JOYCE V. HANRAHAN.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 312, 20 December 1884, Page 2

JOYCE V. HANRAHAN.

1 At the R.M. Ceurt on Thursday morning Frank Hanrahan was charged by E. P. Joyce with stealing 10s. 6d. Mr. : Brassey appeared for plaintiff and Mr. DeLautour tor the defendant. E. P. Joy.-e deposed : He had missed money from his till on different occasions. He first took steps to discover the cause of his loss on Monday, sth December. ' He in company with a another person stopped in the bar parlor all night. On . another occasion he bored two holes in ; the ceiling over the bar and watched there until the morning of the 16th. He : came down in his stocking soles at 10 minutes to 6, opened the bar without any one seeing him, and counted the money in the till which he had previously marked. Again went to the bedroom and watched through the holes in the floor till 7.30. Defendant went into the b.-r at 10 minutes to 6. The first thing he did on entering the bar was to go to the till. He (witness) saw the prisoner at the ti l and heard money rattling. Did not see his hand in the till, or see any money in his hand. Accused went out of the bar and returned shortly after, witness still watching at the hole. No one else was in the bar. It took twenty-five seconds to go up stairs, as he had timed it that morning. At half-past seven he looked at the till, and afterwards asked accused how much money was in the till. He said there was £ 1 9s 6d. He found other money in the till that was not marked. Some drinks were served. He asked accused at 7.30 how much was taken, and he said about a couple of shillings. He pointed to the strange money, which accused said was the takings. He had missed other sums. By Mr. DeLautour: The accused is expected to be in the bar from six to ten. He did not always get away at ten. He had to stop there until relieved. The takings in the till were left there until he (witness) took it out. It was not the custom to count the money when the barman was relieved. From £5 to £lO was taken during the day. He always counted the money when he closed the house. There is no lock on the till. Accused started work on August 24. Had no reason to complain of accused. Called the attention of accused to the fact that money had been missed on Friday, sth December. He gave notice to leave that same morning, saying he did not care about staying in a house where money was stolen. Told accused he was not suspected. The entrance to the cellar is from the outside with a trap-door up to the bar. The cellar door has been in a broken state for years. There is no fastening on the cellar door. Could not see the chair through the hole in the ceiling. Accused suggested that the trap-door ought to be locked, and also drew attention to precautions taken by Mr. Wilson to protect his till. The holes in the ceiling are four inches apart. When watching at one could not see through the other. Could not see the till from either of them, nor the trap-door, nor the chair. Accused has been in the habit of giving a note of what was in the till, and did not know what was left there overnight. It was the rule to lock the inside door of the bar at breakfast time, and leave the front door open. Watched at the holes for six days—from the 6th to the 10th of December. The sitting room was not locked, and could be entered from the housekeeper’s rooms. Mr. DeLautour submitted there was no case to answer. All they had got was Mr. Joyce’s statement, which, taken even with all the inferences, and it must beowned that a great deal of it was mere inference, did not prove anything. There was neither possession of coin nor any suspicion of accused's character. His Worship said it was his duty not to allow any person to be convicted on mere suspicion Accused had not been seen taking the money, and no, coin had been found on him. He did not consider he was justified in allowing lhe case to go any further. The information would therefore be dismissed.