MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 326, 10 May 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Itefore T. \V. Parker, Esq., P..M.) ALLEGED LARCENY OF GRAIN. His Worship gave his decision in the case of larceny preferred by James Lictdle against Thomas Pratt. He said that it seemed to him that one of the most essential points in larceny was wanting. A large quantity of oats had been purchased b'y Pratt and Co.. and Pratt, acting on the advice of his solicitor, seized the oats in question, Ihinking lie would be liable for the payment of Hum. lie did not appear to have made a secret of the purpose. His Worship then remarked that there seemed to have been a difference existing between the compliinanfc and Pratt, and the books lad never been approximately balanced to see how Pratt stood. He thought the criminal intention on Pratt's part should be stronger than that which had been adduced. ll' also said that Pratt's actual position in regard to the situation occupied l>y him had never been brought out during the case, but that something had been left behind. Under these circumstances he would discharge prisoner. Sub-Inspector Smith then asked his Worship to make an order for restoring t :e properly, as it was taken possession of by the polic •, the same as any other stolen property. The police had told Mr. Aitken, in whose place the grain was stored, not to allow it to be removed by anyone from there. His Worship said that as the order was only it. verbal one, he had better withdraw thy order given to Aitken. BREACH OF CORPORATION BYE-LAWS. S. S. Sniich was charged with killing a calf within the town without first obtaining the necessary permission from t.ie Corporation. Dt f ndan!-, who pleaded ignorance of the law, was fined ss. W. J. Craig was charged with leaving his horse and express without some person ueiugiu charg ■, au I ffied 13i. AN.)TUBR CASK. John T>!il!i--d was charged with, that he did, on tie. 4th inst., exp »se for sale, outside his premises, in Tnanies-street, a •piantity of goods, in contravention of the bye-laws of tie Corporation of Oamiru. Mr. O'M'agher appeared for defendant, who plvad-d " Not G-iilr.y." Arthur Toms d posed : lam Inspector of Nuisauc.'S for tie town of 0 uuaru. On 3ed May I called the defendant's attention to the goods exposed outside his shop in Thames-street. I told him that lie could not do so ; and I also requested him to take them in. I went round the town and told t ! ie otfhor drapers the same thing. On the 4th the goods were again exposed, on defendan"s premises, and I immediately summomd him. Donald M'L 'od, deposed : I am Engineer for the Town Council of Oamaru. Yesterday, at the request of the hist witness, I measured the distance across Thames-street, opposite the defendant's premises, to ascertain whether the front of his promises,,encroached on Thamesstreet, or not. The main part of the building is exactly on the building line of the str.-et, but the buttress and windowsUl project about two inches. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher: Ascertaine 1 '■he distance from a reliable line. I got it from the original survey of the town of Oamaru. I cannot swear whether the person who surveyed the town started from a reliable data. I have heard of surveyors differing in the measurments. From what I have measured with the plan I have always found it correct. Defendant's windows are embayed. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. O'Meagher said that in a case of this sort strict proof was required that the original survey of Oamaru was correct ; and, also, according to the evidence of Mr M'Leod, the defendant's goods could not be exposed ; he was charged with exposing goods outside his windows, but the windows were further back from the street than the main building. Tae case was adjourned for consideration. GAMBLING IN A LODGING-HOUSE. The charge brought by the police a/ainst Robert Keeuau fur allowing gambling in his lodging-house came on for decision. His Worship dismissed the caoe, remarking that the clause of the Ordinance could not be made to extend to a lodginghouse any more than to a private dwellinghouse. NUISANCES. John Dooiey, for allowing a nuisance to exist on his premises, was fined 10s. Robert Kesuan was charged withneglecting to keep his yard clean. Defendant admitted the offence, and was fined ss. The same defendant was then charged with allowing his cesspool to overflow. In this case he pleaded that one of his tanks leaked, and caused the overflow. This case was dismissed.