MAGISTRATES COURT, NGARUAWAHIA.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 337, 6 September 1898, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURT, NGARUAWAHIA.

Monday. —(Before C;ipt. Jackson, S.M. and R. Eathborne, Esq., J.P.) THE DISPUTED KING CASE. Moi'KiTT v. Walsh. Claim for ring valued at £lO, or for the return of same. Mr Swarbrick appeared for plaintiff, and Mr L. O'Neill for defendant. The plaintiff, Edward John Moffitt, having been sworn, said the ring belonged to his brother and had been sent to him by his mother about 21 years ago. At that time he was residing at Ngaruawahia, in a house about two chains from where the defendant now lives. He lost the ring about six months after receiving it, and supposed it had been stolen. He gave information to the police to that effect. It was duly notified in the Gazette of June sth, IS7B, as follows:—"Stolen about the Sth ultimo, from the dwelling of Edward John Moffitt, at Newcastle, Auckland district, a gold signet ring with blood-stone in claw setting, a lion rampant, and " Piet (sj'c)Virtute"engraftd on stone ; value £4." On the IStli June last he saw an advertisement in The Waikatu Akgus, and he at once wrote and claimed the ring ; he applied several times for the ring, both verbally and in writing ; but defendant refused to give it up. Under cross - examination by Mr O'Neill, plaintiff said he remembered having a conversation with Mrs Walsh in the presence of her son, when he described the ring ; but to the best of his belief the shape of the ring was not mentioned. He also remembered Mr Walsh try ng the ring on his (plaintiff's) finger : but this was done behind his back and he did not see the ring. He had a photograph of his brother, which was shown to Mr Butter, the jeweller. Sarah Ann Moffitt, wife of plaintiff, corroborated her husband's evidence, hut swore positively to the stone being held in a lion's claw. Matthew Walsh, defendant, on being sworn, deposed that he found the ring in June last and had it advertised in The Waikato Akgus, In response to this plaintiff called on him and showed him a paper with a crest and motto upon it. On July 18th plaintiff saw him again and told him that if the ring did not fit his third finger it was not his. He also stated that the motto was below the line, and iu several other particulars his description did not agree with the ring he had found. « Cross-examined by Mr Swarbrick : Defendant said he had asked Mr Hume to advertise the finding of the ring, and he supplied him with a wax impression of the ring. He saw the notice in the police Gazette about a month ago, since he had received a letter from plaintiff's solicitor, giving a description of the ring, and if he had seen the notice before plaintiff had made any of the aforementioned statements he would have thought the ring belonged to Moffitt. Helen Walsh, wife of defendant, said Mr Moffitt came to her house about the 25tft June to enquire about the ring, and he described it as a square ring of Indian bloodstone with sprigs of red on it and that; it had a stamp upon it. She told him that he was wrong. Plaintiff also told her that he had a photo of his brother showing the ring on his finger. He also stated that the motto was at the foot of the line and that the ring fitted his third finger. Michael Thomas Walsh, eon of the last witness, was called and corroborated the evidence given by her in every particular, but remembered the plaintiff saying that the motto was "Vi et Virtute." In reply to the Bench, witness said plaintiff was excited. John Edwin Butter .deposed that he had been in business as a watchmaker and jeweller for thirty years. Plaintiff showed him a photo, of his brother, and asked him to describe the ring on the finger iu the photo. It appeared to him to be a square stone with the corners slightly rounded off; the photo was faded and very iudistinct. As a secondhand ring he valued it from 15s to 20s. He had supplied similar rings at Home at £3.—Under cross-examination by Mr Swarbrick, he said the ring in the photo was not a copy of the ring in dispute, to the best of his judgment.—Constable Cavanagh and Mr Peter Kay were also called, hut. their evidence was not of material importance. Mr O'Neill in his address said that his client had, all through, shown a disposition to hand over the ring to the rightful owmer, but, in consequence of the discrepancies in plaintiff's description of the ring, he did not feel justified in doiug so. The evidence of Mr Butter and Constable Cavanagh went to show that the ring in the photo was a square ring and not an oval one. He submitted that the ring was not the same as iu the photo, and that defendant was justified in retaining it until satisfied as to the rightful owner. Mr Swarbrick, in reply, said he relied upon two main points. The question of the photo he put aside, as there was no proof that the ring in the photo was the same as the ring in dispute. He relied upon the fact that it was impossible to conceive such a coincidence, that two rings resembling each other could have been found practically iu the same place. Further, there was, most important of all, the description of the ring in the Police Gazette, published twenty years ago, which, in the opinion of any unbiased individual, must settle the question of the person to whom the ring belonged. Judgment was given for plaintiff for possession of the ring and costs, £3 7s.