RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume VI, Issue 376, 11 June 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Tuesday, June 9. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. — John Murray was fined 10s or 48 hours imprisonment for having been drunk and disorderly. Larceny. — Charles King was charged with stealing a pair of boots, of the value of LI, from the shop door of Robert Brown. The following was the evidence given : — Robert Brown, bootmaker, in Mawhera Quay, said that on Saturday evening he misaed a pair of boots from his shop door — a strong pair of Nelsonmade watertight^ The boots produced were the same in make and size, but he could not positively identify them, as the trade mark had been scraped off them. He did not sell the prisoner a pair of boots. He had no doubt the boots produced were his property. John Murray, a digger, was called, but he gave no material evidence. A constable proved the arrest of the prisoner, who denied any knowledge of the boots, but that a man named Richards left them in his possession. He arrested Richards the same night, and he said he bought the boots from the prisoner for 10s, but he had not paid for them yet. Richards had. since identified the prisoner as the man from whom he bought the boots. Geo. Aldous, the keeper of the Diggers' Arms, said the prisoner boarded at his place. Recollected seeing him on Sun day night, and Richards came on Saturday night. Richards gave him the pair of boots produced to take charge of for him, and he put them in a bedroom. He did not see the prisoner with the boots. Richard Richards, a miner, stated that on Saturday night he met the prisoner in town, who offered him a pair of boots for 15s, as they were too large for him. He said if they fitted him he would buy them, and he took them home to try them on. He had not yet paid for them. The boots produced are the same, and he thought the value of them would be about LI. The prisoner said he was drunk on Saturday, and he did not know whether he had taken the boots or not. Judgment was reserved until another similar charge was heard. — Mr Ki'gour, of Bullen and Co.'s, said he missed irom the shop door on Saturday night a pair of long-legged boots. The pair produced was precisely similar to those stolen from the shop door, but he could not positively identify them, as they had been worn a short time. The prisoner and the two witnesses in the last case were in the store on Saturday night purchasing, but they did not buy boots, .John Murray denied being in any shop on Saturday night with the prisoner, but he was in Bullen's with the other witness. He saw a pair of long boots on the prisoner. Richard Richards gave similar evidence. He knew nothing whatever about the boots. A constable proved the arrest and the finding of the boots, Prisoner said he bought them a month ago in Charleston, and had been wearing them for the last nine days. The prisoner said he was sorry for what had happened. He had been drinking, which was the cause of the whole affair. The Magistrate was satisfied that both charges were proved, and he sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment with hard labor in Hokitika Gaol on each charge. Richard Richards was brought up on a charge of having received a pair of boots, knowing the same to. have been stolen, but the police withdrew the charge. The prisoner was cautioned and discharged. A Moaki Christening.— The Court was crowded with Maoris to hear charges of drunkenness preferred against several of their female friends. Amina Tainui and Kawai were severally charged, on the information of lhaia Tainui, with having been drunk and disorderly. Mr Greenwood was sworn in to act as interpreter in the case. On the charge being read over the defendants admitted the offence. They were asked where they got the liquor, when they explained that there was a christening feast in the house, and the liquor was sent in by Albert. They had been drinking whisky and rum. There was a similar charge against Mowati Pakapaka, but the summons in this case was not served. The Magistrate said this was not the first time that complaints had been made before him about the defendants having been drunk in the streets and at the Maori houses — especially Kaiwai. They were perfectly well aware that they were not permitted to be supplied with spirituous liquors, and that persons supplying theni with such liquors-^-no

matter whether Maori or European — were liable to a heavy penalty. He had seen a great deal of drunkenness amongst them, and he had determined to put an end to such a state of things. In the present instance he would fine the defendants 10s each, as this was their first appearance before him ; but he cautioned them that he would inflict a heavier penalty next time, and the third time he would sentence them to a term of imprisonment. He would also order an information to be laid against the party who supplied them with liquor, The fines were paid. CIVIL CASES. Forsyth and Masters v. George Somner. CJaim of 1,12 lgs 3d for goods supplied, tfudgnyaitby default. Stephen "IJgan~v>- c s&os. Wilson.— This was a claim of L 9 7s Id for the supply of stores in July and August last yew:, The defendant was one of a party of five working up the New River, and the goods were supplied to Ms mates. Plaintiff never supplied any goods personally to the defendant^rhis mates fetched them. Mr Perkins appeared for the defendant, and denied tho whole debt. In cross-examina-tion the plaintiff s,wore that the defendant was working in the claim in July last with the other men. He had seen him working there. He had asked the defendant for payment. By the Magistrate : It was Dickgon and other two men who came and \ asked me to supply the goods to them for a week or a fortnight. Defendant was, working in the claim at the time.. Samuel Dickson, a miner, remembered coming to the plaintiff and asking to be supplied with goods. Defendant was a mate of his. then. Cross •= examined : A dark man, and he went to Egan's for the good*. Thei defendant shared the goods with the other mates. He had himself paid Egan L 2 on account of this bill, and LI afterwards, but he had not got a receipt. He did not remember the defendant bringing his own tucker, and he did not fetch a bag of flour for him from Card's store. The defendant stated that he was mates with Richards and auother, and after they went to the new claim they were mates, but not in the. tucker. Every man found his own, and he got his from Card's store. He never got anything from the plaintiff, and did not even see him till a few weeks before, he received the summons. He had never seen the plaintiff at the' claim, He left the claim in May, 1867, some time before the other mates. The Magistrate siig^ gested that the names of all the individuals in the party should be added to. the summons, which was done, without prejudice, to the present defendant's case. The names were. Morris, Dickson, Symou, and Butcher, The Magistrate said there, was no doubt the goods were supplied, and the defendant was one of the mates at the time, and had share of the goods. Judgment was given fo^ L 7 7 a Id an< \ costs.