RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 315, 27 September 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

, This Day. (Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.) POLICE CASES. Thomas Keiran was charged with being drunk and disorderly; also, with using obscene language. Constable Brown deposed that the offences took place in defendant’s bouse. The language was audible in the public street. Mr Hawkins appeared for defendant. His Worship dismissed the charge of drunkenness, and inflicted a fine of 20s for the obscene language, with the usual alternative. D. Gagott, for being drunk, was fined 10s, with the usual alternative. Thomas Ryan was charged with- the wilful murder of Joseph Daniels on or about the 10th day of March, 1877, at Kumara. Sub-Inspector O’Donnell applied for, and obtained, a remand for seven days. Prisoner applied to be admitted to bail, but the application was refused, the Resident Magistrate not having power to grant it. John Jeffcott was charged with driving his horses so as to endanger the lives and limbs of Her Majesty’s subjects.- Defendant pleaded guilty. Constable Browne swore that the leading horses were galloping, the others were trotting. His Worship fined defendant 10s, with costs 6s 6d.

Archibald Thompson was charged with stealing four £1 notes, the property of Edward Mahoney.—Edward Mahoney, miner, deposed that on the 24th instant he was lodging at the Brian Boru Hotel. He had gone to bed between 12 and 1 o’clock. When he retired no other person was in bed in the room. He had four single notes, some silver, and a half-sovereign. He had also a deposit receipt on the Union Bank for £ls and a cheque. The deposit receipt produced was the one he ha l. He had seen the money a few minutes before lie undressed. Put all together back into his pocket, and \ hung his trousers on a peg over his head. Some time after he heard a man come to the other bnrl. Early in the morning he felt his hat on his face, and as the hat had been hanging on the same peg as his trousers, he suspected that he had been robbed. On examining his trousers found everything gone but the cheque. Messrs Dungan and O’Brien on being informed of the robbery made a search, and Mr Dungan took the deposit receipt from under prisoner's head. Prisoner was in one of the other beds. Mr Dungan afterwards found under prisoner’s bed a pound note. Mr Dungan asked prisoner if he had any money, before the note was found. Prisoner gave up £3, in notes and said that was all he had. Prisoner had some silver. Prisoner did not admit that the money was witness’s. Witness could not identify the notes. He thought they were New Zealand notes. The notes produced are of the Bank of New Zealand. He could not swear to them. Prisoner looked as if he had been on the spree. Prisoner must have got out of bed in order to reach his witness’s trousers. The trousers had not been moved.—Peter Dungan deposed that he had been called by the last witness about 6 o’clock on Tuesday morning. Mahoney told him that he had lost some money. Witness confirmed the evidence of Mahoney as to the finding of the money. The bedroom is in a lean-to outside the house, and can be entered without going through -the House. John O’Brien, partner of the last witness, gare confirmatory evidence. At this stage Mr Perkins informed the Court that he had been instructed to appear for prisoner.—Detective Browne deposed to having arrested the prisoner who was a respectable man, a miner, whose only fault was that he drank to excess. Prisoner was stupid from drink, when arrested. The statements made by prisoner as to the amount of money he had received during the day previous to the alleged robbery had been correct except that a payment of £2 which he at first said was made in notes he aterwards said was made in halfsovereigns. The latter statement was correct.—Andrew Crawford deposed that he had, last Saturday, paid four £5 pound notes and thirteen one pound notes to the prosecutor. One of these tfas torn.—This was the case for the prosecution,—Mr Perkins addressed his Worship to show that there was no identification of the money. The deposit receipt was not included in the charge. It was doubtful whether or not the prisoner had taken the money, as the room was one to which access was to be had by others besides the prisoner, who besides had objected to sleep in a room occupied by another, and had left the evidence against him in such a position as would certainly lead to his conviction.—His Worship should 1 also bear in mind the good character prisoner bore.—-Carl Eohloff, ■ baker, deposed that he had known prisoner for five years. On Monday night, at i o’clock, witness had seen prisoner, who was a “ little on,” and had notes

in. his hand; more than one. . Could not say that he had three, believed prisoner to be the last man to commit a larceny.—Joseph Davidson, draper, gave prisoner an excellent character for the last seven years. Had known him in Ross.—Richard John Seddon, mayor ot Kumara, gave similar evidence.;—His Worship found the prisoner nob guilty. civil oases. Mulligan and Co. v. Keiran.—Claim, goods, £35 3s lOd. Judgment for plaintiffs. Seddon Bros; v. •Marchiori.—Claim, goods, £l2 lls lOd. Defendant did not appear. R. J. Seddon deposed that £l2 had been paid. Verdict for plaintiffs for 11s lOd with costs. Dungan and O’Brien v. Taylor.— This case had been adjourned for a week in order to enable the plaintids to furnish a bill of particulars* The bill had been furnished since the sitting of the Court commenced. Mr Hawkins, under the circumstances, applied for an adjournment. Adjourned for another ■week, coats of adjournment to be costa of the case.

Magoffin v. Morgan.—Claim, lease of section, £6 ss. Mr Perkins appeared for defendant. Plaintiff was crossexamined by Mr Perkins. He said that the agreement to lease for which he claimed had been made he believed in writing. He had not destroyed it wilfully, but could not find it. He had no writing except his book. The writing in the book was “ about the 17th Augnst agreed for £6.” He subsequently sold’ the section for £l2 on the 12th ‘October, The first ■ agreement made with Morgan is lost or he had not seen it since. He could not say whether or not he had kept the original agreement to sell. He had not assigned all his debts. There was a lien on his property, but not on this debt. Defendant declined afterwards to allow plaintiff to take it out in meat. The defendant produced a.copy of the agreement for lease. He had made one payment of £2 and on October 12th agreed with plaintiff to buy the section for £l2, Witness paid the £l2. Plaintiff subsequently asked for the balance of the lease money. The agreement to sell was destroyed in TudbalTs fire. The case was dismissed : each party to pay his own costs. There were no cases for the Warden’s Court,