R. v. ©. Goon, Dartmouth.
being drunk and assaulting him while in the Defendant was charged by P. C. 18 with execution of his duty in Hongkew.
The constable stated that there number of men quarrelling in the road, and he told them to move on and not quarrel, upon which the prisoner turned round and struck him, His Worsurr fined the defendant $5.
May 15th. Capt. Gresox v. War, Camtut, 8.8, Yentai, Refusat of duty.
Gxonox Caantes, the second engineer, said he ordered the men to turn to yesterday, after dinner, but defendant, who was under influence of liquor, refused to doo. He red the fact to the chief.
defendant, who made no excuse, was ordered. to pay costs and to forfeit two days pay.
May 19. Drunkenness, Anumber of drunken cases were disposed of this morning. The persons charged with the offence were:—Cardel, seaman, discharged Win. Jones, seaman, discharged; John Black, seaman, and J. Sparkes, a second ateward,—the former discharged, the latter fined $1; WW. MeFarline, an engineer, fined $5.
R. (R. Phoenix) v, D. Kenway; Acantha, Assault.
The complainant, who is the marshal at the U. 8. Consulate, not appearing, the case was dismissed, May 20. R. v. Joux Loox.
Disorderly conduct.
Defendant, a marine on board H.M.S. Cadmus, was charged with kicking open the door ofa Chinaman's store on the French Concession, Complainant stated that defendant came to his house at 12 last night, and wanted some ''Old Tom," and because he did not open the door, kicked it violently, breaking His Worsutp fined the defendant $4; one dollar of which was to go to the complainant, May 21.
A. Suverrnorve v. M. Martrs, Laree The summons eh the accused with that he, between the lst March and 18th April, did unlawfully steal from the premises lately occupied by him, No. 11, Seward Road, cooking range, of the goods and chattels of Alfred Silverthorne.
Accusep denied the charge.
Comrcatsaxr sworn, said, about twenty months ago Mr. Martin came to hin: and told him he was hard up and pushed for money, and he would probably have to sell off his fu ture and send his wife home. We said it would take Ts. 2,400 to clear off his liabilities. Complainant said he would consider the matter; and on the following day agreed to lend h this amount on a bill' of sale furniture, &c. Mr. Martin drew out what he called a bill of sale, but which he (Complainant) could consider only in the light of an acknowledgment. At the same time Mr. Martin said he might possibly be in a position to repay the amount in two or three months, but preferred to make the bill of sale up to twelve months, when he was sure of being able to pay it.' Com. applied several times for the money, but could not get it; and some time in August last year, Mr. Martin, at his request, handed him a bill of sale, properly drawn out, and which he had had stamped and registered at the Consular The Dill of sale included household chattel (an inventory was attached to it),—and also Mr, Martin's share in the interests of the company carrying on business under the name of Compton and Ca., of which he was a partner. He had great difficulty in obtaining this document, but determined upon having it, as the loan had been made in August, 1872, and was payable in August, 1873. The amount he had received from Mr. Martin For the" rest, with Tis, 40, interest and was Tls. 100, he giving him a promissory note payable on the lst March, 1874. In the i ventory was an item "one kitchen range and on the Ist April, in consequence. of the default in payment, he took charge of Mr. Martin's premises, and caused the things to be sold by public auction, supposing that the said range would be sold with the rest. He had seen it on the premises previously; when the auction took place he was unavoidably absent on account of illness, but after the auction, in consequence of information he received, be went to sce Mr. Martin, to ask him why the range, included in the bill of sale, was not sold, and' why another smaller one place. He replied, "Oh, would only have fetched Complainant said, but still m which ought to have been tchis account, and told him the stove was not the only thing he had prevented being sold. In consequence of this, he had deter: minded to charge Mr. Martin with Iureeny.
Complainant was then examined by the acgused. He said—I received a security from you but Ido not consider ita bill of sale. I did keep it, but only as an acknowledgement, I received' the proceeds of the sale. Had there been tire stoves on the premises I ought to have had them. Idid not go aver the house and take an inventory of the things. I considered the bill of sale was supposed to be a ien on all the furniture. I suppose the stove was removed from the premises between the 10th and the 18th April. The sale was over when I received the first information from the auctioneer. I do not recollect when I called upon you a few days ago that you told me I was not entitled to that particular stove.
Trices, sworn, said—I am Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co.'s auctioneer. Iremember receiving instructions from Mr. Silverthorne to sell the effects in the house No. 11, Seward Road. My clerk made an inventory of the furniture. I went through the house previously to the sale, and natived the kitchen range. Ib was not sold by me. There were two stoves,—one, a large and valuable one, fixed against the wall, and the other a small one, broken and damaged, in the centre of the kitchen, Isold the latter. I remember as ing Mr, Martin if the large one wae not to be sold. He replied, no. The sale took place on the 10th April, and no one moved the large stove by our instructions. statement I have wade to his Worship. 1 To Complainaut.—I gave you just the same
cannot say whether the stove I sold was or was nota kitchen range—that is difficult to define, I suppose we called ita cooking stove, To Acousedl-—Leanuot say whether you did or did not add that the large stove was not in the bill of sale, but you may have done so.
J. Bartey, Mr. Robinson's clerk, said he had been an occasional visitor to Mr. Martin's house. He recollected the bill of sale being drawn up. He witnessed its execution, To the best of his belief there was at the time a handsome cooking range in the Louse.
To Accused.—You might or you might not have had half a dozen stoves. I did not go through the house. 1 was there about last August, not since, the Court.—The range I have noticed there was certainly not an all cooking range, I considered it a very handsome stove.
Wa. A. L. Saxpers, Custom's Examiner, said he now occupied the house No. 11 Seward Road. He took possession on the 15th April, and a stove was taken away by Mr. Martin's coolies about three or four dave afterwards.
ACCUSED, to save the time of the Court, admitted the possession of the stove, He had it now at his house. He then went on to state that when the bill of sale was drawn up in 1872, he had a stove which he had bought of Messrs. Muller and Fisher for Tis, 45. During the twelve mouths which elapsed beween then and when Mr. Silverthorne next for his money, he purchased another stove for $100, and this being more serviceable, be put the other one in the back yard, He considered that complainant. was not en titled to the new stove, but only to the, one he had in his possession at the time the bill of sale was made, It was quite true that he had told complainant that the stove would have only fetched is. 15. His furniture, he considered, was only sacrificed. to the charge, he had not attempted to hide the fact from anybody. The stove remained in the house for eight days after the sale, and he had not stolen it away.
His Wonsurr said the charge against the accused was that of theft. Ca mine that out, a criminal intent is necessary; but in this case accused's explanation, which was a reasonable one, shewed that there was no fraudulent intent in his mind. His explana ation was that though he admitted complain. ant's Tien on a cooking range, he imagined ad he bad therefore directed the auctioneer (rightly or wrongly) it was not on ti one,
not to sell it.
Mr. Sinvertuo! said he considered the bill of sale made in '73 was entirely a new one, the first one being voi His Worsuir went on, that if he was trying a civil question for the value of the stove in dispute, instead of trying a criminal charge, he should very likely see his way to decide that the Kitchen range in question was the tone that the prosecutor was entitled to under. the bill of sale, but as it was, he required a great deal more evidence to satisfy him that the accused had removed the stove with the intend to defraud. Complainant had made out a prima facie case, but with the explanation of the accused, that fell to the ground, and he must dismiss the charge.
Mr. Marrix.—It la very hard, your Worship, that I should be brought up here on a charge of this nature. Have I no redress His Worsusr.—You must take your own steps about that; I do not think you have.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.