RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume I, Issue 39, 10 August 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

—o — Wednesday, August 3, 1870. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) The Court was occupied for several hours in investigating a chargo of OBTAINING GOODS BV FALSE PRETENCES. Joseph Gibb, carpenter, of Logantown, Bendigo Gully, was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining goods, by means of false proteuces, from Josiah Mitchinson, of the firm of Mitchinsou and Harrison, storekeepers, Bendigo. Mounted-Constable Smith conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. In answer to the Bench, the acaused pleaded "Not Guilty." The following evidence was taken :

Josiah Mitchinson, storekeeper, Bendigo Gully, deposed : I am one of the firm of Mitchinson and Harrison, carrying on business at Bendigo Gully. I know tho accused, Joseph Gibb. I first bocame acquainted with him sometime in December,. 1869. I supplied him with gioceries and building materials for a cottage, up to the 25th March last. On that date, be owed me £25 93 6d. He did work to me to the value of £l6 10s, leaving a balance against him of £3 19s 6d. I refused to supply him, after this time, w Ith any more goods on credit. On the night of the 16th July last, about 11 o'clock, I was in Goodall's Hotel, which is close to our store. The accused came in, and said to mo, " I wish to sea you on business." I told him it was rather late, and declined. He kept pressing mo, and at last I consented, and wont with him to our store. He said, " I want soma goods ;' telling me that ho had been working for Alldrcad and party for a month, but that he could not get bis money, as they, meaning the shareholders, had not sold their gold, and he would give me an order upon Alldread. He told mo that AUdread and party owed him ona month's wa<;es, less one day, altogether amounting to £ls 6s Bd. Upon this statement, 1 allowed him to have goods to tho amount of £l4 Is. At the request of accuse I, I wrote out an order upon W. Alldread, "to pay Mitchinson and Harrison tho sum of £ls 6s 8d on my account ;" and this order he signed in my presence—" Joseph Gibb." The document produced, marked A by tho Court, is the one that I filled in at tho request of the accused, and which he gave to me. If it had not been for the statement of the accuse 1, th it Aldrea 1 owed him £ls 6s Sd for I would not have given him those goods. I knew that t\v. accuse 1 had been in the employment of Aldread. but could not say for what period. On the following day, -Sunday, the 17th July, I wont to Aldread, an 1 asked hi.n if the order was correct; and he said, No, that he had setiled with the accused. I immediately went to the accused, and told him that Aldread refused to cash the order The accused then said words to the effect that they owed him the money, and ho would summon them for it. I asked him to come with me to Alldread, and he did so ; but as we were passing Matheson's hut —Matheson is the manager in the party—that gentleman came out, and accused addressed him. The order was shown to Mr Matheson, and Gibb said it was the only order he acknowledged. Mr Matheson said it would be paid. We then Went to Aldread's hut. Aldread was there The accused said to him, " I have got my order cashed." Ho ronlied, "I have paid you, and won't be responsible for a shilling." I had previously shown Aldread the order. The accused said that he would not acknowledge the orders he had previously given. When I got the order from Gibb, he gave me a receipt to to Alldread. Tho contents of that receipt were, " Received payment to the amount of £ls 6s Bd," and was signed "J. Gibb." Cross-examine I by accused : J am not aware that, when yon tj.ave me the order, you asked me for cash. I did not say that times were too bad, and that I would only give you goods for tho order. I did not say that I would let you have the goods on credit until the company had a washing-up: I gave you the goods on the of the order you gave me. W hen on our road to Aldread's, you proposed to go and see Matheson. You did go to Matheson's door, and knock, while 1 stood at a distance. You offered to Mr Matheson, in my presence, to see mo paid.—Prisoner : " Did I not offer to work in the claim for one month as a security to you, to allow me time to summon Alldread ?" Witness : " I do not remember anything of the sort. You told me you would work for a month, but of course I did not know whether they had work for you or not." You sold me a house for £25 ; and I have the receipt for the money at home, but not with me.

William Alldread, miuer, residing at Ben.ligo Gully, be'tiT sworn, said : I know the accused. He worked for me in my claim for a month, ■with the exception of one day, previous to the 16th of July last. The accused aske I me on that day, the 16th, to settle his account. I promised to go to his house, and I went that night. It was about 7 o'clock when I got there. I told the accused I hail received an order from Hamilton, drawn out by him, for the amount of £6 10s. The accused said that the order by mistake was draw a for ten shillings too much. The accused said not to pay more than £6 on the order. I told him that I had received the message. I told him, as I owed him more than the amount of the order, I had paid it, and that he and Hamilton must rectify the mistake themselves. It was eventually arranged that the order for £6 10s should stand. We then agr:.d upon the balance due to him, amounting to £8 16s Bd. I told the accused I could not give him cash, but that if he would accept an order upon Smith and O'Donnell, I would give him one. He said ".Very well," and accepted the terms. I wrote out an order. The one marked C by the Court is the one. I then asked the accused for a receipt in full for his wages, and he gave me one for £ls 6s Sd. The receipt marked Bis tho one he gave me, and that receipt was to the effect that I had paid him in full for the whola amount of his wages. The accused and I went to Smith and O'Donnell's about 8 o'clock p.m., and while in the store, accused asked me to let him look at the receipt he had given me. I took the receipt out, and the accused snatched it out of my hand. O'Donnell and the accused were wrangling about some previous debts, and I did not succeed in getting the receipt back. After I gave the accused the order marked C he had no authority for drawing; any order upon me, as I should not cash it. The order marked Dby the Court, and for the amount of £6los, is dated 4th July, signed by Joseph Gibbs, the accused. I paid that order on the sth July last. By the accused : " Did you receive a message from ltip, before you saw the order, not to cash it?'' Witness: "No; but I was to pay only £6." Prisoner: "Did you not say that you would pay tho man that was working in the claim ?" Witness : " I said that I would rather pay you in cash."

Charles O'Donnoll, storekeeper, Bendigo Gully, deposed: I am one of tho firm of Smith and O'Donnell. I know the accused. On Saturday night, the 16th July, between 8 and 9 o'clock, he camo into our store. I am certain it was not past 9. He asked for 6 lbs. of sugar. I got a baj to put it in for him, and he presented an

order upon*ouf by Wm. Alldrcad, for £8 His. Cd. marked 0, is tho one. 1 satistieclpKo order, and told the accused that, as he was indebted to us for £9 Bs. Gd , I would give him credit for tho amount. Tho acousod said to me that it must bo half cash, but I did not agree to any such thing. By tho Bench.—l kept possession of the order. I hold Alldread liable for the amount.

Thomas M. Smith, police-constable, stationed at Cromwell, deposed : On the 20th of July last I went to tho house of the accused. Accused was either in the back room or outside tho back door. As I entered, he ran away. This was about half-past 7 in the evening. I again went to his house about 2 o'clock on the following morning. I arrested him in his house. I cautioned him in the usual manner. The accused gave up to me a number of articles of wearing apparel, such as shirts, &c., which he told mo he had got from Mr Mitchinson; as also tho suit of clothes he had on. He told mo that his wife's parents lived near Dunedin, ami that ho didn't care if ho got a month or two for it. He did not deny that he had got those goods. Cross-examined by Prisoner.—The first timo I went to your house, I went with Mr Mitchinson. T did not go into tho parlour. This was the case for the prosecution. In answer to the Bench, the prisoner said he would reserve his defence.

His Worship committed the prisoner to take his trial at the ensuing Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court, to be holden at Dunedin ou the sth September. The prisoner requested that his family might 1)0 looked after ; and his Wore! in promised to see that their necessities wore relieved without delay. [The five witnesses, whose evidence is given above, afterwards entered into recognizances to attend at the Supreme Court on the sth prox.] CIVIL CASES. Saxe v. Cowan.—A rehearing of this caso had been asked for and granted on tho preceding Court-day, to enable the defendant to call wit° nesses. The plaintiff sued for payment of extra work performed in tho erection of a fence which he had agreed to put up for defendant at the rate of £8 10s. per mile.—Frederick C. Saxe, the plaintiff, said that according to his measurement he hid completed 6$ miles of fencing, and had lost much time through having to carry the material a long distance down the hi'l towards the Nevis Gorge, as also in consequence of having to send to the Ivawarau Station for a supply of lacing-wire. The contract was completed on the 15uh of June, but was not inspected by Mr Oowan until the lGth of July. [By permission of the Bench, the plaintiff read a statement of the grounds upon which lie based his claim, and of the disadvantages with which he had had to contend in performing the contract.] —Henry Burns, who was a partner of last witness in the fencing contract, was examined ; but his evidence was given in a manner so stolid and surly that his Worship ordered him to be locked up until the rising of the Court, when he would be further dealt with.—Mr Brough, who appeared on behalf of Mr Oowan, contended that the contractors had not adhered to the Hue pegged out for their guidance in putting up the fence, and the result was that extra labour was involved in the p n-tage of material.—James Cowan, manager of Kawarau Station, deposed that he had inspected the fence, with the exception of about a mile on the Nevis side of the Carrick Ran«e. Portions of tho work were passable, but other portions he would not take off any one's hand.— Robert Stuart, manager of Hawkdun Station, * aid he had seen the fence, and it certainly deviated frjtn the Hue markel out, and which he himself had laid oif. The contractors had deviated more than was necos.sajy. A great portion of the fence he would not take off any one's hand : it was not a sheep-proof fence at all. It would cost, he thought, from £7 to £lO to put the fence in proper order! In answer to plaintiff, he said contractors were liable for damage done until the job was taken off their hands. ~ William Fraser, runholder, had seen a portion of the fence, some parts of which were done well, but at other par is tho wires were not properly laced.—Robert Scott, shepherd on Kawarau Station, said he had measured the fence and found it to be six miles and twenty-two chains in length. Several portions of it we're not sheepproof. Burns was with him when he measured it, and they concurred as to the length completed.—Zephaniah Blandy, bullock-driver, said he had tftkeu tho contract to lay down the wire and standards for the fence, and had stuck to the line as near as possible. The wire used for lacing the fence, as he had told Saxe, was the " trumperyist d a thing he ever seen."—Mr Brough said he thought it was sufficiently proved by the evidence that tho contract had not been properly performed ; and he would ask his Worship, before giving judgment for the plaintiff, to make him put the fence in an efficient condition. —His Worship remarked that both parties were in fault, and, considering the loose way in which the specification was draw .1 up, it was not surprising that a dispute should have arisen. On the one hand, it was satisfactorily proved that the feice was not properly put up ; and on the other, the defendant had failed to examine the fence without delay after its completion. He would make no reduction in the claim on account of the present condition of the fence, but would give judgment for plaintiff ; i the sum of £ls 13s. 5d., with 353. costs.

Edward M'Loughlin v. F. C. Lyons.— Claim, £6 for days' hire of a horso, at 15s. a day. Defendant put in a bill o f £3 ss. for horse-feed. Mr Brough for plaintiff.—E. M'Loiiortilin, baker, deposed that he hired a horse to defendant on the Sfch July, and it was not returned until the 15th. Defendant had on a previous occasion paid him los. for a day's horse-hire.—Henry Newmarsh, baker, and a partner with plaintiff, stated that defendant had asked hmi to make a reduction in the charge, but he had declined. Frank Foote, livery stable-keeper, (who was called by the defendant), said that he usually charged the Chinese £2 10s. for a week's horsehire, but the charge depended a good deal upon the work. In the case of a man hiring a horso for two or three days, he would perhaps charge only 10s. a day ; certainly he would not chargo any one 15s. a day if he hired a horse for two or three days—it wouldn't be fair.—His Worship gave judgment for 15s. for the first day, and 10s. per day for the remainder of the time ; together with 13s. costs of Court. The plaintiff would have to pay his own costs. Police v. Box.—Mrs Ann Box was charged, on the information of Constable Smith, with having on the 10th of July sold or permittod to be sold certain adulterate*! liquors to William Ben, a miner. Defendant pleaded '' Not guilty." —William Ben, residing at Smith's Gully, Bannockburn, sta'ed that he went to defendant's house on tho afternoon of Saturday, lGth July, and remained there till next day (Sunday). He only had thre? drinks whilo in the place, and those were braiidy and oin. He became unconscious at about nine o'clock on Saturday night, and when ho came to his senses he felt very 5 ill. Defendant did not serve him with any drinks. She asked hi n to have some tea and milk.—Dr Corse, bom'.,' sworn, stated that lie was called to attend William Bon at about three o'clock on tho Sunday morning, when he found him in a

state of Byii&Wgpbvfcctly unconscious. Aftor medicine had ifSgi administered, there was a frothy mucus about tho mouth. Tho patient vomited, and nicotine was porcopfciblo in tho mucus. Nicotine would dissolve either in water or alcohol. Witness believed that tho man's life was endangered through imbibing soino villainous compound. There Wore three men in tho placo at the time of witness' visit, and two of them were drunk,—John Woodward, minor, Bannookbum, (called by tho defendant), doposed that he wont to Mrs Box's between eight and nine o'clock on Saturday evening, the 10th July, and found Ben suffering from griping pains, Ho was sick at that timo, but not unconscious. Saw him take one nobbier of gin. Offered him some brandy, but he wouldn't drink it. Gave him mustard and water to ease the pain. Had seen a great many men drugged at various times, but had never seon any one in the same state as Bon was on that night.—Mrs Box (to Ben) : Was it my drink that made you bad, Mr Ben?— Ben: I couldn't say, ma'am. —His Worship said it was not necossary to prolong the inquiry: tho evidence was insufficient to bring the charge homo to the defendant.—Constable Smith stated that he had brought the case forward in order to doter publicans from drugging their drink. He would certainly oppose the renewal of Mrs Box's license on tho next animal licensing day. —His Worship cautioned the defendant, and dismissed the case. The application of Mr Robert Kidd, for permission to have music and dancing in the Oon-cert-hall on Wednesday and Saturday evenings, was refused [No business of importance was transacted in the Warden's Court on Wednesday.]