RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 500, 6 May 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

"Wednesday, May 5. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Thomson Scott was charged with stealing a pair of trousers, the property of the Government, and some pairs of socks, the property of J. M'Guire, gaoler. Scott had been a prisoner in Westport gaol. When he was about to be discharged, his swag was searched and it was found to contain a pair of unbranded trousers, belonging to the gaol, and some socks, the private property of Mr M'Guire. His statement was that he had found the articles. He had at one time found a pair of trousers when out at work, but they were an old pair, and it was the evidence of Mr M'Guire that he had substituted the old pair for a new pair, which he put in his swag. The prisoner's statement was that the case had been " got up " against him. Hands were getting short in the gaol, and Mr M'Guire did not want to lose anybody. He had an opportunity of earning a few pounds, to take himself out of the colony, and "here they were, chaining him up again." TheMagistratesentenced the prisoner, who is an old offender, to three months' hard labor, and warned him that if he were again brought up on a similar charge, he would be sent for trial before the Supreme Court. ciyil cases. The Magistrate gave judgment in the civil case of Organ v. Ellis. This was an action brought on an accept-

ance by the defendant, the action being for the balance of the amount due. The only point of difficulty was the fact that the plaintiff, who was the holder of the bill, had received the bill after it was dishonored, and after £5 was paid to account. It was in order to consider this point that he had reserved his decision. He had considered the point, and he had no doubt that there was no defence in the case. There had been no evidence of any particular agreement between the defendant and the drawer of the bill. If there had been any agreement, the case would have been different. Judgment for the amount claimed. p i—. "WAEDEN'S COTJET.

ALLEGED APPEOPEIATION OF AMALGAM. On Tuesday, Dr Giles heard, in the Warden's Court, a complaint brought by Bartholomew Bruen against Edward Duffy. The parties had been joint claim-holders at Addison's Flat, and the complaint was that the defendant bad, while a co-partner, refused to account for a certain quantity of amalgam valued at £35.

Mr Pitt, who appeared for the complainant, said the only evidence he would be able to adduce would be more circumstantial than of a positive character ; and, although he had subpcanaed the defendant's brother, he could not expect to receive from him such evidence a3 he had been called to give. Batholomew Bruen, the complainant, said : The defendant and I were working together as mates at Addison's Flat, in the claim known as Younghusband's claim. "We had a very good prospect. On the 12th of April, we had nine or ten days' washing of the front bags. I proposed that we should amalgamate it by a machine wrought by hand, but Duffy proposed it should be wrought by wheel, and he had the machine altered so that that could be done. Duffy then proposed that while the amalgamator was at work, we should go to some ground on Dirty Mary's Flat, to which he said hehad'been "laid on" by a " towney " of his. I agreed to go with him, and I put the sand into the machine. It was an excellent sample. The silver, Duffy said, had been used twice before. "We could not keep the ravelling of the bag out without losing some of the gold, so we put it into the machine with the sand. About five o'clock he and I got to the ground which he had spoken of, and I prospected it, but I did not find the "color." On returning he went to the machine, and, on coming back, told me it was all right. He stopped with me that night till a quarter past twelve. At eight o'clock next morning he called me, and we went to the machine, which we found working. On opening it and examining the contents, it occurred to me that the sand was of a different kind, and on emptying it out, I found it was tail sand, and I found no trace of the bagging. I found the silver was also different silver—not so much worked as the other. Duffy said that a man named Swede and " Sailor Billy " must have stolen the amalgum. I charged Duffy with stealing the gold in the machine, as only he and I knew about it. I did not take it. To the best of my knowledge, there would be amalgum in the machine to the value of about £35.

By Mr Tyler, who appeared for the defendant: I repeat that I did not take the amalgam. I have been digging for about ten years, part of the time in Victoria. I was at "Wood's Point and Matlock, while there, and I have been at Fox's and Jones's, on this coast. I have never been charged with anything. I was never taxed with robbing a German at Matlock of £23. I was never suspected of burning a house down at Jones's. I never was suspected of stealing £ls at Fox's. I never was accused of stealing a single shilling. These are Duffy's slanders. It is false that, on coming to the Coast I did not pay my passage, and left my luggage, consisting of nothing but parcels of stones. The captain whom I came with, (Captain M'Phaiden) is here now, and can prove that to be false. Duffy told me that a friend of his, Hussy, had told him that on the ground we prospected there was twelve-months' work. I do not recollect of Duffy asking me to go and look at the amalgamator. He told me he was going to look at it, and afterwards told me it was all right. When we examined it together, it was I who said that either he or I had taken the gold. I have not been " joed " in Addison's Flat since the gold was stolen. It is not the belief that it was I who stole the gold. Eobert Duffy : I am eleven years of age. I am a brother of the defendant. My brother and Bruen were working together. I heard of amalgam being stolen. After it was stolen, Bruen asked me whether I was with Ned or Ben—my brothers—when they were taking the gold, and I said " No " and walked on. He did not ask me if I knew who had taken the gold, and I did not say that I did know. This concluded the evidence in support of the complaint. The Warden considered that it was unnecessary to go further into the case. There was no evidence to enable him to say that the defendant had taken the amalgam. Mr Pitt urged that, it being simply a civil prosecution, the Magistrate might call upon the defendant to rebut a, prima facie case. The Warden did not think that there was & prima facie case. He thought he would require aa clear evidence as

in a criminal court. Whatever legal shape the case might take, the question was, who stole the amalgam ? There was not evidence to fix the defendant, who denied it. It would be quite a waste of time to go any further with the case. Mr Tyler said if it had been thought necessary to go on with the case, his client would have been entirely exonerated, and suspicion would have been cast on the defendant. Mr Pitt objected to any assertion of what the defendant might have done. The Warden inquired if any witnesses had been subpoenaed to support the line of defence which had so far been taken, regarding the complainant's character and the credibility of his evidence. Mr Tyler said no witnesses had been subpoenaed. The Warden considered that the defendant was certainly not justified, without evidence, in instructing counsel to make such insinuations as had been made against the character of the complainant. He would certainly set his face against such a line of action.