RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1041, 25 February 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. GISBORNE.

Thuhsday, FKititCAnr 23, 1352. [Before M. Price, Esq.. Ji.M.] POLICE V. KAUPAU HANOI. The accused was charged with the larceny of a whip, the property of Lachlan Mclntosh, at Pakirikiri, on the 23th ult., value Ss. Sergeant Bullen prosecuted. Mr Rees defended. Mr Brooking acted as interpreter.

From the evidence of Mr Mclntosh it appeared that about a week or ten days previous to the day in question lie left a wbip-bandle wilh a thong attached at Mr Devery’s Hotel, to be taken care of for him. The whiphandie was recognisable by reason of a splinter being broken off the side of it. When lie went for it on the 28th or 29th ult. a search was made, but it could not then bo found, and it was supposed to have been mislaid. 'The next time .Mr Mclntosh saw the whip it was in the band of the accused in Gladstone Road, on the day he was taken into custody, lie asked the accused where lie got it from, and was told that he had got it from another Native at the Murewai.

Mr E. Dcvery recollected tho whip being left at his place, lie was absent from home at the time, but on his return it was pointed out to him by Joseph James as being Mr Mclntosh’s. When Mr Mclntosh came for it the first time it could not be found, and he thought it had been mislaid ; the next time a thorough search was made, and it was found to bo missing. On coming into Oisborno on the day the accused was arrested he saw Mclntosh and the prisoner at Page’s Corner. Mclntosh told him that he had found the whip with the accused, and witness brought a constable, who arrested the prisoner. Mr Joseph James said he recollected seeing tho whip on tho table in the parlor at Mr Devery’s Hole! on the day it was left there by Mr -Mclntosh. He had seen the accused often, but had no recollection of seeing him on the day in question. He would not swear positively as to tho whip produced, but to the best of his belief it

was the one missing. On the 28ih or 29th ult. he and MrDeverv looked for the whip but could not find it.

Mr Roes addressed tho Court, and ■called two Natives for the defence, who stated that they picked up the whip on their way from Gisborne to the Murewai on the evening of the 31)111 ulr. It was lying on the road before they got to Devery’s. Ilemeono, the Native who picked it up, carried it to the Murewai, when he gave it to Peni, his companion, who took it to

his kaincin. Pent was asked by the accused (who lived in the same iiCiare with him) to lend it to him to go to Gisborne, which he did. This evidence closed the case for the defence, and His Worship said that if tho evidence of the Natives was to be believed, which, in the absence of re-

butting testimony, he considered he was right in believing, the accused could not be charged with either stealing or taking, and he must therefore be discharged. His Worship then directed the Interpreter to explain to the Natives, of whom there were a considerable number present in Court, that the finding of property did not entitle them to keep it, and that when they found property they should endeavor to find the owner by giving notice to ihe police, or otherwise, as if found with the properly of other people in their possession they were liable to be brought before the Court to answer the charge. Embay, 21th Februaey, 1832. Craig v. Gannon. Claim £3B I ls. Mr Finn for plain tiff ; in the absence of Mr Brassey the defendant conducted his case in person. This was a claim for work done by the plaintiff as a printer, and other work in relation to priming expenses incurred in reference to the last general election for members of the House of Representatives. Evidence having been given by the plaintiff in support of his claim, and the defendant having been heard, His Worship stated that after hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant, ho was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in quantum meruit tor the work done by tho plaintiff, and the verdict of the Court must, therefore, be for the plaintiff with costs. Nicholas and Co. v. Evans. Claim £3 3s. In this case judgment passed for the plaintiff with costs.