THE COURTS.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 159, 28 September 1880, Page 3

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Blenheim, Monday, Sept. 2". (Before H. Mclutirc, Esq., R.M]. CHARGE 01' STEALING FIREWOOD. Mro 'William Stagg was charged with stealing half a cord of firewood of the value of lOs, the property of Margaret Barclay, Grove Hoad, Blenheim. Mr Rogers appeared for defendant, who admitted that she carried the wood away, but without felonioasintent.

Mrs Barclay, the prosecutrix, stated that she lived in Grove Hoad, up to the 21st instant, and then went to live in Maxwell Hoad. Her goods were moved by Mr John Hagg, but her firewood was left in Mr Wemyss’ yard. There was about two cords of about the value of £2 10s. On Thursday morning, in consequence of what she heard she went to the place, and found some of the wood missing. On Friday evening she saw defendant and asked Her if she had taken any wood. She said her little boy had taken it. That lie dragged it to the wire fence, and she took it by the back door. She showed the wood to witness, and the constable was with her. There was about half a cord of wood. At first she said she had not taken the wood. Witness never gave the wood to defendant, or anybody else, or authorised anybody to take it. By Mr Rogers —I can’t say at what time of day the wood was removed. She said she should not have taken the wood if she had not understood it had been given to her child. She afterwards said she found out that this was not correct, and that she was willing that the firewood should be taken hack, or that she would pay for it. She said she did not wish to have the matter brought iuto Court, or that her friends in Nelson should know anything about it. W. 1\ Parker deposed to seeing defendant’s little boy dragging wood across the road, and Mrs Stagg taking it over the fence. This was between 5 and C o’clock on Thursday evening. It was openly done. There appeared to lie no attempt at concealment whatever.

John Hagg stated that he was employed to remove Mrs Barclay’s goods. The wood was thrown over the fence into the street, and then carted away. Some of it was left behind. Witness did not give any of it tc the defendant’s little daughter. James McKinley, in the employ of Mr D. Wemyss, deposed that lie was employed to remove wood, etc., from Mrs Barclay’s. He never authorised defendant’s little boy to remove any of it. Mr Regers submitted that no case of felonious intent had been established against the defendant, and that there was no case aguinst her. He considered that the case ought to be dismissed. The wood was taken through a mistake, and defendant was willing to return the wood or pay for it. The R.M. said there could be no doubt the wood had been misappropriated by Mrs Stagg, but it did not appear to have been done feloniously, although it was a foolish thing to do. The case would he dismissed. The costs amounting to lb’s would have to be paid by the prosecution, GIVEN.S V. LA KING. This was a claim of LIG 4s !)d for board and lodging and “drinks” supplied to defendant at the Marlborough Hotel. Defendant did not appear. The R.M. said he observed that sundry of the items were for drinks. Mr Rogers said the defendant did not appear to dispute the correctness of the account, or raise any objection under the Tippling Act. Moreover he had admitted his liability in writing. The plaintiff having proved the debt, obtained judgment for the amount claimed with costs. A. DILLON V. LAKING. This was a claim forL4 Os (id, the amount of an hotel bill. Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff having proved the debt obtained judgment for the amount claimed with costs. MITCHELL V. MORTIMER. This was a claim for Llo Is Gel, for goods sold and delivered. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for plaintiff for aheamount claimed and costs. MAIN V. CRAIG. This was a judgment summons case for L 3 3s. There was no appearance on the part of defendant, who was stated by plaintiff to be at the Upper Wairau diggings. What his present means are witness cannot say, but at. the time judgment was obtained against him lie was getting 9s a day at Mr Horn by’s’sawmill. He lias never asked witness for time, or made any overture to settle the matter. The R.M. made an order for payment within fourteen days, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment.