RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Thursday, September 2nd, 1875. (Before W. N. Searancke, Esq., R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume IX, Issue 515, 7 September 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Thursday, September 2nd, 1875. (Before W. N. Searancke, Esq., R.M.)

Alexander Mack r ell was brought up oa remand, charged with stealing 12 gold rings and two rolls of ribbon, value £10. Mr Madden appeared for the prisoner. John Houghton deposed : I know the prisoner. I missed otlior things but the riogs and ribbon. I aid not then blame the prisoner. Cross examined by Mr Madden : I had suspicions but kept my counsel to mjself. I always considered the prisoner an honest man. He was in my employ since Alaroh last. I missed the rings about a week ago. I behere it was* my son who told me about them. I did not blame tht prisoner then, but I communicated with the police. I first suspected the prisoner because I thought his expenditure was greater than his income. He nerer told me that he got money irotn England, 1 engaged the prisoner m r

chemist and grocer. Re had access to other parti of the shop beside* the chemistry and grocery. 1 allowed him to sell drapery. I know that this ribbon was not sold to Mr* Mackrell, because no one could roll it up but a draper. I recognised the ribbon by* the mark, "A.e.'arkandBon, Auckland." Prisoner did not retvu? to allow bis bouso to bo Kwrchod. Ho said h* could account for al). I found the ribbon £ * fe* auaoogat som* rubbith. I did not'oharge M-r* Maekrell with making be quent visits to xny glass c«se. I win not ,-wear that I did not say £• ,\ dl * n ot say in Walker's Hotel, that I woaia not touch, the prisoner, bat if I could do against hi » wife I would. I may ha*«r" JKf »• ' • * wiu not ' wear « * »»" not foundL that I could not tell whether the case containing the rings was closed or not. « R. Houghton, son of last witness, deposed : I missed the rings on a Saturday. Mr Mackrell first missed the rings and asked mo if I had removed them. I said I had not, and told my father. The rings have not been foand in prisoner s possession. Mr Mackrell and I got on pretty well in the shop. I recognise the ribbon. I do not know how many yards were in the piece OrOs--exatnined by Mr Madden :— I may hare nuljl ribbon to Mrs Maokrell. Ido not remember selling her cuff* and collars, but I may h»ve done so. Prisoner could not hare sold her the ribbon without asking the price. He may hare done so. I cannot remember whether or not he has ever sold ribbon. He has sold ribbon to the natives, by the yard. Mr Ellis' s label * with the number of yards may have been on this ribbon. My father did say that he did not know whether he had left the case open 01 not. I don't remember selling any velvet to Mrs Mackrell sometime ago. les, I sold brown velvet. Prisoner had access to all parts of the shop. I believe he asked me whether I blamed bun for the rings, and I told him to be easy about it, m I did not. I did not blame anyone, elae. I did not mention a second party whom I suspected, (Name produced on paper) I did say I could not get that' person out of my mind. I once thought I lost some flannel, but my father had sold it. My brother Charles was in the shop at times and sold. The witness was only with great difficuttv induced to answer questions, Robert Coleman, deposed : I know prisoner. I was living in prisoner's home. I did not see the rings. I was present when the house was searched. Prisoner did not resist the search. He looked faintiih. One time he went out, and I asked him to remain where he was. He only said to ask Mr Houghton not to prosecute. He did not admit guilt to me. Mrs Coltmau, deposed : I lived in the house with prisoner and his wife He told m» as my wedding ring was too large, Mr Houghton could change it for me. Prisoner appeared agitated when the house was searched. He asked my husband to request Mr Houghton not to prosecute. I never saw the rings in the houseMr Mad<len said before he addressed the Court he would ask his Worship to rule whether there was sufficient evidence to go before a jury, a* this case, if the Court considered t ( iat a prirna facie case had been made out, must be sent to a higher Court, lie contended that the rings had not been traced to the prisoner, and the law insisted that all evidence ought to bo coadtuive in a case of larceny, and that the prisoner should receive the benefit of all doubts. The Court, after reading over the depositions ruled that the case had not been proved to its satisfaction. The rings had not been traced and the erideuce was insufficient with regard to the ribbon to secure a conviction. The prisoner was therefore discharged. There was applause in the Court, when the decision waa announced. [ The above was crowded out of our issue of Saturday.]