MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2461, 7 February 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAHU—THIS BAY,

[Before R. Beethara Esq., R.M.]

NOTHING LIKE LEATHER.

Harry Graham, a young fellow of about four or five and twenty years of age, described as a hawker of cakes, was charged with the larceny’' of a pair of shoes, valued at 14s, the property of John Lawrie.

The accused pleaded “Not guilty,” and endeavored to persuade the Court* that the articles found in his possession were not the prosecutor’s at all, but “ quite another pair of shoes.” John Lawrie, the prosecutor, stated that the shoes produced were his property, and that on Wednesday last he left his house at Sandietown, the shoes being then on a shelf, and quite safe. On returning home in the afternoon he discovered that the. shoes were gone, and he presently met the accused in town wearing them. A neighbor of the Lawrie’ deposed to seeing the accused enter their house last Wednesday during their absence. He was there for several minutes. Knew the accused, who was in the habit of visiting the district on his rounds. He usually wore different boots to those produced. Detective Austin Kirby deposed to arresting accused on this charge. He was wearingl the stolen shoes at the time. He said he had bought them from a swagger. The accused, wno wore rather a look of injured innocence, then stated in reply to the bench that he had purchased the shoes together with some other things from a swagger at the top of Church-street on Saturday morning. The seller wanted os 6d for the lot, and accused gave him 3s 6d for them. Did not put on the shoes until the evening because they hurt his feet. He was unable to bring any witnesses forward, but he was well-known and had been employed in the town. Inspector Pender said nothing was known against the accused, but that he was in the habit of loafing. His Worship considered the charge fully proved, and dealing with it as a first offence he would sentence the accused to 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labor.

A NOISY CUSTOMER. A laboring man was charged on the information of Constable Stanley with being drunk and disorderly, and creating a disturbance in a licensed house — the Point Hotel. The accused said that he got drunk and remembered nothing more. Fined 5s with the usual alternative. INFRINGEMENT OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS. Borough Council v. James Bruce. In this case there were ten informations laid against the defendant for alleged infringement of the building regulations. Mr Eeid appeared for the defendant; Mr A. Perry for the Borough Council. On the application of Mr Beid who stated that he had only just received instructions, the case was adjourned for fourteen days. The Court then rose.