MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2550, 10 June 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHRISTOEUROH. Satubday, June 10, [Before J. Ollivier, Esq., EM.J Defnkbnness. Margaret Stanton was fined 10s, or in default twenty-four hours imprisonment, with hard labor. Chabge op Laeceny. —James Williamson was charged with stealing two solitaires, valued at ss, the property of E. Hooper. Mr Loughrey appeared for the accused. On June 2nd the accused was seen to lean on a stall at the Exhibition, and on withdrawing he put his hand in his pocket. Suspicion being aroused, he was searched by a policeman, and the studs were found in his coat pocket. He said that somebody must have put them there. He was drunk at tte time. The defence now was that he had bought the articles, or if he had not, that he had put them into hie pocket thinking be bad bought them. Mr Ollivier again commented cn the temptations held out to passers-by through the reckless manner in which goods are exposed. Witnesses were called who staled that accused was a respsetable farmer, and a very unlikely person to commit a theft of this description. The Magistrate said ha did not think the larcenyhad been made out. It was quite likely that the card of solitaires had by some means become connected with his sleeve, and thus conveyed to his pocket. Ha dismissed the case.

Anothbb SisiiLiß Case —Mary Ann Creamer, on remand, was charged with stealing from the shop of Mary A. W. Sharland a pair of stays valued at £1 ss. Accused, who had been making some purchases, was seen to take up a parcel containing the stays. Mrs Sharland stated that she and her son immediately followed, but lost sight of accused. A few days after, having found out accused, who h»d been previously quits unknown to her, prosecutor caused a search warrant to be issued, and the ftiys were produced by accused from a drawer in a bedroom iu her house. Mrs Sharland was positive that the »tays had been, worn in the interval. The defence was that accused had, with her sister, been out shopping, and Lad accumulated a number of parcels, most of which were carried by accused. They separated before accused went into Mrs Sharland’f, and on accused finding, when she got home, that she had the stays, she concluded that they belonged to her sister. The parcel was thrown into the drawer, where they remained till the starch warrant was executed. Dr. Symes, called for the defence, stated that, as her medical adviser, he had recommended her for some time past to leave oil wearing stays, and he understood she had done so. Sha was not in a fit state at present to wear stays. Accused had had charge of the cloak-room at the Theatre Royal. Largo quantities of valuables were constantly left in her charge, and this witness had never heard any insinuation against her ho: esty. The eon of accused, aged thirteen years, deposed to his mother having been loaded with parcels. He further stated that after coming out of Mrs Sharland’* his mother remsiuei some minutes outside of that shop—long enough for him to go across the road to buy some saveloys and return. Ho further said that when he and his mother arrived at home shs opened a parcel and said that she had got a pair of stays which did not belong to her, she supposed they belonged to her sister, who had been shopping with them, or she had got it at Ballantyne’s or the bootmakers; it did not matter as ehs would soon see her sister. Mrs Fricker, sister of accused, corroborated the statement us to the shopping. Jos. Ballantyno deposed to serving accused and her sister with some goods on the night in question. Amongst them was a parcel of dimity, which would be about the same bulk as the stays when wrapped up. Accused hud often dealt at the shop of witness, and ho had no reason to doubt her honesty. Further evidence as to good character having been produced, Mr Loughnan addressed the Bench. The Magistrate said the only point ho was doubtful about was tho condition the stays were in. They were much soiled, and had either been worn since they had been taken from Mis Sharland’a shop or they had been very roughly handled. They stays were undoubtedly Mrs Sharland’* property. However, in th face of the evidence, h found it impossible to believe that accused had taken the stays with a felonious intent. Ho would therefore give her the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case. Accused wr.s then discharged.

Obtaining Goods ur a Valuelbeh Cheque.—Dari?! Mann alias J. B. Gray, Jehu Graham, or Wm. Q-raham, was charged with the above offence. He had procured the goods from W. G. Johnston, of Lyttelton. He was remanded till June 19th. Fobqbry and Uitbbing. The same prisoner was alio charged with forping and uttering a cheque for £6 drawn on the Bank of Now Zealand. The same remand waa made. The High Stebet Bubglabies.—Wm. Anderson alias Price and Edward Longmoro, Adams, Elms, or Elmsdale, were further lemanded till June 11th.