From Western Post: Wednesday, April 17, 1861 POLICE Friday, April 12 Before his Worship the Mayor, and Messrs MARLAY, LYONS and CADELL W NOONAN was charged with horse stealing. Constable MORAN said the prisoner was given into his custody for having in his possession a horse, the property of W RAYNER. He said he had exchanged it with a man named CLARKE, who gave him a receipt now produced. W RAYNER deposed that his brother saw the horse a little way out of town on Wednesday. He immediately went to the man and asked him how and where he had got it from; he said he had changed, and had a receipt for it. He then went for a policeman. He had last seen the horse about six months since. It is branded CC on near shoulder, one C in circle, No. 6 on near cheek, R No. 6 on off shoulder. They both claimed the horse, as he would not given it up he gave him into custody. Had never disposed of the horse. Mr BRODRIBB addressed the Bench on behalf of defendant, asking for a dismissal of the case on the ground that NOONAN had acted truthfully and honestly; that he had produced the receipt bearing the signature of a gentleman who is known to be a large stockholder. The Bench decided to adjourn the case till Tuesday week, in order to obtain the evidence of a party from beyond Wellington. The horse to be detained and NOONAN to be allowed bail. Joseph CURRAN was summoned for unlawfully rescuing three horses which were being driven to the pound for trespassing on the land of Mr BAYLY. Mr BAYLY consented to the case being dismissed on CURRAN paying the expenses. John MacMANUS was summoned for negligently losing a quantity of sheep the property of Mr COX. Mr G H COX said defendant was a shepherd hired on a written agreement about six years since, subsequently by verbal agreement. 26 sheep were lost in October and five more in March. The man was a very good servant, but unfortunately through a grog shop being near his hut he had neglected his flock, got drunk, and consequently lost his sheep. T DILLON, overseer to Mr COX proved the delivery of the flock and its deficiency. Mr COX wished to explain to the Bench that the man had been so long in their service that hey would not have summonedhim had he called for settlement, instead of which he took out a summons against his brother for wages. Mr COX then spoke to the shepherd and afterward informed the Court that they had arranged to settle the matter. The case against J C GARBUTT for charging excess of damages on six head of working bullocks, the property of W PEARSON, was settled out of Court. John Talbot WOODS was charged by Mr H TEBBUTT with breaking open a gate and entering into a goods store belonging to the Mudgee Emporium. Mr JAMES appeared for Mr TEBBUTT, Mr BRODRIBB for Mr WOODS. Mr TEBBUTT having been sworn, said that defendant did, on the 25th February, with the assistance of a youth of the name of BARKER, break down and destroy a gate belonging to his premises in Parry-street. Was present when WOODS commenced; told him that if he forced an entrance he should commence proceedings against him; after giving this caution he left, not wishing to have any words; had no doubt that had he resisted there would have breach of the peace; had they come to blows he would not say that he should have had the worst of it. Was not aware that WOODS had ever previously used the gate. The premises were his own, and WOODS had no right to be upon them. Could not say whether WOODS had any property within the gate. Cross-examined by Mr BRODRIBB: Believed there was some hay in the stable placed there by his partner, Mr GULLEY, consequently he (Mr TEBBUTT) had an interest in it, and would not allow a pound's worth of it to be taken away. Could not say what quantity of hay was there. The chain and lock were put on the gate when Mr GULLEY left the premises. Could not say in what position WOODS was acting; had seen an advertisement stating that he was manager. Moses BAILY said he was postmaster's assistant. On the 25th February WOODS asked him to open a gate belonging to a yard in Perry-street, which he refused to do. WOODS then broke it open, and shortly after took away two trusses of hay. TEBBUTT and GULLEY had been in the habit of taking goods through the gate. Did not know if Mr TEBBUTT had lately had the management of the Emporium. Did not trouble himself about Mr TEBBUTT's affairs. For the defence, F B GULLY said, since the 10th March, 1860, the business of the Emporium had been conducted by WOODS. There was a range of buildings in the yard which had always been sued for heavy goods, and which Mr WOODS had access to till Mr TEBBUTT fastened the gate; at the time Mr TEBBUTT fastened the gate there was hay in the store purchased by himself on account of Mr WOODS, as manager, who kept the key. Cross-examined by Mr JAMES: He gave WOODS possession of the whole of the premises and stock, Mr. TEBBUTT consenting. They were partners, but were not so any longer on account of both being insolvent; could hardly be considered friends after Mr TEBBUTT had, in his usual style, threatened to shoot him. Mr BRODRIBB was about putting another witness into the box, when the Bench said there was sufficient evidence for them to dismiss the case. In consequence of a remark made by Mr TEBBUTT, Mr BRODRIBB requested that the Bench would bind him over to keep the peace towards Mr WOODS, which they refused to do, saying they were sure, after the decision in this case and the fact that proceedings had been commenced in another Court, that Mr TEBBUTT would wait for the result. ***END*** Annette Piper Please note: Every effort has been to transcribe the above information correctly, however errors may have inadvertently been made. Spelling of surnames/places as appears in original.