RESIDENT-MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5735, 16 August 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT-MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, August 15. ' (Before Dr. Diver and Mr. J. E. Smith, _ J.P’S.) , . ;; j Jj&EACH OPACITY.. BY-LAWS. J ■ ' William Krth; ah express man, was charged with leaving his express unattended on the wharf, but as there appeared to be some doubt iu the matter the case was dismissed, a caution being administered to .defendant. Michael Sheehy and Joseph Snow were each! fined ss. and costa for permitting their neys to be on fire ; depositing nightsoil in the harbor. George Hardham and Alexander McPherson were each charged with depositing a quantity of nightsoil below high-water mark, on the night of the 6th instant, at Evans Bay. The evidence of Detective Snllivan was taken iq support of the charge. The defence was that the men being employees of Mr. McKirdy, the contractor, had merely acted in compliance with his orders. The Bench considered the offence to be a very serious one, and ordered each defendant to pay a fine of £5, or. go to gaol for one month. ... JEWEL BOBBERY. William Mathison was charged with having* on 30th July, stolen from the Melbourne Hotel a silver watch, gold chain, and locket, valued at £l7, the property of Robert Long. • Superintendent James conducted the case. ' Robert' Long' deposed that he. was barman and book-keeper at the Melbourne Hotel, and on the night of the robbery prisoner was stop, ping at the hotel.. Witness went to bed lata that evening, leaving his door unlocked., Pri-: soner occupied ' the opposite, room, and' at about 11 o’clock woke witness, saying that Mr. Owen wanted Mm. Witness dressed hurriedly; werit-downstaira without his waistcoat, .in the pocket of which the articles were.'' Prisoner had gone downstairs before witness.- At’aboufi midnight witpess required to know what the time was,"and went upstairs for hiswatoh, but it was gone, although the waistcoat Wat where he had left -it. 5 Prisoner could’ have irbne up to the room of witness while witness, was down-; stairs'.' ;Prisoner went-out between 1 and S$ o’clock, returning again at the latter 1 hour,; The next day he left the hotel without paying! his board. Witness having spoken of his loss! before prisoner, the latter said it was k low,! mean thing to do, The goods produced wit-! ness identified as the stolen articles. ; Detective'Grkce, stationed’at Napier, deposed to having arrested prisoner on Monday lasfc' in - the 'Masonic Hotel, ‘Napier, from! information' received.-" Hpon- being told the} charge, prisoner denied it, and skid the only watch and- chain he had were those'he was! Wearing." Witness' searched prisoner’s room; and found the watch iq a vest 'pocliet, and the chain and locket in' a trouser pocket. j

This was the case, and Mr. James said, there' was another-charge against prisoner, but he wouldask for a remand for a week, after first: hearing Detective Grace’s"evidence.l ■ ‘ ! The Bench acceded to this request, and the prisoner having been duly’cautioned, said ha had nothing to say in answer to the charge. ;

BABBETT’s HOTEL BOBBERY. ’ ! ’ The same ■ prisoner was then charged with having on the night of the Ist instant, stolen from Barrett’s Hotel,- twenty £1 notes, the property of Daniel McGregor. Detective Grace deposed that upon searching prisoner after arresting him upon the’previous, charge at Napier, he found on .him seven £1 Bank of New ■ Zealand notes. Prisoner was then wearing a new'gold chain, with a horseshoe locket and greenstone pendant, which he said he had bought in Napier, and paid for it with £1 notes. Witness ascertained that this was the case. He marked th'e' notes produced with his initials. ' ; Prisoner was then remanded for a week. 1 (Before T.‘A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) NEGLECTED CHILI)., i A little boy of ten summers, named William King, was charged with being a neglected child. ' It appeared that his parents were unable to do anything with him, and he was con-; sequently sent to the - Auckland training ship.- - CIVIL CASE. The combined action Moncton v. Crosse and Crosse i v.Moncton, adjourned from the previous day, was gone into, Mr. Ollivier again appearing for Crosse,-anil Mr. Hutchison for Moncton. Evidence upon either side was taken at some length, and his Worship then reserved judgment.