MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2409, 6 December 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMABH—THIS DAY. (Before R. Bectham, Esq., R.M.) LARCENY. Peter Pringle was charged with the larceny of £l3, the property of Fred Cameron, in November last. Mr Hamersley appeared for the accused. Austin Kirby, detective, stated that on Dec. 4 he saw the accused at Timaru Requested him to accompany him to Messrs Peacock and Geaney’s to see a slaughterman in their employment named Fred Cameron, who had lost £l3, and witness added the accused was suspected of stealing it. The accused denied having taken the money, on arrival at the shop. Shortly afterwards Fred Cameron entered the shop and at his request they all went into a back room and the accused asked Cameron if he suspected him of stealing the money. Cameron said “ Yes I do, as there was no one else but you and md about the place.” The accused shortly afterwards said in the presence of Cameron, Mr Peacock, and witness, “ I say before you that I took the money, £i3; that I burst the box open with my hand. But I was hard up at the time, and I intended to pay it back on my return from Australia. Then arrested the accused and charged him. [The box from which the money was taken was here produced, and the detective showed

the marks of its having been forced open.] The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Hamersley. Fred. Cameron, slaughterman, deposed to being employed by Messrs Peacock and Geaney. The accused was also employed by them. Left for a day or two on tha 17th, the accused remaining to do the work. The box produced belonged to witness, and contained the money in notes and a cheque. AVitness took the key of the box with him. On his return found the box had been opened, and the money was gone. There was a smaller box inside which had been opened. The witness went on to repeat iu effect the evidence of the detective, and added that he suspected that the accused had stolen the money, because he was going to buy a horse, and witness knew that he had no money, or at any rate very little. He was leaving Messrs Peacock and Geaney’s service, and he told witness that he would be as well off when he left as when he came.

By Mr Hamersley—Had known the accused for nine weeks before the robbery occurred. They we living together during this time and were on good terms. Had lent him money on several occasions, and would have had no objection to have done so again had he come and asked for it. AAGtness was away at the time the money was taken and the accused therefore could not have asked for it then.

T. Peacock, of the firm of Peacock and Geaney, butchers, Church street, deposed that he knew the accused. He came into the shop one day and asked for a billet, saying he was tired of walking about and would work for low wages. AAGtness said they were full up, but afterwards gave him employment, and about a fortnight afterwards he went to the slaughtcryards to help Cameron. Ho remained nine weeks. There was nothing due to him when ho left. He left because they had no work for him to do. He was told at first that he could only stop until he could get something to do. Could not say whether he received money from anyone when leaving. James Allen, of Messrs Wildie, Allan, and JStumbles’ employ, deposed to the accused having bought a chestnut mare for £7, for which he paid in notes on Saturday, Nov. 27. The accused, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial at the Supreme Court, bail being accepted, himself in £IOO, and two sureties of £25 each. DOMESTIC TBOUBLES. William Lewis, was charged with deserting his wife Elizabeth Lewis. Mr Hamersley appeared for the complainant. A good deal of evidence was heard which went to prove that the parties had had a foolish quarrel, and all the trouble had arisen therefrom. At the suggestion of Mr Hamersley, his AVorship adjourned the case for a fortnight in order to allow husband and wife to come to an amicable arrangement. The Court then adjourned.