R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4446, 16 June 1893, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MdSTERTON—THURSDAY, (Beforo Messrs Woodroofe, Eton and Hughes, J.P.'s.) . SHOP LIFTIXO. Thomas MoEwen was charge with stealing a macintosh coat on Wednesday last fromthe shop oft), Smith, draper, of Mastelrton. - Henry James was charged with knowingly aiding and abetting in the same theft. Both the acoused wero undefended, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant. .McArdle pfecuted, and called the following evidence. Wtn, Warner,- assistant at the Wholesale Drapery Co, had seen the aocused. They were pointed out to ' him as being together when an oil- ■ " skin coat was taken from the 'door of the W.D.0,, and planted behind the gate at the BankofNew South Wnlns, The coat waß taken on Wednesday. He had seen both the aocused walking '• about the streets. ,H. M. Boddington said kftrf the accused James remove a j«y coat ; from the W.D,(Land plantitbehind Mr Tableau's gate. This was Bbortly after one o'clock on Wednesday.. Witness was coming out of tho house to go to school. The accused, McEwen,wasin frontofthe W.F.O.A'. by the chains at the time. Eobert G. Dixon, employed at the shop of Messrs C. Smith & Co., drapers, of Msstcrton, said that he ;; missed a macintosh ooat, the one pro* 'induced was tho coat missed. The selling price was £2 15j. He bad not given anyone permission to remove the coat. He had seen the ; : aceustd frequently passing along the street within the last few days. Wra. Shaw, general dealer, said he knew the accused, MoEwen, and about 5.16 p.m. yesterday, he purchased the macintosh produced from him, MoEwen said the coat, belonged to a friend of his Smith. He assured there was nothing sale of the coat. Some little time * ago a rug and pair of boots had been sold by the accused James. Witness gave 15s for the coat. He did not see Jamea about when the ooat was sold by MoEwen By the Benoh: It did not strike him as strange that he could buy tho coit for that money. Ho bad known the acoused MoEwen for five years, and. bad done business with bim, and had always found the man honest. Sergeant McArdle said that tho ■ polijflhadhad grounds-to keep a watoh on the two accused. They had no place of abode and they proved this by the admission of the acoused MoEwen who said " His swag was in the domain," Thoy had grounds to suspect that other articles had been stolen and sold, but they could not at present prove this, James had lately come from Wellington and be had been looked up for drunkenness in Ap.il last, MoEwen he did not know. McEwen told witness that the owner of the coat left beforo the accused had sold it. The accused, Jameß, denied previous convictions, and wanted to know where the Sergeant got the alias from. This the Sergeant conclusively proved from the Gazette. Constable Stewart said he had noticed-the acoused every day this week. They were always together about shop doors corroborated the statemeninade by Sergeant MoArdlo, This dosed the case for the prosecution, Henry James was further charged with stealing a rug, the property of 0. Smith, draper, of Musterton. He pleaded not guilty. Francis Wbitton, draper's aesist ant, said that on Tuesday last be found that a rug was missing, whioh had been hung at the door the previous day. The rug produced was the one missed from 0. Smith's shop. Wm. Shaw said that the acoused, MoEwen, had sold him the rug on account of James, Sergeant McArdle said this wna the first ho heard of the matter, and asked leave to auiend the informal ion so as to include the name of McEwen, The Benoh agreed, and the two aocused were then obarged with the offence. Both pleaded not gnilty, Continuing his evidouce, Shaw said that MoEwen came to tho shop with the rug on Tuesday, and said that it belonged to James, who had taken it out of hia swag. Ho gave six shil> lings to MoEwen for tho rug, Sergeant MoArdlo said that the swag belonging to James was brought to the police station by CukkVick- _ ering on Sunday wet " and muddy, and it was hardly likely that the rug produced conld have been in the swag when exposed to the weather of the past fow days, • The acoused MoEwen admitted selling the articles to Shaw, but lie had not stolen them. The acoused James said he had been drinking freely tho last few days and may have been rather conspicuous. This was tho reason that tho police were trying to trump up this charge against him, The Bench retired to consider tho evidence, and on resuming found both men guilty and sentenced Henry James to six months' hard labour on each charge, MoEwen was sentenced to ono month's imprisonment with hard labour-on each oharge, both sentences to be continuous. The Court condemned the practice of storekeepers putting goods outside their doors. Mr Shaw had^.^»y' thought, acted rather ing from strangers. He had the discretion whioh they thought'he should have done, Mr Bhaw : " Gentlemen, yoa are cautioning me against losing my own money," The prisoner James said again that the conviotions. registered in the gazette were not against him. Henry Jamea was further charged with stealing on or about the 20th May last, a pair of boots, the property of Joseph Carpenter. Accused ' pleaded not guilty. Joseph Carpenter and James Sillars, general dealer,gave evidence, but it was not conclusively proved thatthe prisoner James was the man who sold the boots to Sillars, -(Tbeseller gave the name of Edward James) and the Bench said they conThe Benoh asked Bergt,' McArdle to make strict enquiries from the. Governor of the gaol as to the iden-, lity of the prisoner James, who had so persistently denied that he was the man against whom the conviotions had been registered, The coat and • rug were restored to 0. Smith, and the boots to Mr Sillars. (Bofore T. Hutchison, R.M., and Messrs A. W. Renall and T. E. Price, J.P'i.) Pownall y. A, Sutherland, Claim £l9 14s 6d for professional services. The ; sum of £l6 was paid before the case camo on, judgment being given for balance of account with costs. . ■ J. J, Smith v. Benzie. Judgment summons. An order was made for the amount to be paid within Mveufajri, -

Smith v, Ruddick. This was a claim tor &i 3j 6d for advertising and «üb< sorlption to newspaper. The case was doaided some time ago in favor of plaintiff, but after repeated applications, bj Mr Bunny on behalf of defendant, a tohearing was granted. Mr Pownall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Bunny (instructed by Mr Gothard, of Woodville) for defendant. Mr Pownall explained the claim, and produced the written order for advertise' moot, and also a letter "admitting the contract, but slating that the amount had been paid. ;Mr Hutchison said ho saw by the cridonee taken at Woodville that the money had been paid under a distress warrant. He therefore did not see Mr Bunny's object in applying for n re-hoaiing, as even if jrSjjfoent wete given in his favor ha would To no better off, Mr Bunny said ho was lighting the case on principle. If judgment was given for his client they could buo Mr Smith for the amount paid. His Worship said ho did not think that money paid under legal procoss, as in the presont instance, could be reoavercd, lie was, however, merely ask. ing Mr Bunny's object, and was prepared to hear the evidence. _ J. J. Smith, plaintiff, gave evidenco iDJWiort of.his claim. TfAlurdoch, plaintiff's agent, qave evidewtotho effect that he obtained the signed Order for the advertisement and made the contract for the supply of papers. Kuddiclc had not paid the amount alleged. Had seon Kuddick that morning and in the courso of conversation, Ruddick admitted havingttade a mistake in stating he had paid £3 to witness. Before leaving the boi witness said he should like to ask tho Court to impound an affidavit, in which it was stated that the £3 had been paid to him by Kuddick. Bis Worship said he had not seon tho lOidavit alluded to. It wa3 not filed with the papers alluding to tho case. Mr Bunny said that all along he lad boon led to bclievo that liuddick had paid Murdoch the money. Ruddick was in Masterton and he oxpoctcd lie would have b»en present to give evidence. After further argument from counsel, the Bench gave judgment for plaintiff (Smith) with costs £slos.