MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2672, 12 October 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAKD—THIS DAY. [Before R. Beethara, Esq., R.M., and E. Elworthy, Esq., J.P.) HORSE STEALING. Charles Baker and Joseph Capstick, the two men who were acquitted on a charge of horse-stealing on Monday last, on the ground that they had taken the animals under a supposed right,were now charged with stealing the two other horses which were referred to in the hearing of the previous charge, together with their harness, the value of the whole being stated at £6O. Mr White appeared to prosecute, and Mr Hamersley for the accused. Mi White stated the case for the prosecution, the facts of which have already been published in connection with the previous charge against the accused. Referring to the legal aspects of the case, he endeavored to show that if the facts were as had been and would be again stated, the men could not set up the defence that they took the horses under the impression that they had a right to take and dispose of them in order to recover moneys due to them for wages, because they had already sold some of their master’s property for a sum in excess of the amount due to them. It would be a dangerous doctrine to establish : that any servant could take away any quantity of his master’s property and dispose of it at far less than its value, and defend himself by saying that he did it to recoup himself or herself any wages due. Under these circumstances he thought the Bench must consider that the removal the horses from their master’s premises (in the master’s absence), with the expressed intention of selling them, though no sale was actually effected, amounted to a larceny. As far as Baker was concerned it did not appear to the prosecution that he had been so blameable in the matter as the other. The only thing which connected him with the offence was, that he was the one who went to the farm from Timaru, by direction of Capstick, and brought down the horses and harness.

G. Benison, junr., was called by Mr White, and gave similar evidence to that given by him at the previous hearing. In the course of an examination by Mr Hamersley, a few new facts were elicited. Baker was the man in charge of the Wai-iti farm, he did not know what amount his father owed Baker for wages; Capstick was in witness’s employ, and about £2O was due to him. Witness had no land, but owned a horse, harness, and other things, which ho valued at about £3O. He did not think £2O too much to owe a servant under the circumstances, but would have considered £3O too much. When he saw the men in the evening with the two horses in town he suspected that they wore going to sell them, but it was only after questioning that the witness stated the ground of his suspicion. This was that about three o’clock in the afternoon Baker told him that if hjs (witness’s) father was nqt able to pay them when they finished work on Tuesday they would sell the horses for their wages. Win. Benison, the father of the last witness, farmer at Tinwald, stated that Baker had been in his employ about five months. Ho had paver- had any difficulty with hip* about wages. He had given him various small sums at diifereut times for pocket money and was quite prepared to pay Baker his wages as soon as the work was done. Capstick was not in Ifis, but in bis son’s, employ, was not aware until a day or twu agQ that the men had been short of provisions and that Baker had had to pawn his watch to get some. It was Baker’s fault, for he wag given £9 when be came down, but spent it on the road.

(ij H, Wddlo repeated the evidence \>% him in the previous bearing. In reply t<> Mr Hamersley, Mr Wildie »ajd the bargain was not completed respecting the flist lot of horses bright down, because Capstick said he would get two others and make ono bargain for the lot.

Robert Forbes, groom at Stock’s Stables, also repeated his former evidence. Mr Hamersley then addressed the Court on the law of the case, and urged that the men took the horses believing that they had a right to do so. A similar charge against these men respecting other horses had been dismissed on that ground, and he asserted, on behalf of his clients, that more than £4O was due to them for wages. If the men had a right to sell any of the horses they had a right to sell ' the lot, and if any excess was received they could return it to tbe owner.

The prisoners’ statements having been heard, and the Bench having considered the matter, declined to commit.