RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 572, 25 July 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24. (Before G. G. FitzGerald; Esq., R.M.) Dettnk and Incapable. — Peter Murphy and William King were each fined 10s, or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned for four-and-twenty hours. , Larceny. — Gerhard Wagner was charged with stealing wearing apparel and jewellery, the property of Mary Roddwon. — The prosecutrix, being sworn, deposed : I reside on tho beach, at the back of tho Manchester Hotel. Between eight and ten o'clock on the evening of the 15th instant, I left my house. The door wai closed, but not locked. I djd not leave

anybody iv the house. I was absent about ten minutes. On my return, I saw prisoner standing iv the bedroom. He was striking a light. When I returned, tho door of my house was partly open. - I asked him how he came there, and' he replied he was looking for a female named Louisa While. I told him that she did not live there, and that he knew it. At his request I accompanied him to Louisa White's. Louisa White opened the door for me, but she slammed the door in prisoners face. I slept at Louisa White's that night, She asked me to remain there. When I returned I found that everything in. my house had boon tumbled about. Missed two silk dresses, a breast pin, a pair of eariugs, a wedding ring, a lady's dressing ring, a locket and chain, and some pocket handkerchiefs ; they were in the house when I went out. When I left tho house with prisoner I closed the door, but I fad not lock it. The value of the missing property is in all about L 26. I have seen the skirt of one of the dresses, I saw it at the dye-works on the beach. I cau identify the dress by kerosene stains which are around the bottom of it. The dress was made up when it was taken out of my house, and was not as it is now, in the piece. I identify the dress and the locket and chain (produced) as my property. I did not authorise prisoner to remove any of the property. When I returned to my house on the morning of tho 16th inst., the door was closed as I had left it on the night previous. Mary Hannah Selffe stated — I reside on the beach, near MrMoffat's right-of-way. I met prisoner either on Tuesday or Wednesday evening last, at the Shakespeare Hotel. He gave me a locket and chain as a present, and he also said that he would make me a present of a silk dress. Met prisoner again on the following evening, at the same hotel ; he told me that he had been down to-my house and found me out, but that he had put the dress through the window. On the following evening (the 18th iust.) I again met prisoner at the Shakespear Hotel ; I asked where he got the dresses from, and he replied they belonged to a woman he lived with. I told him 1 did not care about wearing then:. He said I could get the blue one dyed, and ho would pay for it. I identify tho locket j and chain (produced) to be the same as those ; given me by prisoner. I also identify the dress (produced) to be the oue I found on the floor of my bedroom. I identify it by the kerosene stuiu on it. When I found the dross on tho floor it was made up, but before I took it to the dyer's I ripped 'it up. — Charles Towuley Browno — 1 arrested prisoner yebterday cveuiug, at the Gridiron Roataurant. 1 told him the charge. Prisoner askod me whore the property had been stolen from. I told him the house and the name of the prosecutrix, and he replied that he did not know auy such person, aud when I described the locality of the house he said he had never been there. I asked if he knew a female named Annie Solffe ; ho said 'be did not know such a porson. 1 asked him if he had ever given auy person a silk dress ; ho replied that he could not us ho never had ono to give. On our way down to the police stasion I overlook Annie Selffe, and I asked prisoner if he knew her, he said ho did. Annie Selffe remarked, " That is the man that gave me the dresscb." Prisoner afterwards asked me who it wa3 had " Bplit on him," and was going to prosecute. I received , the locket and chain (produced) from Annie Sclffo. The dress (produced) I got from tho dye-works. Tho witness Roddown was with me at the dye-works. She identified the dress as her property. The prisoner, after the usual caution from tho Bench, declined to make any statement, and was committed for trial at the District Court. CIVIL CASES. E. Beeves and Co. v. Master of the Lizzie ! Colesou, In this case (adjourned from tho I 23rd inst,) his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for LI with costs. Crawford v. Maloney. — Judgment was given for tho defendant, for whom Mr Rees appeared. (Iv our report of this case in yesterdays issue it was stated, in error, that Mr Rees appeared for the plaintiff.). - — Jones v. Mace. — Mr Havey for tho plaintiff; Mr Button for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of »L2O for illegal dutenfcion and conversion "of a ooat tho property of the plaintiff. It appeared that the bont had boen sold to defendant, and that plaintiff at defendant's request delivered it. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs. Harks v. Troutrietter. — Plaintiff claimed L 3 for damages done to his watch by defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff left his watch to be repaired. The necessary repairs, viz., a new glass and a new hand were executed, and the watch taken away by the plaintff. Some three or four months afterwards the plaintiff returned and accused the defendant of damaging his watch to such an extent that it would not go, and claimed L 3 as damages. Judgment was given for the defendant. Fitz v. Woolf. — For wages. Judgment for amount claimed (LI 10s), with costs. Dodd v. Grinton.— For wagea. Judgment for LI 10s, with costs. Gilhany v. M'Guire and Lynch. — Mr HarVcy for the plaintiff. Mr Button for the defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover tho sum of Lls, for illegal detention by the defendant of a box and its contents, the property of tho plaintiff. The plaintiff staled that the box m question, bearing his name, containing wearing apparel, a olock, &c, &c, had been left by him at tho Swan Hotel. Tho box was placed under the billiard table, Mr Ljnch's attention had been drown to tho box, and ho had promised to look after it. In fact it had been giren into his custody for safe keeping. Mr Lynch denied that the box had been left at the hotel, nor had it been placed under the billiard table. The plaintiff had given a watch into his hands for safe keeping, and he had returned it to him. This plaintiff admitted. The billiard marker was called, and deposed that no box bearing tho plaintiff's name had been placod under the billiard table as alleged by plaintiff. Judgment was given for tho defendant, with coßts. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock next day.