DISTRICT COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 23, 27 January 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

[Before His Honor Judge Broad]. Theodore Wilson and William Mercer were charged with stealing certain articles of furniture, tbe property of John James, of Bridge-street, furniture dealer. Mr Fell appeared for tbe prosecution aud Mr Pitt for the defence. Tlie following were sworn ih on the jury:— James Wilson (foreman), Thos. Harris, Alexander ( halmers, Thomas Shea, Edwin Fowler, W. Wells, E. Baley, E. Holdaway John Best, B. Chisholm, S. Leech, aud Walter Fieldes. The evidence for the prosecution (which has already appeared in our columns) having been taken, Mr Pitt raised the following points:— (lj. That there must have been several takings, and the prosecution mnst elect some one on which to proceed as they had not inserted three counts in the indictment. (2). That it was larceny from a dwelling, and as such was outside the jurisdiction of the District Court. (3). That it was larceny hy a servant, and upoa the evidence for the prosecution could not consist of simple larceny, and consequently was outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr Fell replied that these was no evidence that there had been more than one taking, and it was quite possible the articles had all been taken at once; that the store was sufficiently detached from the dwelling house to do away with the second objection; and that although the prisoners were servants they were only engaged as such in the workshopin Bridge-street, whereas the goods were taken from the store over which they had no control. His Honor overruled the objections, and the Court adjourned for luncheon. Upon reassembling, the Judge summed up, and, after a short retirement, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty against both prisoners. Mr Pitt moved in arrest of judgment upon the same grounds as already stated. His Honor said he must "overrule the objections for the same reasons, viz : that it had not heen proved conclusively that the robbery was from a dwelling house, and that there was ample evidence to justify the finding of the jury upon the indictment for simple larceny, which was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Court. Further that although prisoners were servants of the prosecutor at a particular place and for particular purposes, they were not in custody on charge of the goods stolen, nor had they anything whatever to do with them, being employed in another part of the town. Thirdly it did not appear but that all the goods might have been 9tolen at oue time and, therefore, he (the Judge) would not have acted with discretion in forcing the prosecution to elect. His Hoxoit then proceeded to pass sentence upon tbe prisoners. He said it was a barefaced case of stealing, but the prisoners' motives appeared to be an inadequate desire to gratify their personal vanity by making poesents to their friends, for there was no evidence of anything haviug been sold. He thought Mercer had been acted upon by the elder prisoner, and was perhaps the less guilty of the two, at any rate he had from the evidence shown sincere signs of contri tion and helped his master to find some of the stolen goods. The sentence upon Wilson would be two years imprisonment in Nelson gaol with hard labor, and upon Merc6r 18 mouths with hard labor. .. _ i