R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2893, 8 May 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON,—MONDAY.

(Before S. Von Stljrjier, R.M) HORSE STEALING. Thos. Ewart was charged with having feloniously stolen, on 2Gth October, 1887, a chestnut gelding, the property of Nis Luud, of Eketahuna. Nis Lund, settler, residing at Eketahuna, deposed;-! know the accused. He used to live at Eketahuna. Oil Ist November, 1887, I reported the loss of a four-year-old chestnut horse, worth £ls. On 24th October my horse was grazing on the road side. This was the last time I saw him until the 2Gth April, when I again saw him at' the Eketahuna Police Station. Before the horse was missing I had seen accused in the vicinity of Eketahuna. I never authorised accused or anyone else to take the horse. Harriet Hambrook, wife of a settler at Tutakara, testified:—Oh 26th October,: 1887, I saw a man riding past on Mr Lund's chestnut horse. I did not see his face but his back. (The prisoner was here asked to turn his, back to the witness.) Sergeant Price: "Now, do you think, that's the man you saw ?" Witness: " Yes, I think it is." Evidence continued—l next saw the horse when the Constable came up with it, and I identified it astheoue ridden past on the morning of 2Gth October, between 9and 10.

Tlios. Chase, farmer and contractor, residing at Patea, Hawkes Bay, sworel know the prisoner. He came to my place on either the Ist or 2nd of November. He came to look for work, and was riding a chestnut horse with a white face. Next day I asked him what he would take for the horse, and he said lie' would rather make a "swop." He also stated that it was a chance foal from one of his own mares, We exchanged; I gave the prisoner a mare and to boot for his horse. The accused remained in my employ until the Constable came for him. He said lie wanted to send the money home, and that was the reason he did the deal with the horse. The animal was in my possession until the police took it. The horse now with the police in Masterton is the one I purchased from the prisoner in 1887. By the prisoner—Did I not say that I did net care to sell the horse. Witness: You said you were not disposed to sell it, but would rather "swop." To the Bench-From the first, the prisoner passed the horse off as his own property. Constable Thos. Leech, of Taradale, Hawkes Bay District, deposed: I know the prisoner, and arrested him on the charge of stealing the horse in question. The accused threw himself on the ground, and said, "One misfortune never comes alone. I do not care what they do with me now." 1 found the horse in a paddock used by Mr Chase, at Eangitikei. This was on the 21st April, 1888. Subsequently, the accused asked me if the evidence would be strong against him, I replied that I thought it would. He said, " lam sure no person saw me ride the horse from Eketahuna, fori did not get it until I got to Pahiatua, as I walked, and my wife rode." He also said that the reason he left Eketahuna was that his creditors were pushing him. The horse now in Masterton is the one I charged the accused with stealing. When arresting the prisoner, I gave him the usual caution. Constable Eoclie, of Eketahuna, stated oil oathl took charge of the prisoner and the horse part of the way down. I was patting the horse's neck and I asked the accused if that were the horse. He replied: "Yes, that's the horse; that's Lund's horse." I have had charge of the horse and the prisoner ever since, and the animal now in the stable here is,the same horse. The prisoner knew I was a policeman. I was in uniform. Sergeant Price said that this closed the case for the Crown.

In reply to the inquiry if lie had any remark to make, the prisoner stated tlwt he left Eketahuna—or rather four miles from it—on the afternoon of the 25th October. The accused then added: " I have nothing more to say. I plead guilty to the charge your Worship." The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the Supreme Court sittings on 2nd July next. A case of Commission. 6, S. W. Dalrymple v. Chas. Dakin and T. C. Williams—action to recover the sum of L 25, ballance of commission alleged to be due on sale of a 500 acre farm at Taratahi inlßß2 for 12000. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendants. The evidence for the plaintiff represented that the farm in question changed hands through the agency of Mr Dalrymple in February', 1882, Mr T. O. Williams purchasing it from Mr Dakin, and that Mr Dakin had agreed to remunerate the plaintiff by paying him 5 per cent commission. Of the sum of £SO due under this arrangement, the plaintiff had only received £25 by cheque from Mr Williams in Apiil, 1882, which he credited Dakin with, and he now sued for the remaining £25.

For the defence, the defendantChas. Dakin pleaded inter alia, the statute of limitations, the amount in his case having remained unpaid for six years. The defendant Dakin, in the course of evidence said; I was not to pay commission, I was to take £2OOO, Mr Williams did not agree to pay commission. Ido not recognise that there was any commission due. Mr Beard sold the property to Mr Williams. I gave Mr Williams £5 to give Mr Dalrymple for his trouble, but our arrangement ended there. There was to be 110 commission. I thought Mr Dalrymple was negotiating for Mr Williams, and was under the impression the latter would pay Dalrymple, but I cannot say Williams agreed to this. Mr Dalrymple had 110 right to sell the property ivhen it was sold. I said to plaintiff I would take £2OOO clear, and he was to get all over that ng commission, but I withdrew

j the property after this, and solditafter Mr Dalrymple's time bad expired. ; The co-defendant, Thos. 0. Williams, testified in tbecourse of evidence that he gave £2O and Dakin gave £5 to Dalrymple, but only as a presenkM neither of them considered he ws entitled to commission. MrDalrymplo when receiving the money expressed himself as well satisfied, and did not suggest he was going to sue for commission. That'word was not ever used, and no receipt was taken for the £25. The Bench ruled that no claim bad been proved and nonsuited the plaintiff, with solicitor's fee £2 2s and costs .£3l9s Bd.

A DISHONORED ORDER.. M. Neilson v. H. Carnell and W. Brannigan.—action to recover £l9los for dishonored order on JflrSL Burl- . ' ing, of Tiraumea. Mr Beard for plaintiff: Mr Skipper for defendant. . : \2g Judgment for plaintiff for £l9 10s, with costs, £3 3s, Brannigan to be • liable for costs. AN ORDINARY DEBT, Magnus Neilson v. John Duffy and Robert Crewe,-Claim £l6 10s for stores supplied. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant. V Judgment for amount ' costs, £4 9s. Half claim to be'pfid in one month; balance in three months and costs to be remitted in fourteen days.