RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 209, 1 February 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., II. MJ Thursday, 25th Jan.

Police v. Che Clieong. — Prisoner was charged with having sold spurious gold at the Orepuki diggings, Southland It appears that Mr. Blewitt, the Interpreter, was sent for from Southland to investigate the matter. When he arrived at M'Kay's Dunrobin Hotel, he met the accused, and answering to the description in the telegram. and his answers not being satisfactory, took him in charge. There being no warrant nor sworn information produced, the Magistrate declined to proceed with the case. Sergeant Mallard stated that b\it for a telegram he had just received, he had come to Court to ask for the discharge of the prisoner, but from the tenor of the telegram he thought it his duty to lay the matter before the Bench.

At this stage Mr. Charles Nicholson, of Moa Flat, satisfied the Bench that the accused was not the proper party, as recently he had been in his employ, and that he had come down country from the Teviot for the purpose of buying pigs. He was discharged.

Monday, 29th Jan-.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., K. M., and

Alex. Stewart, Esq., J.P.)

James Everest and — M'Doueall, charged with beinjj drunk and disorderly, were each fined 10s., with the alternative of forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Cotter v. Corder and CoYder v. Cotter. — This was a cross action for using threatening and abusive language. Both parties apologised and the case was dismissed . Bovine v. Field. — Amount paid into Court. Treloar v. Campbell and wife. — Claim, £4. being the value of nine ducks, the_. property of plaintiff, taken by defendantsf It appears the parties in this case are near neighbours, and that each keeps ducks. On the 15th or 16th of January, the de- j fendants lost nine ducks, which were accustomed to follow a turkey. Upon enquiry, they found that ducks answering to the description of those lost wera seen going down Tuapeka Flat. Acting upon this information, Mrs. Campbell went in search of them, and found the ducks at tlie residence o£ Mr. Johnson, a. neijjUbour of Mr, Troloar's. Upon enquiry, Mrs. Johnson told her the ducks were certainly strange ones, for they were about her premises for some two days. Mrs. Campbell went to the residence of Treloar, and called the attention of one of the sons to the ducks, and he said they were not their ducks. Mrs. Campbell, therefore, by consent of Mrs. Johnson, locked the ducks up in a stable for the night, and Campbell took them home next morning. The plaintiff's two sons and another witness swore to the ducks being the property of plairitiff, and described them. They demanded the ducks of Mrs. Campbell, but she refused to deliver them. The evidence as to the identity and colour was conflicting, Mrs. Campbell asserting that her ducks were spring ducks, hatched about the month of August last, and would be abont six months old ; whilst plaintiff asserted that his ducks were old ones, and had been laying for two years. Tho Magistrates adjourned the case for the production of the ducks, so that they might be satisfied as to their age. Mr. Gooday for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendants.

Tuesday, 30th Jan.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., TLM.)

W. .Brown was charged with having, on the 23rd ult., set fire to a house at Tuapeka Mouth, the property of Andrew Taylor. Mr. M'Coy appeared fur accused.

Andrew Taylor, hotelkeeper, Tuapeka Mouth, deposed that he employed accused, who is a carpenter, to build a kitchen, and while he was doin» so allowed him to live in hia (witness's) house. Accused

lived in the house till Christmas, when l:e arranged to work in the bush with witness. At Christmas, accused made over all his effects, &c, to witness, to pay a debt he owed. Accused worked about three weeks ; he then came to witness's house, and being refused driuk, became noisy, and refused to return to his work. A short time afterwards, witness found him in a gully, close to his lwise, with two boxes of tools which he had taken oi.t of one of his houses. Witness took tl c boxes away and locked them up. Saw accused again next day. Maiiler had possession of the house since Brown ga\ o witness the key. He (Maiiler) was to protect the property as Brown had threatened to burn it down. On Tuesday, ths 23rd ult., accused came into the hut that was burnt, and a«ked witness if he would have a drink. Witness refused, and accused then broke all the crocksryware, making xise or bad language.. On the following morning, witness and Maiiler came down to the hub and released Dawson, who had been confined in the hut tho previous night. Saw accused that'morning, and subsequently saw him behind and close to the hut about ten minute 3 b.fore the lire broke out. When witness saw the house bm*ning, he, in company with others, went to it. He obseived three boards had been tern from the back of the house and thrown towards the Alotyneux. After doing all they could to put out the fire, witness and others went in search of accused. On the Molyneux beach, tracks were observed, and they found that accused had passed Mrs. Patterson's when the fire wa3 at its height. Found him in the bush behind Richard's house, and on being requested to come out, he refused to do so. Richards then threatened to pull him out, and he came. The house was a two-roomed one, value about £10, and was not insured. Accused had on more than one occasion threatened to take witness' life.

Examined by Mr. M'Coy — Witness claimed the house uuder the agreement. The house was not Brown's ; lie was oniy living in it. Heard that there was something between Dawson and Brown about the house. Had iiccused cioked for tho tools witness would certainly have given them to him. Never said that rather than Dawson should have tho house ho would rather see it burned do<vn. Brown whs certainly on the spree. Cannot say how long Maiiler h-idleft before the fire. Witness thought Brown might set fire to the house during the nio;ht. In the morning there was no fire in the fireplace. Could not say whether Maiiler or J>twson had their breakfast in the house on tho morning of Wednesday. Made no search after any other man than Brown for burnrig the house. Witness was not much afraid of accused's thr at to kill him ; was more afraid of his property.

By the Bench — The house came info witness' possession as his wife's property before he married her. Witness told accused he could not sell the house to Dawson, as he had not given him (accused) a title. Accused was considerably in witness' debt. Three weeks before the fire, Dawson 4>old witness that the accused had suld the house to him (Dawson). Told Dawson accused could not sell it ; he (witness) had possession, and meant to keep it. On the Tuesday before the tire witness found Dawson in the house. Told him he had no right to be thsre.

T. W. Maiiler stated that he took possession of the house on the 20th December, and never was disturbed until Tuesday, the 23rd. On that day Dawson came in about eleven o'clock a.m., and sat down, but . said nothing. About two hours afterwards Brown came in, and Dawson asked him if he was going to give him possession. Accused said "Yes." Then Dawson ordered witness out of tho house. Witness told him he had possession for Taylor, and could not go. A quarter of an hour afterwards Taylor came and asked Avitness what was the row. I told him Dawson wanted to take possession. Taylor told him that the house was his. Witness then gave th.3 key to Taylor, and left. Afterwards witness got the key from Taylor, and returned. Found Dawson and Taylor in the house. Taylor went away, leaving Oawsou behind, who would not leave the house. Witne-js then locked the house, leaving Dawson inside. Went the following morning to the house and released Dawson. Afterwards found acunsid in Maishall's house. He asklid ma whero Dawson was. Witness returned to tho house aud made a fire. Marshall and M-Cutcheon came in, and in company with them witness went to Taylor's — leaving no fire in the fireplace. They had been in Taylor's about half an hour, when Dawson came and said the houao was on fire. Witness and others did all they could to anench Lhe nre.

The re»t of the witness' evidence was corroborative of that of Taylor's. In cross-examination notTtinsj of an.y conssquence was elicited, but that; the fire was first seen at a considerable distance frmn the fireplace, and that the fire originated at the bedroom end ; and further, that the witness lo3t all his clothing and a saddle and bridle.

Oliver Dawson said he laid claim to tho house burned, having bought the aim•from Brown about a month before f.h.3 fire. Paid him £10. He owed witness £9, which, with 20s. cash, made the payment he gave for it. He never gave witness possession until the morning before the tire. Maiiler was in possession the morning when Brown gave witness possession. Witness went in to the house, and Brown was there, also Maiiler, who witness asked to leave, as the house was his (witness's). Then Taylor came. Maiiler gave the key to Taylor and left. Afterwards Maiiler came and ordered both out. Taylor left, and witness stayed. Maiiler locked witness in, and released him next morning. Shortly afterwards, witness was told that tho liouso was on fire. Saw the accused that morning in this house. He left some tima before the fire. - Saw Mm after the fire coming towards his (witness's) house from the firp. This would be half an hour after the fire, as far as witness could recollect. Whilst in the house, witness did not sleep much, as, the ownewship of the house being iv dispute, someone might do something to it. "Witness's suspicions rested on Brown and Maiiler. Maiiler had property in tho house ; witness did not know whether Brown had or not.

Mrs. Paterson and Mrs. Richards gave evidence relative to the finding of accused, corroborating previous testimony. Tha case was adjourned till Tuesday.