not been served on him, more especially as it had been adjourned at the request of the police on behalf of the Council. He would ask his Worship to allow professional cost. His Worship, however, declined to do this. 1 Left sitting.] LYTTELTON. Thursday, August 3. (Before J. T. Bouse and F. D, Gibson, J.P’s.) Drunkenness and Illegally on the Premises. —Frederick Wilson Doubleday, arrested by Constable Devine, was charged with being drunk and unlawfully on the premises of Dr W. Donald. The Bench sentenced accused to 48 hours’ imprisonment with hard labor. (Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M, J. T. Bouse, and F. D. Gibson, Esq, J.P’s.) Civil Case. —Thompson v Hart, claim £l4 Is for rent and possession of house; judgment for amount claimed, with costs 11s. Defendant to give up possession on Friday.