TE AROHA.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2706, 14 November 1889, Page 2

TE AROHA.

R.M. CoariT. —The usual fortnightlysitting of this Court took place on Tuesday, Mr Northcroft li. AX. presiding. Judgment wns Riven in several small debt cast's, after which the Court was occupied most of the day in hearing a case of allowed .stealing a silver chain, valued 12s (3d, from the shop of Mr Albert Merger, watchmaker. The accused, ij'rank Hotehin, a bright intelligent looking lad, between ]r> and 1(5 years of age, appeared in answer to the charge, and was represented by Sir \V. Wasteneyn, who, before proceeding with the case, drew the attention of the R.M. to a defect in tha information, but they had no desire to take advantage of this, as they wanted to meet the case fully on its merits, All witnesses were ordered out of Court, and Sersreant Kmerson briefly stated the case as follows: —Accused went to Berger's shop on October 20th, and asked him for a bar for his chain. Berger stated he recognise! the chain as part of the goods stolen from his shop in May last. They subsequently went to see Mrs Hotehin the boy's mother who stated that she had had the chain in her possession about two years. Mr Berger being quite satisfied that it was the chain he had in his shop the information was laid. Mr Berger on being sworn, described the. occasion of accused's visit to his shop, when ho wanted a bar for a silver chain--a common bar. He took the watch from the pocket of accused and held the chain in his hand, remarking it was a silver chain ; the boy did not object and remarked it was not stamped. He then asked where the boy had bought the chain, to which the boy replied, ho had got it from chap for a debt, could not tell the name of the person but it happened over two years ago. He (Mr Berger), did not ask any more questions then, as from his thirty years' experience as a jeweller he thought he had seen enough. Ho then went for the sergeant who accompanied him to the house of the boy's father. When ho saw the boy again he had a steel chain on. Accused then in reply to the sergeant, stated he had given the chain back to his mother and fetched it from her. They then saw Mrs Hotehin, who stated she had taken the chain in question along with a watch and greenstone for a debt about two years ago, but she did not know the name of the person who gave it to her. The sergeant then asked for and obtained possession of the chain, Mrs Hotehin stating she had no objection to give it up to the iv.lira, but she was very angry with him (Berger), saying lie should have gone to her instead of to tho sergeant. Witness minutely described tha chain, which he said had been in his pos-ses-ion for upwards of four years. 'J hero was no particular mark lie could identify the chain by, but having the chain so long under his eyes ho was sure it was part of the stolen goods. (Chain produced and identified by witnps-.) There was a small parcel of jewellery left after the robbery at Hotel) ill's place. Constable Wild had showed it to him. (Contents described and produced along with a scrap of paper, signed "'.lack the Ripper.") In reply to Sir W. Wasteueys, witness said lie bought the chain about four years ago from Mr Kins.', of Duniiirigliaiii and King, Auckland. Witness swore absolutely it was the same chain, but it might have lost one length. Louis l'ietri, flax-cutter, gave evidence that lie purchased n silver chain about 15 months ago from Mr Berger, but not being satisfied with it returned it- to Berger three days afterwards, and bought a steel chain instead, Berger paying him the difference, lie did not think he would know the chain again. His objection to it was that it did not hang evenly. Cham produced, but witness could nut swear it was the same, as he only hud it in his possession two or three days. John Shiel and Nicholas Kenny were also examined, but could not identify it as the chain Pietri had bought. Sir W. Wasteueys then addressed the Court, and took exception to a remark made by the I'.M. that he had wasted any time of the Court unduly and unjustly. That rested with the accused, who had brought a most serious charge, unsupported by any evidence, against a boy of unimpeachable character, a son of one of tho most respectable and well-to-do townsmen in To Arolia. Tho prosecution was (said tho Counsel) of a most infamous character, and he could bring half of the residents of Te Aroha to refute the chargo.—The accused, in examination. stated lie had received the chain as a present from his mother about two years ago, along with a watch and greenstone. Believed his mother took them for a debt about that time from a man who had stopped in the house and was hard up and wanted to get to Rotorua. Have worn the chain often, and did nut attempt to hide it when he went to Berbers'* for a bar for it. bought a steel chain at Bill ekes', intending to remove the bar from it, but did not have time to do so then, having to meet the train. —Moses Hotehin, father of the lad, gave evidence that he bought the chain in question along with a watch and greenstone, from a man from the Thames, aud who had stopped at his boarding-house for a night about two years ago. He did not care to buy them, as all his boys had watches and chains, but the man pressed him and he gave him £], on the understanding if the money was not repaid in two or three months he was to retain them as his absolute property, Berger (added the witness) never had the chain in question in his possession in his life.—Mrs Hochin gave corroborative evidence, and at this stage (although there was a troop of other witnesses for the defence who were not called) the charge was dismissed.