R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2127, 23 October 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

FEATHERST3N—THURSDAY. (Before H. A, Steatfoed, R.M.) Arthur Beam v. John McLennan.— £45 6s 3d. This was a claim made by the plaintiff for wages as book-keeper at the rate of 60s per week. The evidence went to show that the defendant had taken the plaintiff into his house and boarded him for weeks out of kindness, expecting to get paid when plaintiff got a remittance from home. The plaintiff kept one book, wrote two letters, and acted as stable man for three weeks, for which he charged at the rate claimed. At the conclusion of the evidence His Worship said it was a pity the plaintiff had exposed himself by bringing such a case, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs £3 3s. MASTERTON.—THIS DAY. (Before H. A. Stratford, R.M.) LAECENY. Minnie Wadsworth appeared on remand charged with the larceny of a piece of print, valued at £l, from the shop of John Graham. Mr Skipper appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Beard for the defence. John Graham identified a piece of print produced. He knew the accused from coming into the store occasionally. She was in the store, he believed, on the 28th September, but he did not speak to her. Cross-examined by Mr Beard : He would swear that to the best of his knowledge the pieco of print came out of his shop. Ho identiOed it by its appearance, and he knew the smaller slip produced came from the same piece by comparison. Mr Beard hero handed witness a third piece, and asked whether he thought that came from the same piece.

Witness said he could not tell for certain without close comparison. He saw the print in his store every day, and sold some to aMr J oily. There wasnothing very remarkable about the print except that it was rather a nice piece. He had nothing else resembling it in stock. The reason he fixed upon the 28th September as the day when he missed the print was that it had been examined by a customer on that day.

Witness being re-examined by Mr Skipper and shewn the two pieces of print together, said they were quite distinct.

John Reid Graham assistant in his father's shop, said he knew the accused as an occasional customer in the shop, sometimes as Mrs Wagthorn, and at others as Mrs Wadsworth. Accused was in the shop on the 28th September with a companion, There wore two children with them. He served her with some groceries, and she then asked him the price of a piece of print which she took from the drapery to the grocery department. It was a roll which he thought lie should know again. The piece produced was similar to it, and if made up in a roll would be about the same size. He told her he could not tell her till Mr Richardson, who was in charge of the drapery department, came in, She took it back in the direction of the drapery department, but he did not see her put it down again.

Cross-examined by Mr Beard: Witness said lie was not sqre that the piece shown him then came off the piece lie saw or not, but it seemed lighter, while the other was brighter. He could not say whether the third piece came from either of the others, He did not notice whether accused took anything out of the shop. The piece of print was missed immediately after dinner, Accused wore a light, large, lqose sqrt of jacket. Alfred John Richardson, an assistant in the drapery department in Mr Graham's store, deposed that he knew the accused as a customer comjng to tho shop. He saw Iter in the shop qn tlje 28th September, as l)o was going to dinner. On his return he missed a piece uf print from a small table 011 the outside of the drapery counter, The piece has been exposed for sale, and there were about 20 yards. He belioved the piece produced was the one. It was the same pattern as the ono missing; The length would also correspond with what was lost, The small piece produced was a sample of the piece sold to Jolly, and the two corresponded exactly.' Just before going to dinner he had been showing it to a lady customer. A search warrant was taken out by Messrs Price & Dickson, and'the print .was fquncj in a box at her house, Cross-examined by Mr Beard; Accused took the print out of the box herself and said she had bought it at Caselberg's. Mr Graham had spoken to him of the matter when the print was missed, but he did not take out a search warrant then. He, however, informed the police about an hour later. He remembered through looking at the daybook what other customers were in the shop on the day in question. The small piece produced was of a different shade to the one they had in stock, It was an unusual color in prints. He could tell the difference between the two by having handled the one so often. Sergt. Lyons deposed that a search warrant was taken out by Mr Dickson, of Messrs Price and Dickson, and he thereupon proceeded to the house of the accused in company with Mr Richardson. Mr Dickson missed some jackets, but they did not find then). Mr Richardson, however, identified the piece of jiript as belongingtoJ|rGr^iam,^ccussed'sai'dt]iat she had purchased the print from Messrs Caselberg & Co. He took accused to Mr Caselberg's and saw Mr Richards, of the drapery department, wlip said they djd not have any print of tlje kind ! n Stock for two or three months. He then arrested her on a charge of larceny. Cross-examined by Mr Beard: The accused gave every facility for searching the house. The articles that -syepe ]}ejng searched fpiMyere not, however, fqund. When they went tq My Caselberg's," lie asked Mr Richards whether lie had sold the print to the accused, and he said he had no recollection. This concluded the oase for th§ prosecution,