MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2411, 8 December 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before Messrs B. Woollcombe and E. G. Kerr, J.P.’s. ALLEGED LARCENY. William Butterworth was charged on remand, with the larceny of corrugated iron of the value of 18s, the property of Richard Green. Mr White defended the accused; Mr Hamersley appeared to prosecute. Detective Kirby repeated his former evidence relative to the arrest of the accused and to his haring admitted taking the iron, bubmaintaining at the same time that it was his own.

Charles Green deposed that the section and the house which Butter*orth occupied belonged t» his brother Richard Green, for whom witness was acting as trustee. Witness demanded rent from the accused and he refused to pay it. Witness thereupon brought an action to recover the money and obtained judgment. He gave accused notice to . quit, telling him that ho would take his roof off if he did not do so. The accused would not quit, and witness sent men to take the house down. The iron in question, witness believed, was taken off the verandah of the house, and witness saw it lying on the grass on the section. The iron was afterwards' removed and was. found on an adjoining section, belonging to Mr Reilly. There was no attempt made to conceal the iron. Witness could not say who put the iron on the house in the first instance. Thomas Machin, architect, deposed that he had been engaged by Mr Green to pull down the house occupied by the accused. The verandah was covered with galvanised iron, and the workmen stripped it off and laid it on the grass. Next day it was gone, and some days later it was pointed out to witness lying on the grass on Reilly’s section. Mr Hamersley urged for the committal of the accused *on the ground that the iron alleged to have been taken was part of a house or fixture, the stealing of which was an offence beyond the summary jurisdiction of the Court. After some deliberation, their Worships said that they were of opinion that the iron in question did form part of the house, but that the owner having removed it it was no longer a fixture or part of the house, and, therefore, the larceny was merely a common one. After some further evidence, the Bench said that it considered the felonious intention had not been sufficiently proved ; there was, in fact, some doubt as to the accused's intention, and they bad determined to give him the benefit of that doubt. The accused was then discharged. The Court then adjourned.