R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3142, 1 March 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THUESDAY.

(BoforeMrH.SWARDELL.RM.) Jones v Brannigan—Judgmeni was given for £lB 16s 2d, with £S 17s costs.

E. Jaques v. M. Harrison. Claim £i. Mr Beard for defendant, Judgment for defendant with costs 20. Smith & Hogg v. J, L. Moifatt. Judgment summons £7 12s 6d. Mr Pownall for plaintiffs, Mr Middleton for defendant. Order made for payment of £1 per month, Same v. S, Neary. Judgmentsummons SI 11 Gd. Mr Pownall for plaintiff. Order made for payment of 10s per month, M'Jlroyv H. Westbrook, Claim £BS 8s 7d, board and lodgings and other items. Mr Skipper for plaintiff Mr Beard for defendant. 'Adjourned for fourteen days.

FBIDAY. ' 0. A. Pownall v. Charles Gurote. —Stealing a fox terrier, the property of plaintiff, valued at £3. Mr 0. P. Skipper appeared for defendant. Plaintiff, sworn, stated that on Tuesday, 18th February, be suddenly missed his dogs outside tbo boardinghouse where accused was staying. The dogs were advertised for, r and a reward offered for their recovery. On the Sunday following, from information received, plaintiff went to a whare some distance from the town, where the dogs, together with others chained up were found. Plaintiffs dogs were not seourod. Saw accused, and called his attention to the fact that he had lost two doge, and asked for information as to their whereabouts. - Accused said ho did not know where they were, but he had seen them some time ago in Dr. Milne's garden. Accused said he had three dogs which, (on being questioned), he said ho kept in his whare in Neill's paddock. Witness thereupon told accused that he would lay aivinforuiation against him. He afterwards stated that the 'dogs had followed him to the whare.

By the Bench:—The dogs were not actuallyconfiued, when they were found, They we're between four and five months old,

By Mr Skipper: No one was near the whare. Had seen- accused with dogs at his heels. There must have been nine or ten dogs inside the whare. Inferred that defendant intended using the dogs for rabbiting purposes. Plaintiff's dogs were outside the building, and could not got in. The door was barred, Accused could have put the lost dogs inside had he chosen. Would certainly not • have put two small' terriers among nine or ten large rc.bbit dogs, By the Bench: Ihe whare is situated in what is known as "William's whare" beyond the Railway Station.

By Mr Skipper: The whara was surrounded by light scrub. The dogs were valued at £B, although the intrinsic value might have beon less. By the Bench: The dogs were, following plaintiff and Dr Milne when they were missed in front oi the Court House. Returned a short distance in search of them but.did not see them. •■ By Mr iskipper: The dogs would | have to pass the residence of their owner to rcacothe wharo. • Edward Eaton, clerk to. plaintiff, deposed that he remembered going to the whare in question in company with former witness.. Woro within ten yards of the whare before they saw any indications of,the dogs. Plaintiff called the dogs when they appeared and followed' thorn home. Witness corroborated the ovidence of the former witness as to the conversation with accused.

By. Mr Skipper;., The plaintiffs dogs were the only ones which, wore loose. Bid not see any other buildingnear, Had seen accused about the town, but had not noticed any dogs with him, By Mf Ppwqall; Persons passing along the road could not see the whare.-': Witness did .not see the whare until they-were very oloseto % ■ -if"or," '' mm By Mr ;Skipper v , ■ v 'a,.!,,; faint''track throughitbe paauw^ leading;to the whare. ■;;; V--? • ■: Edgar George Eton was examined

by| Mr Pownall, and corroboratedtheyi evidence of ." O/pss-exatiiined by 'Mr v Stopper}--;! Accused did not hesitate to Btete that,: he; hiid some .flogs in tlie> whaWf .Hadnqjriterest in; the dogshimseli.: r There was one - ferocious looking'dog;;' chained ujo outside;;; Did; not thedogs until r-'theywere disturbed.... There, was nothing to prevent -the' '•' dogs being-put inside.'; ;Had;sdrde,"; experience in knew"-that';.;' it was duly natural foryoung dogatb 7 follow, other >;;dogs^;;.;lt^was;notV absolutely necessary : ] to '': pass- the 7" house of; the owner of the dogs to ■ ■ reach the whare. ;.V' :",; <[ :;;H ;■': For the defence, MrSkipperßub- : rhitted thatthere was "ho" evidence'to',:: connect accused with the fact of the ■ iost dogs being at the whare, and' it '■■;'. was a most far-fetched ideato "'sup- '.■; pose that any person contemplating .; the seizure of the dogs, allow ■ : them to remainloose,whenhejnighfc ■■■ easily have scoured- them: He asked that theaooused bq sworn. 7C •>;;_ Charles Qurote, sworn, said thuja since he had been accused, ; .'fl|P terriers had beeu at the whare.:. 7i; By Mr Pownall.: He fed the doga / jit the whare himself. ; The doga outside could /Obtain' food at the slaughteryard; about" three -ohaihs; away. Had seen the two dogs',.' and ; they had followed him'on the day of;: the conyeraation tiff. .Was;,;; labbreri-; The;dbgs'liad beenWthe)| .whare'abbut aifortnight.' uiight have follbwed Enew ; peffeptiy-well: that pisntj|f| intended to dog-stealing.-;';*';' : For the detence,' Patrick •, deposed that he' ; lived nowhereand L everywhere. -Kn'ew : Gurote,aud • wanted to 'buy' ,a' : dbg.jiff ;hirn< Accused and witudss went to.thes whare in a brake' to see the doW. A largo-pig dog was oliained oiitsM and two dogs were inside the building. Two small dogs joined the others .in the paddock, but 'witness took.no notice uf them." To the' best of his belief they were of; a brown color, and of;the terrier breed: Gurote.,. said he' did not know, whose they/'j were.. . .';?

; Examined by Mr Pownall, Gurote called the dog outside "Darkey." Did not see the dogs fed, neither did he see any food around. The express was left about five chains from the whare.-'Did not see where, the two small dogs came from. Would not know them again,"' ■. • . v

By the Bench: Gurote put the two dogs that were in the whare baok again. Did not notice where the two dogs came from. Witness had had two pints of beer Borne time before and was dry. Hewerittothe creek to get a drink and when he oarae back noticed the two small dogs. Acousjd drove the pup 3 back to the whare" after'they, had got a ' few chains on their way home; "' - Sergeant Price was sworn, at% deposed: That on Monday morning last he attended the arrival .of'the'' noon train where accused drew hia attention to the two dogs running about, and said that that was the. way they went about.

By Mr Pownall; Did-nofc see-any one in charge of the dogs. Could : not say whose they were, but acoused" stated they wore the dogs he was "fc accused of stealing... ' : df His Worship said the fact ofT" accused giving a false acoount of the dogs when spoken to by plaintiff' ' cast ; a oloud over the-conduct 'of : accused, He had no .hesitation in describing hia conduct as •' extremely disgraceful, and he would, leave the Court with disgrace upon him. He would give him'the benefit of the • slight doubt and dismiss him the caution. '■■;••■•■•-. ,•■ v v:£-_;\

A second charge of ft similUL nature was withdrawn. . ; Jp LARCEHY AS A BAILEE. ',. ' Peter Gray was charged on the information of John Fabian'witb the larceny of five bags of grass seed the joint property of tho said John Fabian and Peter Gray, of the' value of £5. Mr Pownall for informant, and Mr Skipper for acouned. An agreement-was produood by which the accused, agreed to gather certain grass seed and take one half of such Bead after the whole had been delivered to John Fabian,

For the defence, Mr Skipper said his oliont did not deny having parted with the five bags of grass seed, but . could givo a very good reason for fi so doing.' ' -M At the request of Mr Pownall alt T witnesses were ordered out of Court. John Fabian deposed ho received from acoudft mid he then went up to KopuarangT to see bow accused was getting on with work, and told.him to gather up tho seed and send it down. On 19th February he paid a" second visit ' and was surprised to find him and a number of Maoris on a section abouta mile and a quarter from his land where the grass seed was being gathered.. In reply to a question accused said they had to leave on account of the danger from, fire'.' Accused told him there was seventy, three sacks of grass seed' at the station. He wont towards tho property and found there was no fire, to any extent, A day or two afterwards witness found that a native employed by Gray had sold fivo bags, of tho grass seed to Lowes 4j ; lorns. Out of 810 saoks supplied to accused there wero 69 missing, He gave no authority to Gray to dispose of any of the grass seed, Acoused had not accounted for'the missing bags. ■ .'•. : Cross-examined.' Acoused■ ; given him no explanation of the missing sacks. After the information'- 1 ,» was laid accused came in a bouncing way to him and he referred him to his solioitor. Accused was to find provisions but witness was to be security for them; Witness sent up corned' beef from Greytown and sent a bill with it, Witness was security; to Messrs Caselberg and oused sent down to him the oraer, and ho went and, ordered thepfovisionsfrom the store, Gray asked ";' for a.goodmauy things that h© did not send, but invariably he sent necessities. : TheyM a surplus of provisions when,the work was finisbed, He would not swear that it was part of-what he provided. Never" on any occasion did Gray tell him that they had no provision and would ' have to sell grass seedtoget some. ' Nover said to anybody that ho would ' send no tuokor up until more seed was sent dqwnY'-Diduot tell Beubeii "> Manihera so. _ By the agreement^wit-•■'.'£ ness was to have all the seed delivered ; K; to him at Greytown, and afterthat he ■ \ ■; was to givo accused his-portion, oheM half. Had not sold'any of the ■seed .himself, but intended to do so, Y Had only received 180 bags of : grass>'■ l; seed and a bundle of empty bags," ? Supposing that to be the whole crop 'i «»«n«ed'B slifti'e WQVjld be 85 saoks of | ' (Left Bitting),