MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2455, 31 January 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAHU—THIS DAY. [Before P. Pectliam Esq., lI.M ] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. A young man charged as above was fined 10s and cautioned as to his future conduct. DISCHARGED. His Worship said as fre?h evidence was forthcoming, he had decided to re-hear the case against llichard Power, convicted a week ago of the larceny of a screw wrench, the property of James Agnew, of the Otaio, and sentenced to 14 days imprisonment. Mr Jameson appeared for the accused. Detective Kirby deposed to the arrest of the accused on the charge. He said that the wrench was not Agnew’s property. James Agnew identified the wrench produced as his property. Knew it by a flaw in the metal. Was away at the last Christchurch show, leaving the accused who was in his employment temporarily working about the farm. On witness’s return from Christchurch found the accused had left the previous day. The wrench was missing, and the next time he saw it, it was in the hands of the police. By Mr Jameson—Bemember a sale at Mrs Markey Anderson’s. It was the accused’s brother that witness believed to be morally responsible for the theft. Mr Jameson—And yet you laid an information against a man for the theft of this wrench when all the time you thought he was innocent. By Inspector Pender—Accused’s brother was about the place as well, and witness did not know which of them took the wrench.

Joseph Ogilvie, of the firm of Ogilvie and Byers, recollected Agnew complaining to him that he had lost a wrench. Shortly afterwards the accused called on witness and offered to sell the wrench produced for os. Witness declined to purchase. Subsequently accused called again, and offered to sell the wrench as

be wanted to raise some money for bis brother bo said. Thereupon witness detained the wrench and handed it to the police.

Mr Jameson said that lie should prove that the prosecutor was altogether mistaken as to the identity of the wrench. He thereupon called several witnesses for the defence, from whose evidence it appeared that there was another wrench mixed up in the affair and the defence endeavored to show that it was owing to the existence of that other wrench the misunderstanding had arisen. On the conclusion of the case His Worship remarked that what with the two brothers Power, aud the two wrenches, the evidence was of rather a mixed description, aud admitted of a doubt as to the guilt of the accused, who should have the benefit of the doubt. The accused was then dischared, A I’PL I C.VTIOX. Mr Jameson applied for a re-hearing in the case, Police v. Wm. Warne, of the Pail way Hotel, Pleasant Point, heard on the 17th, when the defendant, who is managing the above hotel for Mrs Hope, was fined £lO for serving liquors within prohibited hours to others than hona Jide travellers or boarders. Mr Jameson said that the men who were supplied with liquors on the night in question ordered beds of Mrs Hope and having arranged to stop at the hotel, called for drinks which were supplied. Shey afterwards left aud visited another house of somewhat doubtful reputation where a row occurred, and the consequence was Mrs Hope got into trouble for what was really not her fault. Again it had been sworn that the barman served the liquors, whereas it could be proved that he did not do so, but that they were served by Mrs Hope herself. Mr Peetham said he would not grant the re-hearing himself, but to-morrow morning he would get Mr Elworthy to sit on the Bench with him and consider the application. Individually he declined to act. The Court then adjourned.