R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2011, 9 June 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-MONDAY. (Before H. A. Stratford, R.M.) IAECENY. . Watene Haenga, a native, was brought up charged with stealing a silver watch, the property ; of Denis Hogan. Mr Skipper appeared for accused. The witnesses were ordered out of Court at the request of Sergt, McArdle.Dennis Hogan ; said he was a miner residing near Masterton. On the 27th of September last he was at the Club Hotel in the evening of that day, and had a silver hunting wateh in his possession. He was sitting down half asleep from having had too much beer, when he felt someone feeling his pockets and pulling him about. A Maori tagged and broke the chain and cleared out with the watch, The watch was a Rothe'rhain, No, 2771, with a'2 over. He ascertained the number before December last, and kept it in his memory. Part of the chain was attached to his waistcoat, and part fell on the floor, There were were, two Maories and a white man there, and when they were clearing out of the room with his watch, another white man entered, and one of them threw the contents of a water-jug in his face, He asked this man's name, and was told that it was Tom Nott, a man who kept a boardinghouse. He then reported the loss of the watch to the police. .He would recognise the Maori again, and had pointed out one of the Natives to Sergeant McArdle. To the best of his opinion it was the accused, Watene Haenga. The watch produced was the one he had lost. He recognised it by the maker's name and number. The last time he saw it it was in the hands of Detective Grace. The watch was worth £7. He never authorised accused or any other person to take the watch, nor had he sold it,

To MrSkipper.-He was partly under tho influence of liquor at the time, and rather sleepy. He would swear that accused was the one who made the tug at the watch. He never saw him before, and made no inquiries after placing the watch in the hands of the police; but he offered £2 reward. He then went away eheanng. fl e should, recognise the white man who was present, but' had takeii'nq. proceedings against liim, though he considered lpi a party in. the affair, He did' not think that John Nott would appearas a witness for him. He did not lay an information at once, though feeling sure that the accussed was the thief. He left tho matter in the hands of the police. He j™ w* _ remember seeing the letters W.A.T. in the case when he lost the watch ; they were not there then.' He had bought the watch from a young man who was boarding at Toohill's Hotel. He did not remember his name but should know him again it he saw him. Joseph Ranby deposed that he knew the accussed. He remembered the 26th tf .December last, it wasthe morning of the Opaki races. He saw the accussed that day. He came to him and wanted money for the races,'offering a watch as security. His partner, Mr'Kibblewh'ite 'took' the watch, and witness gave accussed £l, On the following day accused liorrowed 5s more from did not take the watch m his hand, but he saw it. He did not know as a fact what became of the watch, ' ' ' Edward Richard, Kibblewhite gprrpboratecl the evidence qf'thd previous mtness, and added that he had the watch' for about a month,' when .he"was, a'skec! for it by Sergfc. McA'rdie,"tq whom'he gave if. He identified the watch prpduced as the one which had been handed mm by accused. Accused called several times tp release the watch, and. paid what he qwed, askec] wjfcness, why lie had given it up. ■ Tp it v Skipper; The loan was made in tliegpensljop, He had known accused for aJjpjMhree years, and thought he was dealing with lijs owp property,' Ohas, Broadbent deposed that Hogan came to his shop last September to have slight repairs made to his watch. He repaired it and wrote out a description of the watch, giving every essential particular, but not noticing a scratch in the back of the case. Hogan subsequently came and said he had lost the watch and particulars, and wanted some particulars which witness gave him in writing from memory. The piece of paper produced WM t)}e description referred to. (Description M&) ! I He thought lie could identify the watch if ; 'he'fiaw ! 'it, l "'H a believed the watch was the-same, and was sure of the chain.

Cross-examined by Mr Skipper: He remembered the description, because only a few days had elapsed since the time he wrote out the first description, He could not describe the scratches on the back, not haying tteht it worth notice fhem. 1 'lwtherham''watq]ie,fqf % common nature were very' common, but not likV'the' one ' before' the Court. The sale valine pf that ope iyas abp|jt

Sergeant ifgAife deposed tint J w remembered the 2fth September J^t, AboutV'p.m. the informant Hogan and John Nott came to him, Hogan" made a. complaint, whioh witnoaa entered in the police diary (produced), and which was to the effect that a silver hunting lover watch made by Rotherham, London, had been stolen from his person while asleep on a sofa in the Club Hotel between the hours of five and seven p.m. Hogan suspected some Natives and a European, whose name he gave. About two days afterward? Hogan pointed, out two Marines, 1 whq','iiS"Sftijl, ! weW'tjie/ pej'sjms who rp^bed-'Mm.''' Hp got 'the 1 , wafioh from Kjbbiewh'ite pn' the''2nd"Jan'iiaiy' and a4yertised for the pppr iincjng the " missing Mends" ill the Mm Informant, however, only reached Mas. terton about eight days ago, having been laid up with a broken leg. This closed the prosecution. His Worship intimated his intention to adjourn the Court till the following day,butqnMr Skipper stating thslt he did ' not intend to call any evidence for the defence, the case was proceeded, with. ■ captioned in the wJ' W| f^ig^sy niff'(idfeft tile advibe of his \y'aa comtnitted to take his "trial at the ensuing sitting of the Supreme Court, baild being allowed, prisoner in £IOO, ah two. sureties for £SO each. • * ,