MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2631, 26 August 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

timaru-Tihs day. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., R,M.) THE CASH PALACE FIRE. Abraham and Lewis Moses were charged with having feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously set lire to their premises, the Cash Palace draper}' store, Main South Road, on or about August 6. Mr C. Perry appeared for the accused. Mr White appeared on behalf of the insurance offices concerned.

His Worship before the proceedings commenced observed : —‘‘ It will _be as well for us to understand (be object of the present enquiry. It is held to prevent any possibility of a miscarriage of justice occurring. If you think it advisable, Mr Perry, for the witnesses already called to be re-examined it shall be done. I see no possible good that can arise from such a course, however, and should be prepared myself to commit the accused at once." The evidence of the various witnesses was then formally read over to them by bis Worship in onlei to give Mr Perry the opportunity of re examining them if he thought proper.

Inspector Pender, in reply to Mr Perry, identified the tarlatan produced as that produced before the coroner. Detected the smell of kerosene about it, although it was not so strong as before. Mr Perry asked that the tarlatan might be kept just as it was—in its original folds.

llis Worship said he would have a piece of red (ape placed round the stuff if Mr Perry desired it, but be could not prevent tire Crown Prosecutor from having access to it.

Mr Perry thought the tying of the tape around the tarlatan would not preserve it in its folds. 11. George, and John Reid were then called but failed to appear.

His Worship directed warrants to be issued fob tire apprehension of tbe witnesses, commenting at tbe same time on their carelessness in not being in attendance on such an important case. He should certainly not allow them the expenses to which they would otherwise be entitled.

11. George subsequently appeared and said the reason why he had not come before was that he understood the time was 11 o’clock. No time was specified on the summons.

John Reid here turned up, and so escaped the warrant. Messrs Davidson and Taylor were also late, but apologised to the Bench.

James Mair, in the employment of Mr Whittaker, shoemaker, Timaru, stated that his employer’s yard adjoined that of the accused. There was a right-of way going up by both yards. Missed a case out of their yard very much like the one produced. It was placed alongside the fence near the entrance to the gate, to shade a urinal from public view. It was there on the Saturday evening before the fire at 5 o'clock, but ' they missed it on the Monday morning following. Witness did not live on the premises. The case they missed had a piece of wood hanging to it like the ease produced. The latter was the only fresh evidence adduced, and the accused were committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court, held in Timaru. In reply to Mr Perry,.His Worship said he would accept the same bail as before for the accused —amounting in all to £I2OO. LARCENY OK AN OVERCOAT. John Sullivan, a laboring man, was charged with the larceny of an overcoat valued at 30s, the property of Morris Drury, barman at the Shamrock Hotel. The coat was missed on June 27, and on the following day it was offered by accused to Robert Wilson, boardinghouse keeper, Timaru, for sale. Wilson, believing the coat to be the property of accused, gave him os for it and a night’s board and lodging. Tbe accused was arrested by Detective Kirby, In answer to His Worship accused said he was 79 years of age. He did not want the coat and was quite incapable of stealing it. His Worship remarked that , the accused bore his age very well and said that he was afraid he was not much good. He had been previously convicted of larceny and vagrancy and repeatedly of drankenness. He would be imprisoned for three months. ILL TREATING A HORSE. John Stack was charged, on the information of Mr Harnorsloy, with cruelly ill-treating a horse. Mr A. St. G. Hamersley stated that he was driving on the Main North Road last Monday when ho observed the accused standing up in his dray and beating his horse over the head with a stick. There was not the slightest necessity for such treatment. Mr J. B. Lindsay gave corroborative evidence. The defend.tut denied that ho had struck the horse with a stick. He had no stick but used a stone. His Worship said that he did not believe the witness’s story. By his own showing he had used a stone which was hardly more merciful than using a stick, lie would he fined 10s and costs 15s. The defendant left the Court protesting against Uis Worship’s decision. The Court then rose.