RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 976, 22 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-day. I Before Joseph Beswick, Esq.,R.M. j Breach of Borough Byb-Laws.—R. Lancaster, James Digby, and George Par*

kin, were each fined sa, and Charles Ryle and Robert Todd 20s, 10s costs being added in the latter case, for breaches of Borough'bye-lawe. . Forging and Uttering.—A youth, - fifteen years of age, named Alfred 'Good* ger, was charged with forging and uttering: a cheque of the value of Ls.—Sergeant Felton said that the pri oner had made ' statement to the effect that he had forged ■ a .cheque, and had taken it to the Spread Eagle Hotel. The landlord, Mr Washer," I when requested by the constable, refused Ito uive any information whatever. ' It I was on the boy’s statement only that the' ‘ I charge was laid.—J. Washer aaid that the I boy came to his hotel with a cheque for* L 6, drawn on a man named Langley. Saw I prisoner write the cheque in a black* ' I smith’s shop, and he took it and threw it lin the fire. The reason he refused to give I Constable Neill any information was, be* I cause he thought that the proper place to I give his. evidence was in the Court The' I boy had . not been paid anything onf . I the cheque. His Worship said I that he could not see bow the case 1 could I be gone on with under the circumstances. 1 —l'he charge of forgery was therefore I withdrawn, and the prisoner was then I charged with attempting, on the 26th I May, to obtain the sum of L 5 by false I pretences from J. Washer, of the Spread,, I Eagle Hotel,—The evidence already given 1 I showed that he had presented a cheque I drawn on a man named Langley to 1 I Washer, and the latter had torn it up.— 11 I Constable Neill having deposed to having I arrested the prisoner, when he' made a statement to the effect that he had offered I the cheque to Washer, Sergeant Felton I gave the boy a bad chaincter, saying that i he had previously tak en , a way a horse and ■ I saddle from his employers, and had kept I it for three or four weeks.—The Bench I sentenced the prisoner to one month’s ■ ! imprisonment. I I (Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M:, 0. P. i I ;oox, Esq., andT. Bullock, Esq., J.P.’s.) I . False Pretences.—C. B. M. Branson 1 j was brought up on remand, charged with ' I Haying obtained two sums of LI and L 5 1 respectively, from Donald Forbes.—Mr 1 I E. G. Crisp appeared for the defendant ' I and pleaded not guilty. Mr Crisp sub* > mitted that as the present case arose out > of a case heard in this Court last Friday, ‘ J he thought that as his Worship had ’ decided in that matter and bad also made 1 I certain remarks concerning the present ' I accused. He brought this matter before : | the Court because he thought it is his ’ I duty to his client, as bis Worship might 3 1 consider himself biassed on account of 3 I having expressed that opinion.— His * Worship said that he had no doubt 3 on the matter, but ip anticipation 1 of what had been said he had sent round ■ I to ask their justices in the, town to ait. * I As to himself, he felt that he would be 1 I biassed, and he thought that it would ha 3 1 shirking his duty if he refused to go on 3 j with, the case. —J. M'Lean Dunn, being 3 1 sworn, said that he knew Donald Forbes M and also the accused. The latter came 1 I into witness’s office in the first week in 3 I April last. Received a paper from him I (produced), which was a receipt for 12s which he owed to the Lyttdton Times, and 8s cash. Forbes came to Witness’s office with Branson, and Forbes informed him, . I (witness) that he wanted LI to pay ad-' : r I cased on account of M‘Rao. Witi I ness said that as Branson owed I I the Lyttdton Times 12s he would ■ . give him cash for the money. —Orosaexamined; The receipt produced was } written iu witness’s presence/ and accused . gave it to be understood that he was oolletting Mcßae’s accounts. Forbes was > quite aware of the transaction, and was ; quite agreeable to it.—Sergeant Felton i said that he arrested accused on 15th r inst. on a warrant, when he said it was a . mistake as Mcßae owed him L 4, and had . i authorised him to collect that account. , Donald Forboa, contractor, living at Mount Somers, deposed that he knew the . , accused, and remembered him asking 1 , witness to pay an account owing to i Mcßae- as he was collecting for the latter. Said that he had no money with him at the time, but at the desire of accused he borrowed a pound of Mr Dunn. Both ; accused and witness went to Mr Dunn’s office, where the money was obtained,

and Branson was paid, but could not say positively if any receipt passed. Heard Dunn say something to Branson about money owing to the Lyttelton Times. Cross-examined : Was quite satisfied with what took place at the interview in Dunn’s office. It was against witness’s will that the case was gone on with. —To the Bench: Had been promised moaej if he (witness) would withdraw from the case. Cross-examination re umed : Could not remember whether the money passed through his hands at the interview in question, as witness was not “ quite right” that day. Saw accused last night, and then promised Branson that if there was no action taken against him (Forbes) for false imprisonment, and the money was made all right, he wonld not go on with the case. Branson said that it would be made all right.—To the Bench : Witness remembered going to Sergeant Felton’s house on the night aocused was arrested, and asking if the case could be withdrawn, and was answered that it could. Had gone to Branson’s house last night of his own free will, although that course had been suggested to him. —Re-examined : Accused had repudiated the suggestion that the case should not go on.—J. W. Mcßae saidthat he knew the accused, who was nqt authorised to collect money for him. Knew Donald Forbes, who owed witness money in April last, but Branson was not authorised to collect the account. Had not received LI from accused on account of Forbes.

Branson had kept witness’s books, and the latter had warned him long before April 6 not to collect any accounts for him. Did not know that the LI had been collected until after the summons was taken out against Forbes, when accused told witness that he had received L 5 from

Forbes, who would pay the balance 19a when he came to town. vVhen accused

was engaged to make up witness’s hooka he was specially cautioned not to collect accounts. —Cross-examined : Sid not wish the case gone on with. Knew accused only as a book keeper, though he believed he was also a general agent. Agreed to pay accused 30s a month, but could not when he was first engaged. Had paid him monthly up to the time of witness leaving the Somerset Stables. [The : ledger of the witness having been produced, he said that from this it appeared that accused did not keep the books previous to January.]—J. 0. Dun* can was then called, and, on referring if ,

the book, said that there was an entry in accused’s hand writing in September,

•nd he should say that Branson cemmenced in that month. James W. Mcßae, recalled, said that he • would not deny that accused was at work for- him in September. Disputed one item,' referring to posting up the books for three months, in the account produced. Not a day elapsed between the transference of the books from Mri Duncan to accused. Branson was indebted to witness in April, but he paid ,him' Cash on account of his (witness’s) )V softness. ” —J. 0. Duncan was re-called, -end stated .that he gave Jup the books in August, and they were posted up to date. . Bis-Worship sentenced the accused to three months imprisonment. ■ f CIVIL CASKS. : Sheppard v. Dale, claim of L 3 16s, for 'harvest work.—There was a cross-action Dale Sheppard, a claim of L7,'for damages - caused through Sheppard not carrying out his contract properly.—Mr Wilding appeared for Dale in both cases having- been given on both Iddes, the Bench said the case would be mat- by judgment for defendant being given in both instances. : Beckett v. Leddy.—ln this case, which Was heard last week, his Worship said that he had no doubt about the quantity Of grain that had been threshed. The balance of evidence as to custom was in favor of the plaintiff, and the only question was as to the time the machine was idle. He thought LI an hour too high, and he would deduct L 3 in all, and judgment would be given for plaintiff IorLS 18s.

Martin v. Garter, claim Ll 7 18s Id.— la this case' judgment went by default.