RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 183, 10 January 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, January 8, 1877. (Before Major Turner, R.M., and Dr. Croft, J.P.) LARCENY. Alexander Smith was charged that he did on the2Glh November last, steal, take, and carry away, six dozen ale, the property of W, Odgers of the Australasian hotel. The prosecutor said that he had a store adjoining the hotel where he kept beer and wines. On the above date he missed a largo quantity of beer, about six dozen, and other liquors Prisoner was caught in the very act of coming out of the store,

with ale in his possession, and was so detected twice on the same day. Witness had known prisoner some years, and knowing him to bg hard up had taken him m and sheltered him, and this was the return lie got for it. John Graham, in the employment or Mr Odgers, proved that on the 26th November ho saw the prisoner taking bottles of bcei out of a cask in the store. Witness saw him take one bottle in his pocket, and called Mr Good fellow to witness the larceny as well. On returning, they searched prisoner, hut could find no beer or anything else on him. This was in the blacksmith s shop. Mr Odgers explained that, though the prisoner had taken the ale from the store, there was only an 8-ft. partition between that and the blacksmith’s shop, that admission had been obtained to the latter, and that the robbery must then have been committed by clambering over to the store. In continuation, Graham said that trie reason he did not take earlier steps was that Mr Odgers had been ill, and he did not like to disturb him. At the time witness caught prisoner, the latter shook hands, and asked him to say nothing about In reply to prisoner witness said that at the time, prisoner was employed by the prosecutor in odd jobs about the place. James Goodfellow corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, as to finding the prisoner stealing the beci on the day in question, Mr Odgers stated that though allowed on the premises prisoner had no right to be in the store. The Bench enquired if the accused had been brought up before, to which Sergeant Wholail replied? that ho had not been broitght up under that name before. Tlie Bench gave as their opinion that a sufficient case had not been made out, and that it would have been better for the prosecutor to have charged prisoner with being illegally on the premises. I here could be no doubt that thefts had been committed; and that several suspicious characters were about the town. Had prisoner been found guilty he would have had at least six months in the Taranaki gaol, and they advised him to clear orit of this part with as little, delay as possible. This charge was dismissed. _ A further charge of stealing six dozen of stout was then preferred against the prisoner. There was no directly criminatory evidence in this case. The f acts_ were that on the 7th inst., the above quantity of liquor was stolen, and prisoner and a mate were seen ref resiling themselves at a little distance away. The case was adjourned in cider to allow search to be made for enipiy Lotties; that Mr Odgers could identify.

Tuksday January 8, 1877. (Before Major Turner, E.M., and Dr. Croft, J.P. The same prisoner was brought up; but discharged, as there was no further evidence against him. The Court then adjourned.