RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1559, 2 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culioch, Esq., R.M.) «. Monday, April Ist. SINQ-triAE CASE OP THEFT. Eobert Davidson, of Stewart's Island, fisherman, was charged that he did, on or about the 22nd January last, at Port William, feloniously assault one Kee Chang, and did there and then, from the person of the said Kee Chang, steal, take, and carry away a silver watch and hair guard, valued at £7. Inspector Fox conducted the prosecution, and Mr Wade defended the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Chinaman, Chang, examined through the interpreter, John Alloo, was sworn by extinguishing a match, and deposed as follows — I first made the acquaintance of the accused on the Invereargill jetty. This would be during the month of January last, but I cannot fix the exact date. It was shortly after 1 left Orepuki, where I had been working as a miner. Mr Wade — Before the witness goes further, I think he ought to be made fully to understand that he is not bound to answer any questions calculated to criminate or even prejudice himself in relation to thi3 or any other proceeding in which he may be implicated. I merely throw this out as a suggestion, as it strikes me the answer to the last question had a tendency in that way. Inspector Fox said that the prosecution had no desire to connect this with any other case. The witness was cautioned, and the caution fully explained to him by the interpreter. Examination continued — To the best of my recollection this interview took place about the 19th of January. Davidson was then asked if he was going to Stewart's Island. He answered " Yea," and added — " Do you want to go ? " There was another Chinaman presont, and he offered to take us for £1 each. Subsequently it was arranged that he should receive £3 for the fare over. The other Chinaman did not go, and I proceeded in the boat with Davidson alone. When we arrived at Port William, accused asked me what money I had got. I replied that I had got £21 altogether. Davidson said — " You have got more money," and on his insisting that I had, I took out a bundle containing £21, and said, " No, that is all I have." Davidson then snatched the money out of my hand. Air Wade — It appears to me that this is raising some new charge against the accused. The information says nothing about £21 ; it speaks about a watch. The Court — ! he information has served its purpose in bringing up the accused. Any other charge may now be proven in evidence. In reply to other questions, the witness went on to say — Davidsou told me that I wouM have to give him £30, and if I did not, he would take me back with him to Invercargill. Not getting any more money, Davidson seized hold of my watch, and took the watch and guard out of my pocket. The watch now produced is the one that was taken from me. After getting possession of the watch, Davidson conveyed me on board the schooner Mary Cumming. When the watch was taken from me, we were in the cabin of Davidson's boat. Besides myself and Davidson, a Maori boy and Davidson's wife were on board. He (Davidson) oi'dereJ both the lad and the woman on deck before taking the watch and money. The accused said to me not to tell his wife how much money he had got. To say, if asked, that he had got only £1. Witness purchased the watch and guard in Invercargill, two or three days before going on board. He paid £6 10s for the one and 10s for tho other. To the Court — Davidson threatened if I would not let him have the money he would take me back to Invercargill. After going on deck the Maori boy asked me what time it was. I replied, '' Your father," meaning the accused, " has taken my watnh away, and I cannot tell you." Davidson used force in taking the watch from me. Cross-examined — After putting me on board ! the schooner, Davidson came off to the schooner again. Mr Wade — Did he then tell you that you had given him a £1 note for a £5, and you gave him the £5 back again in return for the £1 ? Witness — He came back and I told him he had taken all my money. He asked me to give him the key of the watch, and he would give me a pound. I did so, and got the note from him. lie afterwards returned, and said he had given i me a£s note instead of a£l note. I acknow- I lodged that he had done so, and returned it to him in exchange for the £1. Tho captain of the schooner was there at the time. Davidson remarked to him that ha Cwitness) had given prisoner money to buy fish. I firsc complained of the matter to ilr Fraser, the Governor of the Gaol, last Wednesday. I gave the Maori boy £1 for having cooked for me. That was the note given to me by Davidson for the key. The key was made of brass, aud not worth more than 6d. I paid the captain of the schooner I £6 for my passage. Mr Wade— rThen after all you seem to have had more money than tho £21 Davidson ia alleged to hare taken from you ?

To Inspector Fox — I was afraid Davidson would take all m 7 money, and I hid the £6 in my boot. Davidson had said that he must have £30, and I was afraid he would fling me overboard. Mr Wade — Does the witness mean to say that with this fear of the consequences he hid the small amount and handed out the large amount ? T have a little too much respect for Mr KeeChang's abilities to believe that that's strictly correct (laughter). The Court — EFe nrvp have made a mistake, and put the small amount in his boot instead of the large. L. Rodders proved having soH the watch produced to Chang for a sum of £7, together with the guard. Inspector Fox gave evidence as to the recovery of the watch, as also the apprehension of the accused. H. Mayo identified the watch as having been received by him from the accused. It was given as part payment of the rent of a boat, the arrangement being that it was to be valued by a competent party. To Mr Wade — The transaction between the accused and myself took place within the last few days. It was either since Chang had arrived, or at all events after it had become a matter of notoriety that he was on his road back. When prisoner handed me the watch it was done in presence of' a number of parties, and no attempt was made at concealment. Mr Wade contented that the evilence was not sufficient to justify committal. Chang's own evidence exhibited a number of discrepancies, and at best, he contended that it showed nothing more than that Dividson had acted the part of an overstraining creditor. After administering the usual c&ution, the Bench committed the accused to take his trial, bail being allowed, himself in £100, and two sureties in £50 each. CIVIL CASES. Smith v. Catherill — Mr Wade for defendant. The claim was for stabling, alleged to have been contracted in the year 1864. Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and an adjournment was granted till Friday, to enable plaintiff t<* prove that defendant had, by his own admission, interrupted prescription. Hunter & Hawkshaw v. Elliot. — Claim for £4 13s 7d. Judgment was given for £4 11s Id, by consent.