RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 313, 17 December 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Monday, 15fch Decembeb.

Joseph Harris, hairdresser, in the shop of George Jeffery, of Ross Place, Lawrence, was brought up charged with stealing from the lafctqr the sum of 20s. in silver, and a gold locket valued at 305., on the 9th instant.

Inspector Thompson conducted tho prosecution ; Mr. M'Coy appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. George Jeffery deposed — I know the accused. He is a hairdresser in my employment. Recollect tho 9th of this month. There was a fire that day adjoining my premises. Some of my glass oases were removed on that day ; one contained jetty goods and steel goods, and the other contained gilt brooches and lockets. The were only two lockets iv the second. They were taken out to the ground adjoining Mr. Hay's place, I believe,, but . am not certain. I had left a pound's worth of silver in th,e till in the shop, At 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening that amount was in the till. Subsequently, I found only 2s Gd 1 in the till. The other monies had been taken out. I saw the glass case the Saturday night before the fire. I saw the two gold lockets referred to on Saturday night. I missed the large one on the Wednesday after the fire. I authorised no one to remove it. (Locket produced and identified.) Its value is 275. 6d. I next saw it yesterday with Sergeant Farrell.

Cross-examined. — I know nothing against tho character of the accused, except this charge. There were a great many people present on my premises at the time of the fire. . I told accused not to move cases on the occasion of the fire. I think that one of the cases was moved by the accused. I did think that anyone would be doing me a good service by removing things to a safe place on tho day of the fire — that ia, 1 believe the removal showed a good intention.

James, R. Leary, chemist, in the employ of George Jeffcry, deposed — I know the accused. I recollect having sold a brooch about 1-1 days since. I took the brooch from the caae containing jet and steel goods. The accused made inquiry about some lockets, and priced it. I said its price would be about 30a. He said, " They must bo gold." I remember the fire at Jeffery's shop. A few cases were removed on the day of the fire. The case containing the gold locket was removed, I think, to the front of Hay's mart in Ross Place. I have since examined the locket case, and I miss the locket from it, which. I now identify. (Locket produced and identified.) It is not an unusual pattern. The table whore Mr. Jeffery kept his money is about 8 yards from the glass case where the locket was kept. I next saw the locket yesterday evening in Sergeant Farrell'B hand. The Sergeant found tho lockot in the lining of a carpet bag in the hairdressing room. Cross-examined. — I was present at the fire most of the time. There were a great many people in the shop then. Sergeant Farrell deposed — About 5 o'clock in the afternoon I went to Jefiery's shop. I saw the prisoner lying asleep on the sofa in the barber's room. I awoko the prisoner. I stated that Mr. Jeffery had lost a gold locket from the glass case on the day of the fire. I asked Mr. Leary if he knew anything of the locket. I also asked the prisoner. Both said "no." I then asked the prisoner who removed the case when the fire occurred. He said " some man removed it, but I brought it back." Accused said "I know nothing of the locket." I searched accused. He said he had no box or boxes. He said he had one bag. I searched the bag, and found in ifc, wrapped up in chamois leather, the locket ; and before opening the wrapper, accused told me that it contained the locket. He said " the' locket" twice. Mr. Leary was then present. I then arrested accused. Accused said I have never been held so tightly before ; this is the first time that I have committed myself." He made a statement in the watchhouse to the effect that he had taken the locket with the intention of returning it. He took 8 lockets, and returned 7 to the case. He had £2 18s. on his person when arrested.

Mr. M'Coy contended that the carrying away of the goodß was not felonious. This fact takes it outside the category crime, and is not larceny. His saying that he never saw the locket is consistent with what the witnesses have attempted to prove, and there is not sufficient identification of the locket. Lockets are usually mixed up with love affairs, the delicacy of which might account for the manner in which the locket was secreted. Accused would not be likely to leave his bag in an accessible place, with the key in it, if he (accused) had secreted therein a locket which was stolen 5 and the locket being wrapped up was for tho purpose of preventing the ldfcket falling through a hole in the bag. Mr. M'Coy couclu led by stating that there is no other charge against the accused's character. His Worship deferred his judgment till 3 p.m., when he stated that there was not sufficient evidence to convict the prisoner of stealing the monies, but he considered the charge of locket stealing proved. Accused was sentenced to 2 month's imprisonment in Lawrence gaol.

John M'Eenzie waa brought up by the police on a charge of lunacy.' He was arrested at Switzers, on the 10th instant. Inspector Thompson prosecuted. Accused was remanded for medical .examination. He was subsequently examined by Dr. Stewart, and found to be suffering from melancholia, owing to excess in drinking. He was ordered to be detained in the Lawrence Hospital till the 19th instant.

Tuesday, 16th December. (Before K. H., Carew, Esq.., R.M.)

Alexander Stewart wa> fined 10a and costs Of Court, 68. 6d., for permitting bis horse to stray. . Archibald Hogg was charged with allowing his horse to wander, and was similarly fined.

— Bamford pleaded not guilty to the charge of allowing his horse to stray within the town. The accused /stated that the gtraying Jtorger waa jipt jbi*. property. Under

to the ownership, his Worship dismissed the charge.

Bushed v. Mackenzie and Anotiier.—'Mv. Ctooduy appeared for tho plaintiff ; defendant pleaded in his own defence. Plaintiff's horse was killed on the high road, where defendant's railway contract is being carried Out, and he (plaintiff) attributed .the said loss to obstructions on the said road, alleged to have been put there by defendant. Plaintiff claimed £40, the value of the horse. His Worship delivered judgment as follows : — After consideration of thia case, I have come to the conclusion that it will be unnecessary to call upon defendant for a defence, as I find the damage complained of has been brought about by contributing negligence on the part of the plaintiff. It appears from the evidence of plaintiff that one of his horses met with an accident, and was unable properly to work, and that he left it upon the roadside, asking a groom residing near, bo he says, to keep an eye upon it. The hor9e appears to have wandered uponj the road, became drowned, it is alleged, through the defendants having negligently carried on their railway works at Manuka Creek. The plaintiff, in allowing his horse to wander along the public road unattended, was himself guilty of a breach of of Jj^w (Clause 7, Section XIII., Town and Country Police Ordinance, 18C2), and therefore "brought the damage upon himself. Let it be understood that I am not deciding the right of defendants to obstruct the road, and had the horse been lawfully upon the road, I should have called upon defendents to answer the plaintiff's case. Judgment for defendants, but without costs. The Court then adjourned.