MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2233, 14 May 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAJvU —TUTS DAY. (Before E. Bcctham Esq., E.M.) ASSAULT AND WILFUL DAMAGE TO I’EOXUiIITY. William Henry, who was arrested on Wednesday last on a charge of assaulting Joseph Sawyer, and also with wilfully smashing a lamp globe, of the value of 10s, and was lot out on the evening of his arrest on bail, failed, when called, to put in an appearance. As the accused also failed to appear yesterday when summoned, His Worship now directed a warrant to ho issued for his arrest. LARCENY OF A SWAG. Henry Williams was charged with feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying away , one tent, two pairs of boots, two pairs of trousers, some socks, and oilier articles, the whole being of the value of £l, the property of Henry Cook, the prosecutor-

Tho accused pleaded guilty, Henry Cook, laborer, Timai’u, stated that ho was owner of tho swagproduced. On May 12, he was at the Club Hotel, Timaru, and loft tho swag in the bar. The accused was present at the time and witness spoke to him. Knew accused, but had lost sight of him for about two years. Next saw the swag at the Police Station. Inspector Pender stated that the accused was arrested yesterday at the Washdykc by Detective Kirby, on this charge. Ho had been twice previously convicted. His Worship characterised the robbery as a very impudent one, and sentenced the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. LAECENT OF A THEODOLITE. William Bradshaw was charged with the larceny of a theodolite, of the value of £2O, the property of Messrs Barnett and Lewis, of the Main North Hoad. Austin Kirby, detective, stationed at Timaru, stated that from information he received he yesterday saw the accused in Elizabeth street. Remarked to him that several thefts had been committed of late including the theft of a theodolite, the property of Messrs Barnett and Lewis, and that lie suspected him of being concerned. Tho accused said in reply that he had only taken Mr Lewis’ theodolite, and that he had stowed it away somewhere. Witness thereupon accompanied the accused to the rear of an outhonse in Theodocia street; there was a quantity of hay there, and on searching through it he found the theodolite produced ; he then arrested the accused on the charge of stealing the instrument. Accused only said “ Its all done through drink." He himself suggested to witness that they should proceed to the place where the theodolite was hidden.

Henry Lewis, of the firm of Barnett and Lewis, surveyors, Main North road, recognised the theodolite produced. It was the property of the firm. It was kept in the office, and witnessed missed it on Monday last when in want of it for certain work. It value was £2O. Knew Bradshaw, the accused, by sight, but had had no transactions with him at any time.

John Thomson, surveyor, stated that he occasionally did work for Thompson and Barnett, Know Bradshaw, and was with him on Sunday last about 10 a.m. Witness had occasion to go to Lewis and Barnett’s office on that morning, and accused accompanied him. He saw witness take the key of the office from its place of concealment and open the office door. Ho was also present when the door was locked again and the key replaced. Wm. Dale, carrier, Timaru, stated that he knew the accused, and recollected his passing his (witness’) house in Thcodocia street on Sunday last shortly after 12 p.m. lie was carrying a parcel similar in shape to a theodolite. The accused, who had nothing to say in answer to the charge, was committed for trial. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by tlefau ,t with costs : Stroud v. McDonald, claim Cl 2s ; Stan sell v. Ha 11am, claim £3 10s ; Sullivan v. Eccd, claim £2 3s 6d ; Harney v. Thompson, claim £3 19s Gd. Sinclair v, Newton, claim £1 Bs. Toschcmalccr v. Butler and Fitzgerald claim, £7l 7s 6d; Mr Itcid fordefeudefendants. The short facts of this case were that iu 1879 Mr Tcschcmaker the plaintiff, lot certain laud to a man named Hanrahan who afterwards sub-let the land with the owner’s consent to Butler and Fitzgerald, the defendants in the present action. Subsequently Mr Tcschcmaker visited the land and discovered that (Butler was removing the grain crop ; having received £2OO from the defendants as rent, he informed them he must object to the crop being removed until the balance of the rent still due and amounting to £7l, was paid. The defence was that £2OO had been paid merely to release the grain crop, which was in danger of being sr ized, but that the defendants did not recognise Mr Teschemaker as their landlord, but held themselves solely responsible to to Hanrahan.

Mr Ileid applied for a nonsuit. It had been shown that plaintiff: had never released the original lessee of the land,Hanrahan, from las engagement, and yet he was now slicing the present defendants. He could not take this course, He could only sue one party or the other, and could not hold them both responsible for this money. There had been no valid assignment of the lease from Hanrahan to the defendants, and the plaintiff must clearly look to Hanrahan for his mono}". His Worship said that the defendants in this action had purchased no right from Hanrahan. They had entered upon the land, they had paid rent to the landlord and thus they had an equal interest in the land. Under these circumstances judgment would be for the plaintiff, with costs.

Mr Ileid gave notice of appeal. The Court soon afterwards adjourned