RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2024, 30 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

. THIS DAY; L";'m?''*J (Before W. Phaser Esq., R.M./ . AN OLD THfiFT.

William Jameioh was charged with that he did on or about the \' 1 12 th of October, 1871, from the dwelling house of Edward Sutliffe, situated jt|,rT*raru, feloniously steal, take and carry aWay one gold Geneva waichand one gold Albert chain, of,the value of £s, "the property of the said Edward Sutliffe.

The defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Bullcn briefly stated the facts of the ease. At tho time of the theft the prosecutor was residing in a one-roomed house at Tararu ; the prisoner, below the Waikawau: On the day in question the prosecutor, on leaving his house, secured the door with a cord. The accused was seen in the neighbourhood that day, but of course his pleading guilty was sufficient evidence of his having been there. Prisoner's guilt came to light tbrouaj^^ constable making enquiries about ?n^H|^L. robbery, and on searching prison*.™ house discovered the watch. ; ,3he chain was not recovered," but the prisoner, since his apprehension, had said he would ask his family to give up the chain too. On the suggestion of His Worship, the charge was altered to one of simple larceny. His Worship asked Mr Bullen whether he knew anything of prisoner's previous history or that of his family.' Mr Bullen said the family lived below Waikawau, farming, and he understood were well off, so that the prisoner could not. have been actuated by want. ■ His Worship (to prsoner): Hare you anything to say in extenuation of tho offence P

Prisoner said he was very lorry. He was only 14 years of age when he stole the watch, it being four years ago. Mr Bullen (sotto voce): Misdeeds" will come to light. . • ~ > -- ' His Worship: Have you never had any qualms of conscience since then ? Prisoner: I had a notion once or twice to give it hack, but was ashamed. Mr Bullen said a story had' been manufactured by the famUy as to the manner in which the watch had been procured. His Worship told prisoner that had the charge not been, -taken as one <of simple larceny, he would have, had to suffer a long term of imprisonment. Hii conscience would not appear to have been mucb troubled, or he would have taken some means to restore, the property. He would have to. sentence him to six months' imprisonment with hard labor. "assault. George Herbert was charged with unlawfully assaulting one John Eilmer, on the 28th inst. - Defendant said he struck him. Mr Miller appeared for iplaintiff, and said there was also a charge for assault against the first mate." ' ' John Filmer deposed—l am s cook on board the Prince Alfred. Defendant is second officer on board same boat. On Monday last at breakfast time, I went to call defendant for breakfast, who told me to go to h . I tojd him to speak civilly to me when I spoke civilly to him. He then struck me twice—once on the head and once on the face. He abused me in Auckland, and I acquainted the captain with the fact, and asked him for my discharge, hut he would not give it me. The captain laid a * charg«^"-of descriion against me this morning. I did not go back to the ship because my life was in danger, as I was afraid/ - His Worship said he would hear the SECOHD CASK; Alexander Gibbs was also charged with I assaulting John Filmer on the 29th inst. Defendant pleaded guilty ".under.provocation."

John Elmer deposed—-The defendant is chief officer on board the vessel. I was going down the wharf for .bread, when defendant followed me, and swore he would take it out of me. I.w^nt^dowjn, got the bread, and when I came back, defendant knocked me down by the rail.; George Herbert, the defendant in the latter case, and the only witness to the difference, deposed that he saw a scuffle between the cook and Gibbs, and heard the cook say that he had Spanish, blood in him and 'would put a knife into Gibbs if he was provoked. The captain of the vessel, who was in Court, on being called, gave the plaintiff a very bad character, stating that he absorbed every drop of grog, and had once " taken up " a tomahawk to one of the men.

His Worship asked why he did not dincharge the man if he was such a nuisance, and the captain said he could not do so in Auckland, but would discharge him now and give him his wages. His Worship said he would not commit the men to gaol without the option of a fine, as he would thereby be/punishing the owners, and he. believed from the action of the captain in Court, that he was also to blame. He would fine each defendant 40a and costs, the alternative being six days' imprisonment.' 1 « The Court then adjourned. T J