R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3179, 13 April 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—FKID AY. (Before Mr 11, S. Wardell, KM.) Police v, Thompson, On the' case resuming Samuol Minifie, residing in Masterton gave evidence. I remember the Sports whioh took place on the 22nd January at Carterton. Saw acoused there, On the Mowing Monday evening had a conversation with accused with reference to going to sports at Napier. I promised to accompany him. At that time I was employed by Mr Eoigard, ofMauriceville, as grocer, Prior to my going to Napiei 1 1 got leave of absence from Eoigard, and telegraphed for him to meet mo at Mauriceville Railway Station. The latter lent accused So to go to Napier at the Mauricevillo station, This amount was to be returned when accused oame back. Saw the gold watch produced on :ny way to Napier. It was in accused's possession, Returned again from Napier to Masterton on the following Monday the 29th January in company with accused, On returning to Masterton communicated with Roigard. Was to give the watch to Eoigard as security for the money accused borrowed, It was sometime in the beginning of February when accused handed him tho watch to give to Eoigard. He said it belonged to bis father onee, and he did not like altogether parting with it, and would give it as security, Met Eiogard on 6th February and offered him the watch. He did not take it saying he was not in a hurry for the money and would wait awhile. Retained tho watch till Friday when Eoigard came ! to my house and said he had seen : the accused, and had decided to tako ! the watch. ' j

Cross-examined: Was two days at Napier. Thompson was wearing the watch in Napier and on tlie road. He was wearing it openly in Mastertou for a w'eek after they camo back from

Napier, and was stopping at the hotel where Blaokburne was then working. The £5 borrowed from Eoigara went in expensos of the journey, and was to be returned by Thompson to Roigard if he had any luolt at the races.

William Boigard stated he knew the accused and last witness. Remembered receiving a telegram but did not on what date. Minifie at that time was in his employ. Met the train as requested in the telegram and met Minifie and Thompson. They asked for the . loan-of £5 and lie gave the money to Thompson. He looked to him for repayment of it./ T% promised to repay on their return. Did not see them until a week after their return in Masterton onFebruary Bth. Saw Sam Minifie first and told him |lie would go and see Thompson about the £5. Minifie said lie would go and see Thompson and get tbd money. Shortly after Minifie came back and showed him the watch. He said Bob didn't have the money at the present time and would give him ■ the watch as security. Told Sam Miuifio lie did not want the wateh, and went to see Thompson and asked for the money. Thompson said, "You had better tako the watch and try and sell it if you can." Whatever he got over the £5 he was to give back toThompson. Told him not to show the watch about Masterton as it was well-known. His father gave it to him, and if he got to know he sold it lie wouldn't like it. They went to Minifie and got the watch from him, The watch produced was the one. Had been wearing it in Eketahunn and tried to sell it. Had often pulled the watch out in the presence of Constable Boche in Bketahuna.

Cross-examined: If Thompson had come to him with tho £5 he would have had to give him baolt the watch. Wore the watch about ever since the day he got it. /isked for the money and got tho watch as security for its payment. To the Bench: The witch was taken possession of by the police on 3rd April. This closed the case for the prosecution. Blackburne recalled Thompson was not wearing tho watch to his knowledge during the week after his return from Napier. Did not tell Thompson the affair of the watch had been placed in the hands of the police. Did not know Carr had done so. Mr Pownall, olected on behalf of the prisoner that the case should be dealt with summarily and pleaded not guilty, Ho said the present charge must be dismissed, simple larceny could not be maintained because it was not proved that possession of the watch had- boen obtained with a felonious intention. No facts had been brought out in proof that it had been, Circumstances bore out exactly the opposite presumption. The man allowed accused to wear the watch which he constantly had on him wearing it oponly. Ho admitted'that accused was foolish to give the watch to Boigard to sell, but the fact was that his father had given him money to go to Napier which he had spent, and was frightened if it was found out he would got into trouble at home. Tho billiard-marker had leave to sell the watch while it was in his possession, and it was asserted that he had authorised accused to sell it. It was not binding on Thompson to return the watch, but he could sell and give up the money. He gave the watch to Roigard to sell, reserving to himself the right to recover it by paying tho £5. The letter to Carr from Blaekburno stated tlmt if the latter had tho money to jpare lie would have got the watch back. The whole thing showed that accused had not become feloniously possessed of the article,

His Worship said lio wished lie could feel the doubt. He attached very littlo value to the evidonco as to what might hare happened on the night tlißt Blackbume was drunlc. He was willing to accept the statement of Mr Pownall that accused found himself in difficulties, and had recourse to disposing of the watch to relieve him, It was one more instance of the baneful effects of extravagance and lying. If he had been open on his return, the disgrace to himself, aud trouble to his family, would lmve been avoided. He told Boigard that thewatoh was his father's. That to evidenoe of n guilty mini He felt sorry to have to send him to prison, Mr Pownall applied that the accused might have the benefit of the Probation Act. He had never before been convicted of crime, His Worship said he would hold over sentenco until Tuesday next. He did not want to send him to gaol and would admit him to probation if a favorable report was received. He would take his father's bail in £ 100 as before for his appearance on Tuesday, Mr Thompson intimated through his solicitor, that the L 5 would bo immediately paid to Roigard by him. ASSAULT, In tho case Gifford v. Gurote, the assault was proved and accused was fined 5s and 9s costs.