MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2718, 5 December 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS DAT. Beofre E. G-. Stericker ami B. Woollcombe, Esqs., J.P.’a.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender charged with being drunk and disorderly at the railway station, was dismissed with a caution. LARCENY FROM THE PERSON. Henry Whitcoxnbe was charged with stealing a one-pound note from one William Morris. The prosecutor in his evidence stated that on Saturday morning last, he was at the Club Hotel between 10 and 11. He had a one pound note in an outside pocket of his coat, when he went there. There were six other persons in the bar, the prisoner and a man named Cook being among them. He shouted for some of them, and paid for the drinks with silver. After that Cook asked him if he missed a note, and he bade him feel his pockets. Pelt, and missed the note, and told Cook so. Cook said, pointing to prisoner “ that man’s got it.” In less than three minntes saw it on the floor elose where prisoner was. To prisoner—l did not see you take the note. I believe you threw it on the floor after it was said you took it. In reply to the Bench prosecutor said he was not perfectly sober when this happened, but he was not drn«k. A witness named Cook stated that he saw the prisoner put his hand into prosecutor’s pocket and take out the note, and saw the note in his hand. He asked Morris if he had lost a note and told him to feel in his pocket and see. Told him the prisoner had it. Prisoner said ho had not got it, but he had, and put it in his inside coat pocket. He seized the prisoner and told him he had the note, whereupon prisoner pulled a handkerchief ont of that pocket and the note came with it and dropped on the floor. Prisoner picked up the note and handed it to Morris.

The witness was cross-examined by the accused very closely as to the positions of the three men in the bar. He was certain he saw the accused take the note out of Morris’ pocket. Morris seemed satisfied when he got the note back. Prisoner said 4 ‘ You need not say any more about it, you have got your note back.” Told accused he would have him run in at once if he could see a policeman. Mrs Parsons was called and her evidence corroborated that of Cook. She saw the note fall from accused's pocket after Cook charged him with taking it. Prisoner strongly denied taking the note declaring he had picked it up from the floor where he saw it lying. Inspector Pender, who had conducted the prosecution, stated that th® prisoner had just came out of gaol at Dunedin, and that there were three previous convictions against him. Prisoner was committed for trial at the nest session of the Supreme Court. APPROPRIATING FOUND MONEY. Charles Roscoe, a lad of 13, _ was charged with feloniously appropriating a cheque for £5, found by him. M. Fruhauf stated that the prisoner came to his shop in August last, and presenting a cheque for £5, (produced) said his father had made him a present of it to buy a watch. Asked the boj to endorse it and then to get his father’s endorsement. The boy took the cheque away and presntly brought it back with another endorsement upon it. Sold him a watch and chain for 35s and gave him change. The cheque was drawn by John Bell in favor of J. Devine. Henry Roscoe, the boy’s father, stated that in August the boy left home and after staying about town for some days went away to Dunedin. Asked him about the cheque last week, and he told him he found it, did not say where, and that he had bought a watch with it. He never endorsed the cheque and never saw the cheque before now. The boy was committed to the Industrial School in 1878 for seven years, and was now out on trial. Ho wished him sent back again as he was uncontrollable. Mr Woollcombe thought that a charge of forgery should have been brought also.

Mr Pender did not think a charge of forgery could be sustained. The value of the cheque was not altered by the addition of the endorsement.

The Bench ordered the boy to be sent back to the Industrial School for twd years.