MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1874, 25 February 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Fbbbuaey 25. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.J Deunk and Disobdeblt. —One woman -waa fined 10a for drunkenness. Destboting Pbopebty. —John Baurhill was charged with wilfully destroying private property value ss, belonging to Edward H orns. The offence was admitted, which consisted in breaking a pane of glass. Fined 20s and ordered to pay the damage. Stealing a Revolver - —William Henry Hudson was charged with the larceny from a dwelling of a revolver, value £7, the property of Richard Steele. Sergeant Morice said the accused wae arrested the previous day, by Detective John Neil, on suspicion of stealing the weapon. The prosecutor was not able positively to identify the revolver, but there waa no doubt that it was his property. Ho would ask the Bench to hear what evidence they had ready and remand the prisoner for further inquiry to be made. Richard Steele, a maltster, residing in Worcester street West, sworn, stated that he left home -the previous day about ten in the morning. Two female servants were left in the house. Before leaving witness placed a revolver, by Adams of London, on the hall table, intending to take it away during the day. It was an Irish Constabulary revolver, in a white leather case. It was six-chambered and took a 450 cartridge. It was numbered but witness did not know the number. Witness left the front door open and the servants were washing in the kitchen. On returning, at half-past one, witness at once missed the revolver. Had given no authority to any one to remove it. Anyone could enter the house by the front door without the servants knowing it. The revolver produced exactly answered the description of the one lost, but witness would not positively swear to it. It bore no identifying mark. Witness reported his loss to the police at 2 p m., half an hour after he lost it. Was not then aware that a revolver had been found. Detective John Neil sworn, stated that at half-past 12 the previous afternoon he ■was in Heywood and Co.’s office at the corner of Cathedral square, and saw the accused pass the office going north on the west side of the street. Witness followed him into Dallas, the auctioneer’s, and then into Thompson’s, the machinist’s, having a newspaper parcel in hia hand. Witness waited until he came out, and asked him what it was he wanted to sell, as he had seen him showing something to Mrs Thompson. Prisoner replied “nothing” twice. Witness asked him what it was he had got, and if it was a revolver. Prisoner the hid it behind his back. Witness took the parcel from him, and found it was the revolver produced. Witness told prisoner he should arrest him on suspicion of stealing it unless he could satisfactorily account for his possession of it. Prisoner said he had brought it out from home. Witness asked him where it was during his time in Lyttelton, and he said he had it at a friend’s, but was not obliged to tell witness his friend’s name. Witness then arrested him on suspicion of stealing the revolver. At half-past ten yesterday morning witness was in front of the R.M. Court, and saw the accused come from the Public Library and turn up Worcester street west. The last place witness saw him was about three chains from the residence of the prosecutor in Worcester street. Prisoner used to follow the calling of a dispenser. Constable Briggs deposed that he saw the prisoner in the forenoon of the previous day opposite Maopherson’s, in Cambridge terrace. He went in the direction of the Government buildings, and slowly strolled back again. It was between fifty and sixty yards from Mr Steele’s house where the accused was standing. The prosecutor, re-called, produced a cartridge that exactly fitted the revolver in Court. The number on the cartridge was as he had previously stated—4so. This was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner said, in defence, that the revolver was his own property; that he had brought it from England, and it bad been lying in bis portmanteau ever since, and he had only taken it out to dispose of it. There was no proof of the identity of the weapon with the one stolen, as Adams’ revolvers of that description were all of a uniform pattern. The Bench were satisfied that aprimafaoie case had been made out, aril committed the prisoner for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court.