MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2436, 8 January 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. [Before R. Beetham Esq : R.M.] LA I? CUNY 01>' A SCItKW-WKBXCII. Richard Power was charged with the larceny of a screw-wrench valued at £l, the property of James Agnew Detective Kirby deposed to arresting the accused yesterday on this charge. He denied the theft.

James Agnew, farmer, residing at Otaio, deposed that the wrench was his property. He recognised it at once by a flaw in the metal. Missed it in November last, from the window-sill in hisjard. The accused bad been working for witness at one time, and had been about the district at the time the wrench disappeared. Joseph Ogilvie of the firm of Ogilvie and Byers, deposed to the accused calling at their establishment and offering witness the wrench for sale. The bargain was declined and on accused calling a second time witness detained the wrench which he handed to Detective Kirby. The accused, who made a long rambling statement about having been given the wrench, by his brother, was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labor.

A HAJiXTUAL DIOJNKAItD. William Smith, an old man, was charged with being a habitual drunkard and numerous pi’evious conviction s being proved against him, was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

ALLEGED LAKOENV OE A X J AIK OE EAIMiXSGS.

Margaret Botherick, a young woman described as a domestic servant, was charged with the larceny of a pair of ear-rings, of about the value of 10s, the property of Emma Hope. Emma Hope, the prosecutrix, deposed that she kept a shop in the Great North Hoad. Knew accused, who had been at her place very frequently. The earrings produced were kept in a glass case on the shop counter, and witness missed thenx about the middle of last month. Accused called at the shop to seek a situation about that time, and asked the price of the ear rings. Edward Hope, son of the prosecutrix, deposed to seeing the accused at the shop about the middle of December. She called to inquire about a situation, and asked the price of the earrixxgs which witness said was 15s, but which he afterwards agreed to let accused have for about 10s. AVituess left the shop while the accused was there, and subsequently the earrings were missed from the case. During this month the accused had called again at the shop, and had the earrings on at the time. Witness taxed her with the theft, but she denied that the earrings she was wearing were the same. Emma Hope, re-called, deposed that she bad been in the habit of lending the ear-rings to other girls when they were going to parties, &c. His Worship said that in that case it would be very difficult to prove that the ear-rings were in the glass case about the time they were missed. If the prosecutrix was in the habit of lending them out to other girls they might have been out on loan at the time they disappeared. Mrs Hope was sure that she had been in the habit of lending to only one girl. His Worship considered the evidence inconclusive, and dismissed the case. The Court then adjourned.