MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 354, 12 June 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., K.M.) ALLEGED LARCENY. The following is the conclusion of the hearing of the charge of larceny preferred against Martha Craig and John Madden : Alice Purnell, alias Mary Ann Greaves, cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher: I have been in New Zealand 15 or 16 years. I came from London, and came out as a married woman. I lived in Canterbury until I came to Oamaru. I know Inspector Pender, Detective Feast, and Detective Benjamin. I know Addington Gaol. That was where I first met Mrs. Craig. I was there for drunkenness, and was serving three months. I was in gaol several times, but I cannot say how many times, for I lost count. I will swear I have not been in gaol fifty times. I was in Timaru for nine months, and was in gaol there for three months for vagrancy. I have been convicted at the District Court for perjury, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The jury found me guilty, and the judge concurred in the. verdict. I can write my name in a certain style. I can scribble my name, Mary Ann Greaves, in a sort of way, but not very well. Mr. O'Meagher: Have you ever been convicted of larceny ?

Witness :" I decline to answer the queji tion ; it has nothing to do with the cut,J Mr. O'Meagher repeated the queatiq and asked his Worship to make the *i ness reply to it. ... His Worship said he was not quite su whether the question was one which tl witness could be compelled to answer. Mr. O'Meagher pointed out that oi a few days ago witnesses had been cot pelled to answer similar questions, vii less justice. . After some discussion Mr. U Mcagl asked that the witness's refusal to ana* the question might be noted. Mr. O'Meagher: Where you ever c» victed for being a common prostitute ? Witness : I do not remember whethet was or not. Witness to Mr. O'Meagher : I was 1 years in Canterbury. I have been in tl Addington Gaol, the Timaru Gaol, an now lam in the Oamaru Gaol. I cann say how long I have been in gaol alt gether during the 10 years I have been the Colony, as I did not keep a book, was rather longer making up the fire tin there was any necessity for, as I w rather tired. I did not keep my ey upon Mrs. Craig and Madden all t! time. I cannot say how large the roll notes was that Mrs. Craig had in I hand ; but I am sure they were notes, had no conversation with the police tl night. On the Sunday afternoon (13 May) I was offered L 5 by the poll if I would tell them where Mrs. Cn had put the pocket-book. 1 sliou have told them about the robbery tin only that I had not an opportunity, did not tell them about the robbery un the 28th, although it took place ont 12th. I did not do so, because I cot not get out. I wanted to leave Craij before I did do so. When I saw Cn Mrs. Craig, Madden, and White counti over the notes, they did not see me ; tl were so busily engaged that they did i hear me. lam not sure whether Iw< into the room or not. When I went it the room where Madden and Mrs. Cn were sitting beside Brown, they could n help seeing me. When I went out I 1 them sitting in the same place. Madd was sitting on the right hand side Brown, holding up his left arm, wl Mrs. Craig had her hand in his pocket, Ellen George, a married woman, i called, but her evidence had not inn bearing on the case. Constable Donovan deposed: On I 12th May I went to Craig's, in compa with Lamont and Brown. Liddle, M Craig, and Craig were there. I asli Craig if he knew anything about Brow money. Mrs. Craig said that Brown I not been in the house that day. (b, said he had been out with his expre*s,i he had not seen him. I asked Liddle he had seen Brown in the house, and replied that they had been there togetl drinking. Mrs. Craig then turned Liddle, and said, in angry tones, " I to 1 -- l - i you in the house for the last th days. She then admittea thai she 1 seen Brown in the house with two yot men. I asked her their names, but i refused to tell me. She said she did l know their names. Mrs. Craig bees very insolent, and told me I could do i best in the matter. T then came up the station and reported the affair to Si Inspector Smith. Between 11 and o'clock the same night 1 arrested Raymo Madden, John Madden, and Frank Wl at Richmond's boarding - house. Tli admitted having seen Brown at Crai boarding-house, but said they knew i thing about the money. I found L 8 Madden, L 7 2s Gd on Raymond Madde and 19s on White, but I found no mon to correspond with that stolen. Cross - examined by Mr. O'Meaglie: When I went to Craig's first, two Chin men came into the room. I did not he

them speak to anyone. The conversatii I had with Craig and Mrs. Craig took pla in the sitting-room. I did not threat* either Mr. Craig or Mrs. Craig. Cra threatened Brown, and said he would tal proceedings against him for saying tin his money had been stolen in his (Craig'i house.

This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. O'Meagher then addressed til Bench on behalf of the prisoners. H adverted to the extraordinary evident) given by the woman Purnell, and pointe out many strange parts of that witnem evidence. He asked his Worship if then was any case to answer. With the excep tion of the evidence of Alice Purnell which was of so improbable a nature thai he hoped his Worship would not rcceivi it, there was nothing to connect the nri' soners with the robbery. He therefore asked the Magistrate to discharge both prisoners.

His Worship said that in order to look over the evidence, he would reserve liii decision until the following morning.

THIS DAY.

(Before T. W. Parkkr, Esq., R.M., and G. SummW, Ksq., J.P.) ALLEGED LARCENY. Martha Craig and John Madden were again placed in the dock on the charge of having Btolen a large sum of money and some valuable papers from one John Brown. The evidence in the case had been completed on the previous day, and the prisoners were brought up to hear the decision of the Bench. His Worship the Resident Magistrato said that, after perusing the evidence, he had come to the conclusion that he could not order the prisoners to be discharged without making a slight reference to Alice Purnell. Had her evidence been supported by that of anyone else, he would nave been justified in committing the accuseds for trial. He could not A but look upon the affair as most disgracet &l to all concerned in the house, and he* believed that the only one guiltless of this heartless and cold-blooded robbery in the boarding-house was the poor old woman

who had been convicted of perjury. He could not help referring to the exertions made on behalf of the prisoners by their counsel, who left no stone unturned to break down and render worthless the evidence of Purnell, and fortunately for the prisoners, he succeeded to the fullest extent. Although the woman (Alice Purnell) had perhaps got no more than her deserts, he was still of a strong opinion that others were equally guilty. The prisoners would be discharged. FURIOUS RIDING. Thomas Morgan was charged with having ridden furiously in Tees-street, on the 2nd June. Defendant denied the charge, and declared that he had full command over his horse. W. J. Steward and J. T. Evans were called, and both gave evidence to the effect that defendant had been riding in a most furious manner. His Worship said the case was one of the most flagrant nature. Hitherto the Court had not deemed it necessary to inflict the full penalty, but the present was a case in which the highest penalty might be imposed. The defendant would be fined L 5, and be ordered to be detained in custody until the fine was paid. FURIOUS DRIVING. Wm. Thompson was charged by Arthur Toms with driving furiously through Itchen-street on the 29th May. The defendant pleaded "Guilty," but said he had done so by accident. After hearing the evidence of Arthur Toms, who proved the dangerous manner in which defendant had driven, his Worship, after briefly referring to the danger of such proceedings, imposed a fine of L 3 10s. STRAY CALF. John Lamont was charged by the Inspector of Nuisances with allowing a calf with a tether rope attached to wander at large in Mersey-street on the 16th April.

Defendant denipd that the calf was in the street, but said it was on private property. The evidence of Arthur Toms was then taken, after which the defendant said that these proceedings were brought against him because the prosecutor had an animus against him, and annoyed him on every possible occasion. The prosecutor said the statements made by defendant were utterly false. His Worship said that if the defendant had any complaint to make with regard to the conduct of the Inspector of Nuisances, he should make that complaint in the proper place, as nothing could be done in tbit matter in the Court. FllUr'.i £O3. BREACH OF BYE-LA.W3. Joan Bullied was charged with having, on the 4th May, exposed for sale, outside his premises, in Thames-street, a quantity of goods, in contravention of the bye-law 3 of the Corporation of Oamarii. This case was heard on the 10th May, and was adjourned for consideration of the Bench. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the defendant.

His Worship now dismissed the case, and cautioned the defendant. He said lie was aware that many dealers were in the habit of exposing their goods outside their shops, but expressed the opinion that defendant had done so in a manner exceptionally offensive to pedestrians. CIVIL CASES. Walkem v. Stewart.—Claim of L 3 2s. for board and lodging. Judgment for the plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. Hargreaves v. Paterson. —Claim, L 3 Is. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. Fleming akd Hedley v. Morgan.— Claim, Ll4 63. lid. Judgment for full amount and costs.