MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1917, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ALLEGED THEFT. At the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crookc. S.M., George Hunt was charged with having, on June 8, at Spotswood, near Xew Plymouth, stolen four AA'hite Leghorn fowls, the property of H. D. Hughes. The defendant pleaded not guilty,i.and Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared on his behalf.

Sub-Inspector Mcllveney stated that the complainant was a young man who I had a particular hobby for raising AA'hite Leghorn fowls, and recently had missed a number of them. He therefore determined to mark them, and did so my ringing them with a special kind ■ of wire twisted in a partieular'way. Last Sunday week four of the fowls were missed, and subsequently the defendant's plac" was searched and one AAliitc Leghorn fowl was found v.'ith a ring on similar ' to that used by complainant. The defendant said the ring was his, that he had four fowls of the same kind, similarly marked, and that he had lots of the same kind of wire in his house. On being asked, however, to produce the other fowls and the wire, the defendant failed to do so. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Plain-clothes Constable Fitzgibbon and Constable AA r roblenski. Mr. Bennett said he wished to draw the court's attention to the fact that the police had not tendered any evidence to connect the defendant with the loss of more than the one fowl. There was no evidence as to the other three, and the only evidence as to 'lie one was that it had been found on the defendant's premises, but there was no evidence as to how it got there. Both parties kept AA'hite Leghorn fowls, and both broods ran loose on the respective properties during the day time, and it had been shown that the compla'man improperly was not securely fenced, r.n.t his fowls would have no difficulty in getting on to the road or on to defendant's property. He (counsel) would not call evidence, but leave the -mute." in the hands of the court, submitting that the evidence was not sufficient to convict the defendant of so serious a charge as theft. His AA'orship said one of the fowls had been found on defendant's property, and his conduct when the police visited the place had been extremely suspicious. The circumstances called for an explanation from the defendant, and'he had offered none.

Sub-Inspector McTlveney, in reply to a question by his AA'orship, said th-j defendant had' been previously convicted of stealing fowls from his brother, and there were suspicious circumstances about other fowls which had led to the belief that he bad a very "taking" way His AA'orship said he would not send the defendant to prison, hut as there was a previous conviction for a similar otl'cnce. a substantial penalty would be imposed, The defendant would be fined £8 10s, ordered to return the fowl on his premises and pay £1 10s as the value of the other three, and also to pay £1 103 as witnesses' expenses; in default one month's imprisonment.