Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 98, 25 January 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM— Monday, Jan. 13, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] Dougal M l Dougal was charged with stealing a'clog, the property of Mr. Macaulay, of Renwicktown, on the 17th instant, and pleaded not guilty. J. D. Macaulay, innkeeper, Renwick, dg^dsed I "thffit' 'Tie~' saw' pnsorier ar his house on Eriday last; he was accompanied by four others, and they had a drink. During the time they were there, I saw the dog playing in the bar, and missed it immediately after the prisoner left. On making enquiries about the neighbourhood, his brother said he saw prisoner playing with it, and on proceeding to Blenheim a man named Williams, staying at Ewart’s hotel, said he had seen a dog answering to the description in the possession of the prisoner. He then gave information to the police. Hearing afterwards from Gustavus Berry, which way the prisoner had taken, he and Constable Gresham went in pursuit, andovertook him near Atwood’s, with the dog in his possession. He identified the dog, and gave prisoner in charge, who acknowledged the dog was the one sought for. Prisoner said the evidence was correct, hut the dog followed him from the house; he tried to turn it hack two or three times ; a man that was travelling did not like to turn back three or four miles. Had prosecutor come after him, he would have given it up, as it was no good to him or anyone else. Sergeant Enierson said, in reply to the Bench, that he had no knowledge of the prisoner. The Bench said he had rendered himself liable to the provisions of the Dog Act, by which the law provided a penalty of £2O for the first offence, and for a second to be imprisoned for twelve months, and then publicly or privately whipped. In this case he would inflict a penalty of £2 and costs, or imprisonment for a month. The fine was paid. CIVIL CASES. J. JEFFREYS V. PEOTTDFOOT. An action to recover £8 Is. for grog and tobacco. The Bench remarked that this was apparently a case of felony, as he remarked last week, and wished to know why it was brought as a debt case. Plaintiff said that some time ago he went to Nelson, and on his return found a case broken open, and eight large bottles of gin were missing. On naming it to the defendant, he denied having taken them, and accused Minchin, who also denied it. Defendant then offered to pay for it, but afterwards refused. He would have taken it then. He also left the cash-box in his charge. On examining it he found 235. short, but did not know who took it. The Bench said the plaintiff would have condoned the offence, and made it a debt.

Plaintiff said that the same evening he arrived home a second ease was broken open, and four bottles were taken. The Court said it was a clear case of felony according to the evidence, and a robbery by his servant. He could not see how it could be taken as a case for debt. Plaintiff said defendant offered to pay him for the gin; he was drunk at the time, and offered to settle it for £3. The Court: If you had settled it at the time it would have been well enough, but now it is defended* The case could not be entertained further; it was either a case of felony or nothing at all. The plaintiff had better withdraw the action, and obtain legal aid before he brought it in another form. BISLAKD V. 3IAIISU. A claim of £1 12s.*, of which plaintiff had been paid 10s., and defendant promised to pay the balance into Court before this day* but had not done so. Judgment for plaintiff £1 125., with Bs. costs.