RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON. [Before H.W.Northcroft, R.M., Esq., and His Worship the Mayor.] Stealing Apples.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1338, 27 January 1881, Page 2

RESIDE NT MA GIST R A TE'S COURT, HAMILTON. [Before H.W.Northcroft, R.M., Esq., and His Worship the Mayor.] Stealing Apples.

William Sutclifle, Samuel Rhodes, George Pctherill, and Edward Cooramns were charged on summons with having on Sunday, the 16th January. insL, stolon apples of the value of Is 6d, tho piopeity of Col. De Quincy — Soigfc. McGovem prosecuted, and the defendants who weio unrepresented by counsel, pleaded not guilty.— Sergt. McGovem btated that the tour defendants, who weie engaged on the bteamer Delta, had on tho day in questic n, borrowed Mr Cumming's boat and gone up tho liver. Ho then detai'cd the particulars of tho occurrence. He called, Mr W. Cummin?, who deposed that he knew the defendants by sight. The defendant, Pethenll came to his house in the forenoon of the 16th inst. and boi rowed his boatf or a pull, as the steamer boat was'nt large enough. Witness gave permission, but did not see the boat taken away or brought back. On the following day Col. De Quincy wrote to him complaining that lour men, who came in his boat, had robbed the wnter's orchard. Col. De Quincy deposed that he had an apple tree growing on his property near the bank ot the river which could be seen from the steamer. On Sunday the 16th, witness was standing near the river when he saw Mr Cumniing's boat approaching with tour men nf it. He suspected that they weie after the fruit, from a remark he had heaul made by some one on the steamer on the day ot the Cambridge races to this effect, " This is the apple tree. " He went to the house and bunging a boy with him proceeded towaids the tree, stationing the boy higher up the river. He saw the men plucking the apples, and diotui'bed them. He could swear to Sutclifto and Oooramns as being two, and to the bust of his belief the otliei two defendants were there. He caught Cooramns but let him go in order to see the others, and they all got away in the boat. He \alued the apples at Is «il. # William Honeybun, a servant in the employment of Lol De Quincy, remembered Sunday the 16th inst. On tint day he saw a Ijoat on the river with four persons in it. He was some distance off and he could not recognise any of the defendants. By the Bench — 1 was not near enough to the boat to be able to leeognisc any of the occupants Duncan Neilson dcoosed that he -was on the banks of the Waiuato river on the 16th. He saw Mr Cumunng's boat going up the river, but did not lecogm&e the occupants. He saw it coming bac'< and got a passage in it back to Hamilton. iSutchfi'e, .Rhodes, and Cooiamns wee in it, but he could not be sine about Pethenll. By the Bench — I cannot swear to Pethenll, but I think he ■was in the boat. This was the case tor the prosecution. For thy- defence, William Sntclifl'e, one of tho defendants, deposed that ho went up tho river, at Pethei ill's request, to get apples, but did noc leave the boat. They wont as tar as Colonel De Quincey's place ; made tho boat fast, and two went ashore — where he could not say. Piesently they came back runninsr, and got in tho boat, chafed by Colonel De Quinoy. Wituc-s asked Colonel De Quincy v/hat was the matter, and if the npplos were hi-.. Ho iep!iod that they would find out all about it. By Sergeant McGovern — Wo went up the i iver for the puiposo of setting applet*. To tho Bench —Tim other thieo defendants weie with me in the boat. .Samuel Rhodes gave similar evidence. He did not know they weie going for apples. By Sergeant McGovem — Petherill said they weie going for apples when they were half w.iy up. To tnc Bsncb — -I did not think it right to t'iko the apple?, and all of us, except Petheiill, wished to turn back. Edwaid Cooiamns gave evidence to the effect that he did not know they woie going for apples until half way up. After that, they all knew what they wure going for. George Petheiill deposed that it had been an tinged for some time previous that they should go for the apples, and it was at Sutcliffe's request that ho went for Mr Cumming'B boat. They had sepn the tree from the steamer often, and from the circumstance of its growing in the high titree did not think it belonged to anybody. Mr Northcroft said the Bench had agreed that as this was the first case of the kind whichjhad come before them, this season they would let them off with paying the value of the stolen property with costs. If, however, any similar case came before the Court ag^ain, he might tell them that a term of imprisonment would be inflioted,. , One of the defendants had endeavoured to shield himself by saying that he knew he was doing wrong and yet notwithstanding this he went for the apples. He might inform this individual that, had imprisonment been resorted to, in this instance, he would have got a fortnight more than the others, for dping what he knew to be wrong. The costs and value of the apples amounted to £3 11s, which was paid by the defendants.

Civil Cases. Mofflin r. W. Sanies'; claim £17, amount of judgment summons. Mr O'Neill for the plaintiff and Mr Hay for the debtor. The Bench made an order for the immediate payment of £9 7s, the balance, with costs, to be paid within a fortnight. — KiriMriroa "Highway Board v. Brock and Jones, claim £1, fcr ( rates; judgment for Board for' full amount and coats. — Same y, John Berrns, claim £l 15s ; judgment for B,oard with cdsts.^Same v. Egbert OlemmQW, elajm #2 18s Jld; judgment for Board.-rWillia'm Davis v.' W- Qandes, okim £1' 2& dd*;' 'judgment for plaintiff, with costs. — J. 3. Howe v. J; Williams, claim £1 2s '4d ; 'jttdgmentfor amount and costs. - ' ! ' ' "

, fN ; (3M)ja gigp q,re harnessed to small 1 jjijd'itjAdeJo dxeiyr ,then?,,» 3 tae Germans u^e tdpgB t dpg8 ift tjieip latgecitjas %t}4 viUagea todraw l%ai freights.