DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4986, 27 March 1895, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON.—WEDNESDAY,

(Before His Honor Mr District Judgo Martin). Tho W&irarapa District Court

opened at Mastorton this morning jjbefoi'o His Honor Mr District Judge WMartin. Tho first caso taken was tfaut of Welch and others v. Ah Lop, claim £2OO damages for malicious prosecution. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr lluniiy for defendant. The following jury was empanelled Messrs R. J. Harcombe, Norman Winstanley, William Budd, and R. J. Dagg. Mr Pownall for plaintiffs, stated tho facta on which the claim is based, on circumstances arising out of tho alleged trespass and larceny ease, which occupied the S.M. Court some time ago, and which was fully reported at the time. Mr Pownall contended that the matter of trespass wns not in itself of so grave a nature as a charge of tlioft, and although men Were oharged with a minor offence, it was no reason that a much graver charge should have been preferred without reasonable ground, which he would be able to show there had not been. The charge had been so plainly unfounded that it had beon dismissed withoutcalling on any

defence. Other people had been « tho shop as woll as the persons arged, and the evidenco would show that defendant had not left his shop as alleged; there had been no attempt to "square" the case; and in fact no theft at all. Against two of the defendants, Wilton and King, the case of trespress had even been dismissed as it was admitted these two had not been in the shop. How then could they possibly be charged with theft, If the defendants had wished to robdefendant it was strange that a pound note only should have been taken and all the silver left. Herbert Henry Welch, farmer, of Opuki, one of the plaintiffs in the present action, said he had been charged with trespassing on the premises of Ah Lop, with others. On this charge hehad been fined £2, but tho second charge of theft, was dismissed without evidence being called for the defence. He had not seen the contents of Ah Lop's till, and knew nothing whatever about the £1 note alleged to be missing. Others persons were in the shop including Greathead, McCorkendale, «d Reynolds, He could state disctly that Ah Lop had not left his shop during the time defendant was present, John Burgoyne Emraett, compositor, co-plaintiff in thepresent action, stated that he only knew the position of the till from Ah Lop's evidence in the previous case. He had not token the £1 note, and was positive his companions could not have taken it without him seeing them, Was on the premises about a quarter of an hour. Used Ah Lop's knife to cut up a melon, but 6aw the Btring cannister for the first timowhen it was produced in Court. Heard that Ah Lop intended to prosecute him, and went to the shop to onquiro into the matter, when he was informed by Ah Lop that he was to be summoned for trespass and theft. Mr Peat went to see Ah Lop about the matter, but it was not with the consent of witness. Witness never asked Ah Lop to stop proceedings, or said he would sec that £Le matter was squared. vfCross-oxamined. by Mr Bunny, witneSa stated that he had only spent one shilling that evening. Had no idea of the whereabouts of the till, and did not tako the money. One customer came iu whilst he was in the shop, but witness did not notice where tta Chinaput tho change, Was not in the shop while the Chinaman went into the back of his premises. Would swear that he had not asked Mr Peat to plead with tho Chinaman on his behalf, In fact he had not, at that time, mentioned the matter to him.

Witness, in answer to a question from His Honor, said he had been out of work at his trade, for some time, but had sufficient inherited property to live 011 in the meantime. F. H. Ibbetson, Clerk of Court, was called to show the records taken in the previous informations against Messrs Wrigley, Welch, and Emmott, showing that all three had been convicted and fined, [Leit Sum]