R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1106, 22 June 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THISDAY,

*'" Befobe H. S. 'Wxbdeli, R.M. AND A. BISH, AND A, W. ReNAIX, J,P.'s,

■■" BpBOUOH'BT.UWBr ,"- ; • -.,;....-. J. ft' Ingram [VfE.Beraard.-Breaoh of,' Borough bylaws by driving' across, a f foot/ path." Fined 4» and ooste. „,,,,.,,— m ' . . * SHOP-HFTINO. . ' ""• t *' , ~"- Martha Frost, an elderly woman, ap- '" peared in answer to a charge of stealing a sealskin hat! of the., value of five shillings from the shop of Mr 0. Smith. : Mr: Skipper appeared for tho ! oJ?tlied, who pleaded not gailty; ■ , ■'-'■■■■ .'. .William Hall, agent for 7. Smith, said: I know the accused. I have. Been her in my shop several times., I have missed goods on. several ocoasions from; my shop, the! hat produced is one of them whiphl found 'misfling on the 14th ;inst.' ;; [.■' ,-' '' To Mr Skipper :-I am large bu'iueßShere. Ihaveonly sold one hat of the sealskin description since I have been in Masterton.l have hot sold a single hat like the one produced which is a sham sealskin, a dyed rabbit hat. I recognise the,trade mark on the hat,;|l did not make it. There ■■■ woiild be similar hats in the.:shop at Wellington. I had no reason to suspect tho accused.';' ..■•.-.■

To the Court: The valueof the hat is five and ninepenoe, . ' L. X. Hooper deposed:,l keep a drapery establishment in iMasterton.i ! I know the accused. 1 don't think I sold! the- hat produced to the accused. , ...

To the Court: 1 do not .recognise the hand-writing on the mark oi the hat. To Sergeant Price: .We haye« similar goods in our shop. I call it an limitation sealskin hat. The accused has, called upon me sinco this day week and asked me if I remembered her fetching a hat.back 'whioh she bieuht some time previously, I cannot rememhor her doing so. To Mr Skipper. I do not reco.leot her buy ing a hat at my Bhop. If she had bought one of me I think I should reoolleot it. I will swear she has not brought a hat from me, hut I will not swear- that aho has not bought it out of my shop, I recognise the letters on the trade mark as indicating three and tenpence. The accused has always been a regular customer of mine,! and I have always found her straightforward. To Sergeant Price: The La) would be in the millinery department, and it .would be improbable.thati should sell it myself. , W. Hall,recalled: The pencil mark on the hat s the cost mark, and the other mark. BS.,is the selling mark, five and ninepence. v

Emily MeFarlane deposed: lam in ohargo of the millinery department at; Schroder,. Hooper, di (Jo's. I knowthe acousedapdhave; seen her in my department. I don't remember selling a hat to her like the one produced. To Mr Skipper: I could net say that alio had not bought such a hat. She might have done "so and'l might have forgotten it. To the Court: I know the letters on tho mark, but do not recognise the writing, Tho pencil mark is not ours. Lottie Frost was then called. (Mr Skipper submitted that tho evidence of this witness ought to he taken with grt at caution.) She deposed: I reside in Masterton, Thoa,u-: cused is my mother. Shesentmeahatyery "much like the one produce! j I cannot swear to .it. I believe it is the hat you (Sergeant Price) took out of my bedroom. To Mr .Skipper: Mother did not bring the ' hat herself, but sent it by my neplow. I told mother previously that I wanted a hat, and gave her some money to go and get one. ■ I gave-her five shillings. The hat did not tit me, and I was going to give it to her back again, - .., ' ■ .' To the Couit: I heard my- mother ; last Court day ihat she had j'ought there three weokß ago, and, as it was no use to her I might as wu'll have it.

Mr Skipper thought that tho accused ditL-, not say it was the hat in question, but a ham* similar to it. mm Mr Skipper, for the defence, that the caie'was a voty weak one. Thoquestion was whether the hat in quo Btion was bought from Messrs Schroder, Hooper h, Co. Tho evidence of witnesses .was hesitative on this point He admitted tHii't the hat found in possession of tho daughter was the one bought by the mother, but he asked the Court to consider the doubt as to whether she did not absolutely purchase if, He would call the daughter of the accused, who was presentvhen her mother purchased a hat at Schroder and I'fooper's shop. Harriet Stanley said she accompanied hor mother two or three weeks ago to Sch oder, Hooper, &Co.'s shop to buy a hat for Lottie. Witnosa stood ontside while sho bought it. Menshecameoutshetookithomc Shesaid she had bought the hat when sho come out. She showed it to witness wheu th. y got home, She said sho had given four and sixpence for it. To tho Court: She bought it- the night before sho sent it to Lottie. To Sergeant Prico: Mother opened tho parcel and showed me the hat wheu I got home. Mr Skipper said Mr Phillips could givo evidence as to her character. - Mr Phillips said the accused had been in his employ two or three months. She was honest enough. The Court said this was a case in which there was grave suspicion, but there was sufficient element of doubt to justify tho Court in dismissing the charge, It could not say tho accused left the Court as it were without a blemish on her character. She had the benefit of the doubt, civni cask,

A Stewart v Jons P. Petersen .-Debt £8 10s. Price of a bullock sold by the plaintiff. The defendant admitted owing the money. Judgment for amount and costs. ' C. Dixon v T.Hill -Debt, £7los. The defendant stated that plaintiff must have made a mistake in his bill and treated him' rather as a proprietor of a 'bus company than aB a -gentleman owning a private stud, fio should like to see the plaintiff's book, ' , '

After a little amusing cross examination of the plaintiff by the dcfendqnt, who Beemod an oxpert in the art, tho case was adjourned till 4 p.m. •.-.,;

THIS RABDII ACT. tV. A. P. Sutton y Robert Brown. - Breach of Rabbit Act, The defendant not answering to his name was fined £5 and costs, ■'"" '

. W...A. P.Suttonv T: L. Thompson.- • Breach of Rabbit Act; : Mr Bunny for defendant, said the Inspector was prepared to makfi a statement aB to the steps which had been taken in the matter. He asked that the case might be again adjourned. The complainant'agreeing to this course, the case was ordered to stand over.

Soitio hundreds of pasteboard boxes con-' taining .bunches of shamrook were dothe letter carriers in London, on last Si Patrick's day, having heen Sent to Irish, people resident in London by their friends in the sister ißland to Wear. on the anniversary of the patron saint of that country.. The packages were in(variably opened by. cutting, the pasto* board, and tho examination ,of the con,tents was duo. to. recont circumstances connected With the transmission of explosives through the post'oftico. ' A Bussian officer, says the "Nature," has invented a vei>y ingomoua apparatus for ascertaining the depth of the sea without' thjiiise of a line, The instrument' consiafflka pieco of lead, a small wheel, with Jjftntrivanco for rogisterinp the number ~oF revolutions, and a float. While the apparatus sinks, the wheel wolves, and the registered revolutions indicate the depth. When tho bottom is reached the lend bacomos detached, and the float begins to act, and the machine shoots up to the surface, where it oan be easily fished up by a not and the register read off. , ' A very indecorous interruption ivritos the Hawkes Bay Heald to the sermon was offered by some individual in St John's Church Inst ovoning. The Eev. MrTowgood was" officiating,- and- in tho course of his remarks lie was drawing different types of character. " Tako Bill Sykes, for iiiilance," ho said, when a deep bass voice added "and his dog," It would not have b»on seemly for Mr Towgood to descend from the pulpit and eject and ill-manered interrupter, but if ho had dono so we might have excused him.

A family in Pennsylvania, at whose houso'a rolative died, refused to bury him The coroner, wanting to save the country the expense, found sohio other relatives who wero willing to bury him. At this point it was discovered that the doceasod had an insurance policy on his life. The first family thereupon inaiatai on burying him, but the coroner gave iho Corpso' to the other family. Tho people at whose house the man died have now sued the people who removed the corpjp, for, trespass.

The Hon. Mr 'Scotland speaking on the Corrupt Practices prevention bill «aid that, as this Bill alfooted exclusively the other Branch of the Legislature, he did not inclined to vote against it' At the same time ho thought it rather strange that they should be called upon to pass anamendimjActtho very year after the passing of" The Corrupt Practices Act 1981," and, it seemed to him, solely on the ground that tho Act of 1881 was offeotual for the purpose for which it was originally passed. Sidney Smith once remarked that of all the ludricous sights in the world he did not know of any more ludicrous than John Bull in a fit of virtuous indignation, The legislature seemed to have gone in red-hot for a Bill to prevent corrupt practices, and a very stringent Bill it had heen. He votpd for it on'fhat ground, because he knew that unless the Aot was made as stringent as possible it would be of vory little use indeed. He could not help remembering a picture which appeared oncoin Punch, which represented an Irishman in prison visited by his sweet heart, who bade him keep heart, and encouraged him with the suggestion that he would have a just judge to try him. " Ah Norah 1" he answers, " it's not such a just

Judge I'm wantin' as one who will lean a

little." The Act should not in'the first place have been pitched in too high a key of morality, and then there would have beeu no necessity to amend it so soon

after its adoption. He imped it would be a warning to the Legislature in future no 'I to pass moasuios of too stringent a nature but rather such as would " lean a little." During the sitting of the Supreme Court,at New Plymouth the council for the prisoner was examining a Maori witness rather closely upctl the exact distances of certain objects, but the witness resolutely refused to give a definite answor, when the lawyer rather testily exclaimed " It is a a disgusting thing to have to deal with a Maori witness I" His Honor quietly put the other sidß of the picture by saying "Perhaps the Maori wituesa thinks it a disgusting thing to be questioned by a lawyer!"