10 December 1888: Her racing ability unaffected and New Plymouth learnt  Mr Barnards mare Mermaid had won the handicap hack race with an impost of 6st 10lb at the Wellington Island Bay Meeting.

 

1889 - 7 January: The Metropolitan Club looked at the protest against Paradox in the Maiden Plate in light of a request from Mr Barnard to lighten the period of his disqualification was refused, but the committee decided to reduce the jockey Underwood's disqualification from twelve to three months

 

1890 - 11 June: The winning payments when toted up at the Auckland Winter Meeting amounted to £636 10s. The principal sum was paid to Mr Barnard, £256 10s. His horse Jenny left via the Manukau to-day to fulfil engagements at Napier and she is selected for the Wellington Steeplechase meeting in June.

 

1891 Page 27 – Police Gazette 1891 - Suspected of Larceny - Stolen between 3 pm and 3.30 pm on the 27th instant from an open safe in the Taranaki Council Chamber, New Plymouth, 20 1 Pound notes, bank and numbers unknown and a sovereign, the property of James Brown Lawson, County Clerk and stolen during his absence for about 20 minutes. Suspicion attached to William Barnard who was in the chamber shortly before the theft. Description - English, a butcher, about 40 years of age, about 5 ft 8" in height, medium build, fresh complexion, brown beard, whiskers and mustache, keeps race horses, fond of drink, resides in New Plymouth.

 

1891- 14 July: Newspaper Headlines right throughout New Zealand!!  William Barnard , a well-known sporting man and owner of the well known steeplechase mare Jenny, had been arrested for the alleged theft of a leg of mutton a sheep's pluck, (heart, liver and lungs) and some saltpetre from the Taranaki Meat Bazaar owned by William Bayly all valued at about 3s 6d Also with stealing the sum of £3 from the till at the Prince of Wales Hotel, Bell Block on May 25th

 

Gustavus Sole, butcher with a  business in Devon-street, said he remembered that Barnard had come to their shop between 5 and 6 o'clock on the evening of July 13, and talked in a casual way. He bought nothing and was carrying a kit and left the shop about 6 o'clock. He returned about a quarter past 6, and got his horse. When last seen, Barnard was three parts drunk, and smelt of liquor.  

William Bayly said he knew the William Barnard and he who had no right to enter his shop after it was closed.

Sergt. Duffin said after the doctor had finished dressing his head at the station, William Barnard voluntarily said 'I’ll tell the truth - I  knew where the key was kept on the ledge. I went in to got a bit of dog's meat, and I took the leg of mutton." He did not notice any appearance of drunkenness on accused but might have taken a little drink. Accused appeared rather dazed.

 

Cross-examination by defence Mr Hughes: Mr Barnard is a married man. The accused's house was searched the same evening accused was arrested but nothing incriminating was found on his premises.

William Barnard when asked, said "I have nothing to say, your Worships; I reserve my defence." He was formally committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in October. Bail was applied for under the same sureties, Messrs M. Cunningham and Jas. Hooker. Police suggested the question of bail might be allowed to stand over as another case against accused was to be heard. The Court then adjourned and  resumed at 2 o'clock

 

Afternoon Session:  William Barnard was charged with stealing on May 25, the sum of £3 from the till of the Prince of Wales Hotel, at Bell Block. Mr Hughes asked for an adjournment in order that he could get time to look into the case as the police had only notified him just yesterday. No objection was made to an adjournment till Monday

 

1891- 27 July: THE TROUBLES OF A SPORTING MAN - ALLEGED STEALING FROM  A DWELLING. William Barnard, the well-known sporting man, was charged with stealing £3 from the till of the Prince of Wales Hotel, Bell Block, on May 25th last.

Police said Mr White was a publican at Bell Block and on May 25th, the day of the races, Barnard and others came to the hotel, and had a drink, inside the bar.

Witness Helen White said she was wife of Charles White and they managed the Prince of Wales Hotel at Bell Block. She returned from the Bell Block races between 6 and 7 o'clock on May 25 and went inside the bar to serve customers. Her son Charles was in charge of the bar. The till was in the back of the bar with a little box inside (produced). She saw accused standing with his back to the till behind the counter. She put some silver in the till while accused was standing there and estimated there to be about £3 worth of silver in the till and when she put in some silver later that evening the compartment was nearly full. The accused had an opportunity of seeing the money when she opened the till. Not long after, Barnard left to go to the taproom, She went to the till and the money was all gone, except a small sum. She did not suspect the accused at the time, so said nothing to him about the matter.

She later had reason to suspect him from something which came to her knowledge, so, a fortnight after the money loss, she met Barnard in New Plymouth, and asked “Mr Barnard, what are you going to do about the money?" He replied, "Well, I'm going to pay you." She did not think any amount was mentioned. She asked him "When?" and he replied, "I'm going out for a load of straw, out your way, and then I'll call and pay it." She said, "That won't do, you must send the money out to-day." He said that if he saw her before she went from town he would give it to her. She did not see him after - the money referred to was the money missed from the till.

 

Defence lawyer Hughes in cross-examination said: There were three or four other people behind the bar besides William Barnard, her son, and herself. She never saw Charles Colson, William Northcote or Frank Solway or Mr Yates behind the bar, could not say who they were or could not tell exactly how long they remained behind the bar. When she came in she objected to their being there, and as far as she could tell they all went out of the bar together. She could not say if the others stayed behind the bar some time after Barnard left - she only remembered Mr. Barnard from among those who were behind the bar. Her daughter-in-law was staying in the house and was also behind the bar but could not say if Mrs George was in the bar when accused was there. She had attended the bar during the day, but they relieved her in the evening. Mr Barnard did not "shout" for the ladies behind the bar and she never served him with a drink. He was not “skylarking" with the ladies behind the bar, and had never heard any laughing. She and son were engaged in serving customers and her husband busy on the racecourse was not in the bar. Her son would have a right to take money out, or put it in the till. After accused left the bar she did not see him again that night. The place closed at 10 o'clock.

Barnard had an interview with her husband, but she did not know what they spoke about. She was busy at the time, and did not take any notice of  Barnard. She did not say to Barnard on that occasion that there was £1 lost, perhaps £1 10s, but if he paid £2 we would not say any more about it. She had served Mr. Barnard with a drink that day he came  to see her husband. Mr Robert Snell was in the hotel at the time. She was told that a party saw Barnard take the money.

Witness said she did not speak to Barnard about the money missed as she had reason to suspect him, and left the matter to her husband, who spoke to Barnard. She had also asked Barnard to account for a bottle of brandy, which he had in his possession on May 25 on the racecourse, as she had missed one from the race booth. Barnard said he had bought the brandy at the booth but she was not satisfied with his answer and suspected that he had stolen it. He said he had bought two shillings worth at the booth, and filled the bottle up with water. Edward Bullot was barman at the booth on the racecourse. When she saw Barnard in town she took him to Bullot who was in the street, and asked him if he had sold Barnard a bottle of brandy from the booth, and Bullot said no. Barnard then asked Bullot if he bought 2s worth, and Bullot,  replied that he had. The bottle of brandy in question Barnard brought into the hotel at Bell Block, and gave the contents to natives and others, who were there.

 

Charles White, sen., stated he was owner of the Prince of Wales Hotel, at Bell Block. The license was in his son's name. When he came home from the racecourse on May 25th he saw Barnard behind the bar. Messrs Solway, Yates, and Mesdames Smith and Aubrey were also behind the bar. Shortly afterwards he saw Barnard in the dining-room and he left a little after ten o'clock. He next saw him about three days after at the hotel - he had not sent for him. Barnard came out  and asked him what he (Barnard) had done on the night of the races. White said his wife had missed some money, and Barnard said he was sure that he never took it. He told Barnard that Mr Charles Colson had told him that he had seen him with his hand in the till. Barnard  said he could not remember anything about it, and did not know what he had done. White said that the money was gone, and Barnard said that when he had a glass of drink he did not know what he did. He asked witness how much was gone, and witness said "between £2 and £3," Barnard then stated that he would give witness £2 back. White got £2 from Mr Samuel Rundle, on June 6th. The Court adjourned.

 

Thursday Oct. 8: SUPREME COURT.— Criminal Sittings. ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING William Barnard pleaded not guilty. Mr Govett appeared for the Crown, and Mr Jellicoe for the accused. The jury was sworn in.

In evidence for the Crown, Gustavus Sole, butcher said Barnard had a kit when he saw him - he believed him well drunk.

William Bayly the owner of the Taranaki Meat Bazaar said no one but an employee had a right to go to his shop after it was shut up. After his arrest - about two or three days after being let out on bail, Barnard and his wife came to his house and asked him to intercede for him, and said he must have been drunk when he entered the shop. He said he would not unduly press the case, but would now have to do justice. He wished now to say that he bought a business from Barnard about three years ago, and he believed Barnard kept it for about a week for him, that a cart Barnard lent him was burnt in a fire at his slaughterhouse, and Barnard made no claim. They had had many business transactions - the balance of their transactions was in his (Bayley's) favour to the extent of about £5.

Sergt. Duffin stated that when Barnard was in the Police Station on July 13 he remarked "I'll tell the truth about the affair. I went into tho shop to got a bit of dog's meat, and took the leg of mutton."

There was acrimony between William's defence counsel Mr Jellicoe and His Honour Justice E T Conolly who found fault with Jellicoe and threatened him with contempt of court stating he was the sole judge of this Court and its proceedings, and not the jury! The discussion ceased, and Mr Jellicoe wound-up his address for the defence in about five minutes. 

His Honor said the facts of the case were in a nutshell, however it had taken up much time. The chief witness was Constable Scully, whom counsel for defence had devoted half of his address in abuse. He had not only hinted that the constable had perjured himself, but that he had planted the leg of mutton in a kit. There was nothing to warrant such inferences. With respect to the scuffle between accused and Constable Scully, His Honor said that perhaps the constable was not justified in striking Barnard with the stick, and possibly Scully would be punished for assault if he had been brought up for it - but it had nothing to do with the case. With regard to the way the constable had given his evidence under cross-examination, His Honor said that under the circumstances the constable got irritable, and with good reason, on account of the way he was cross-questioned. His Honor added that he hardly believed the learned counsel was conscious of the way he attacked witnesses and persons, or the disrespect he showed to the Court.  His Honor then concluded his remarks on the evidence, and the jury retired to consider their verdict.

The jury retired at 5 o'clock and returned into Court at 8 o'clock with a verdict of not guilty.

8 Oct 1891: SUPREME COURT: His Honor, addressing the Grand Jury, said :—

Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — The case of breaking and entering a butcher's shop and stealing meat, is very clear indeed. The other charge the prisoner is charged with, has circumstances which are very peculiar, and would require the fullest attention of the jury. The prisoner was charged with stealing money from the till of the Prince of Wales Hotel, at Bell Block, on May 25th. On that day there were races at Bell Block, and after the races a number of persons assembled at the hotel, and some, who appeared to have no right, got behind the bar, among them being accused. The till was placed at the back of the bar, and not under the counter. From the evidence it appeared that the till, during the evening, was opened twice, and it then contained a quantity of silver, estimated at between £2 and £3. Subsequently the till was found to be empty. At this time the prisoner had left the bar, and was in an adjoining room playing cards. The money was missed between 6 and 7 o'clock, and prisoner did not leave the hotel till closing up time, yet nothing was said of the robbery then, which was peculiar as the money was missed in the early part of the evening. A few days after this the prisoner heard some report about his being suspected apparently, for he voluntarily went to the father of the landlord, and asked him about the report, and stated that rather than there should be trouble over the affair he would pay the £2. About fourteen days after this the mother of the landlord met accused in town and asked him what he was going to do about the money. Accused replied that he would pay what he had promised, and he subsequently sent the money by a friend. That  was on June 6, and no proceedings had taken place, it appearing as if the persons having recovered their money did not intend to further trouble about the matter. Nothing further was heard of the matter till July 23, when the police laid an information against the accused for stealing. His Honor then referred to the evidence in the case. The evidence was to a certain extant suspicion, the only corroborative evidence being that of a witness, who stated he saw the accused with his hands in the till in the early part of the evening. This witness, however, did not appear to have informed anyone of what he saw. On the whole, the case was one which the Grand Jury would have to carefully consider.

Crown Prosecutor Mr Gavett then intimated that he would not proceed with the charge of larceny against the prisoner, but would enter a nolle prosequi.  

It was decided to empanel a jury which was done. Mr Govett said he tendered no evidence. His Honor directed tho jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty. The jury did so, and Barnard was discharged from custody.