A TANGITU CASE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 448, 16 March 1912, Page 5

A TANGITU CASE.

MAGISTRATES' STRONG RE-

MARKS

COMPLAINANTS' UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE.

At the Te Kuiti Magistrate's Court on Thursday before Mr P. O'B. Loughnan, S.M., a young man named Victor Fraei was charged with stealing a watch at Mokauiti belonging to Peter Baer on or about July 4th last. Constable Mathew prosecuted and Mr Sharpies appeared for the defendant.

Evidence was given by Peter Baer as to being losing the watch which had been left in his coat pocket. The watch (produced) was identified. Witness said accused came tu him on two occasions and spoke about the watch. He said he had never had the watch, and had never seen it. The watch cost 35s and he had bought it over three years ago.

Cross examined by Mr Sharpies, witness said he had been at Mokauiti nearly two years and had earned more than £1 and had always kept his wife and family in food. Constable Owen's statement with respect to the state of things seen at witness' house when he went to take Mrs Baer out to the asylum was not correct. Had not sold anything but his gun since being at Mokauiti. Had seen the watch at Mr Chilcott's on January 13th. Accused had told witness he had a watch there. Witness knew that Victor Fraei assisted to take witness' wife and children to the railway. Had not sworn to get even with the men who had assisted the constable to take his family away.

Constable Gapp stated that Baer made a complaint to him on January 17th about the watch. Witness had obtained the watch from Mr Chilcott's

In reply to Mr Sharpies the constable stated he had accompanied Constable Owen to Baer's whare and corroborated Constable Owen's description of the state of affairs at the whare. The only food he saw was a small quantity of oatmeal and there were no cooking utensils. It was possible there was a little tea and sugar, but they had seen none. Evidence was given by Charles Chilcott with respect to receiving the watch for repair. He could not identify accused as the person who gave him the walch, but according to the entry in his book it was brought by V. Fraei. As near as he could remember it was about September whan he received the watch. It was not worth five shillings when he got it. The top ring was missing, and the hair spring was broken. For the defence Mr Shaples sairl he proposed to call accused and another person to whom the watch had been offered for sale by Mrs Baer on the same day as accused had purchased it. Accused had bought the watcn for five shillings, Mrs Baer saying she was forced to sell it, being urgently in need of food.

Victor Fraei, who elected to give evidence, said Mrs Baer was in the habit of coming to their house and getting food. One day Mrs Baer came for food and his brother would not allow her to have any more. She said she was in need of food and Peter had asked her to sell the watch. He took compassion on her and gave her what she asked for it (ss). The top ring of the watch was missing and it was not going. He brought the watch to Mr Chilcott to be repaired and was not in Te Kuiti again until the charge was laid. Cross - examined by Constable Mathew, accused said he did not get a receipt for the watch. He. had bought several things from the Baera. He had bought tobacco and the watch from Mrs Baer and from Peter Baer tobacco, a pair of leggings, and matches. Neither Mr nor Mrs Baer smoked. Fie had never got provisions from Baer. He could not say how much work Baer had done, but knew it had taken him eight months to build his whare after all the timber had been split for him. To his Worship: He had never had anv conversation with Baer respecting : the watch. Baer had never threatened him.

At this stage his Worship said he did not require any further evidence. It was quite clear to him that Baer had left his wife without proper means of subsistence and she, very probably with Baer's authority, had sold the watch. The young fellow did not wanted the watch particularly, and he gave the woman the money in a sort of compassion. Baer's evidence was so extremely unreliable that no notice could be taken of it. The case would be dismissed. His Worship added that he regretted the pro- ' secution was not a private one in I which case ho could have allowed costs to the defence.