MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 288, 29 August 1908, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W; P. James, S.M.) MORE COMFORTABLE IN GAOL. An elderly woman named Jessie M'Ewan pleaded not guilty (1) to a charge of importuning, and (2), to being a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the Police Offences Act, 1884, in that she has insufficient lawful means of support, and has been previously convicted of being an idle and disorderly person. Accused said she had work to go to, and pleaded hard for another chance. His Worship .considered it would be a charity to send accused to gaol. She would probably be more comfortable there.' On the first charge she was convicted and discharged, and on the second charge was sentenced to sis months' imprisonment.

, A SKELETON KEY. A young man named Joseph M'Coy, alias Porcy Fagal, alias King Peter, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, on August 27, been found-at night with a house-break-ing instrument, to wit, iv skeleton key, in his possession. Evidence was given by the police that accused was seen in Ouba Street between 11.30. and midnight on Thursday coming out of an alleyway between Mr. Goldwater's jeweller's shop and Mr. Shand's stationer's shop. Accused went up the street, and when' he came back a constable interrogated him and asked hira if he had any objection to being searched..' Accused made np objection, and jnst a3 ho was about to be searched tho constable noticed the skeleton key,..produced fall to the ground. Thero wero several previous convictions against accused. The key was tried on several doorsj which it opened with easo.. , ... . A sentenco of four months' imprisonment with hard labour was imposed.

PROHIBITED PERSONS. Agnes Kidd was convicted and fined 20s. and costs 75., in default seven days' imprisonment, for having entered licensed : premises during the currency of a prohibition order. Christina Duncan'was, similarly fined on a similar charge. Annie. Irvine pleaded not guilty to a charge of procuring .liquor for Christina Duncan, knowing, her to bo a prohibited person. The information was dismissed; but a prohibition order, to have 12 months' currency in the Wellington, Hutt, and Newtown districts, was ordered to issue against defendant.. "L.

THE SCAFFOLDING ACT. Harry Spire Powell "pleaded guilty to two separate charges of" having failed to serve written notice on the "inspector of scaffolding of accidents'which occurred on a building in course of erection, of which defendant was in charge. A fine of 10s. was imposed in each case, costs amounting to 265. being allowed.' Mr. Luckie appeared for defendant.' —: MISCELLANEOUS • John Ferguson , pleaded guilty to a charge' of having on August 20 used threatening behaviour in Taranaki Street, whereby a breach of the peaco was occasioned. A conviction and: fine of 20s. and costs 175., imdefault seven days' imprisonment, was ontored. •' . James Henry, Browing and: Edwin . Foulds, charged with insobriety, were-each convicted and fined 10s., with» tho-alternative of 48 hours' imprisonment. ■ • - •John Fleming, similarly charged on remand, was further remanded until August 31. Two first offenders' wero convicted and fined 55., in default 2-1 hours' imprisonment. • ■

John Reed was convicted. and fined 205., in dofault seven days! imprisonment, .for-, in? sobriety. Tho same defendant was. sentenced to seven days' imprisonment-on a-charge of indecency. , ... , An elderly man named .John Mffler...was charged (1) with .insobriety and. (2) with procuring liquor during the. currency of a prohibition order. Defendant pleaded, guilty to both charges, and was reihanded.for medical treatment. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for tho defence. ' . . ~ - ' David Matheson Nicholson appeared in answer to a charge of being the. putative father of a cortain child, and . having failed to make provision for the maintenance of the same. A remand was granted until September 4 to enable inquiries to be made. Bail was allowed, accused in the sum of £20 and one surety of £20. Henry Graham, charged with having on August 18, at Kilbirnie, unlawfully assaulted Peter Murphy, was convicted and fined 405., and costs 245., in default 14 days' imprisonment. On a second charge of having used obscene languago the samo defendant was convicted and fined 205.-,. and costs 135., in default seven days' imprisonment, the sentences to bo cumulative. . . •

CIVII; BUSINESS.'

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) CATERER AND COOK. A PECULIAR .CASE. Leo De Laval sued Edward John Searl for £9, balance of wages alleged to be due. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was engaged by defendant as a cook at £3 ss. per week, and continued in Searl's employ from Juno 21, 1908, to July 21, 1908. Ho claimed for four weeks and three days' 6alary at £3 ss. per week, £14 Bs., less £5 Bs. paid on account, leaving a balance of £9 owing. Mr. Toogood- appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Dunn for defendant. Plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, alleged that defendant called him in to his office to sign the wages book, and with the intention of paying him his wages. When witness had signed tho book defendant turned to hint and handrngjaior^s.^^onnedj

plaintiff that he had got his money. AVifcness never received tho money other than ftho 6s. To Mr. Dunn: "Witness had drawn small -sums from Searl, but his wages had not I)een paid regularly. Ho had not told any.' '35? ho had . been paid up by Searl.. .Witness had drawn several sums of 55., which . had been paid out;of tho cash registers Archibald A. Whitelaw, stereotyper, stated that he went into Searl's shop,on July 22 and heard plaintiff call out excitedly. Plain-' tiff' Wanted witness to search him, but witness did not do so, telling the man to wait until a policeman came along. De Laval had 6s. in his hand, and when a policeman came , along witness caUed him. De Laval was duly, searched as he requested. Atthe ■ the constable the three men went upstairs toSearl's office, and asked him to explain mat- ! ters. Searl produced the. wages book bear-' ing five' signatures. De Laval said he had £9 6s. duo to him, and had, only received.' 6s. The five signatures. appeared to have just; been. written, and - Searl said he had' paid Do Laval £1 Bs. due, and showed the signature. By Mr. .Dunn: Witness looked at the-blotting-paper and found the mark of £1. •85.,. but it ..did not appear to be in the position corresponding with -th 6 entry in' tho book. t ■•'••; Constable Havolock deposed that he was', called into Searl's restaurant ■ on July. 22.'. Witness searched Do Laval, even to taking' off his boots and socks, and found only-6s; > on him. De Laval said he had signed for five amounts at the same time, and witness ' looked for the five signatures and- found them. They all appeared 1 to be fresh and signed:at the same time.-'/iWitness saw De Laval'standing at the door- of'the restaurant for about five or seven minutes, and was confident that he never left tho premises. A search of the premises did not reveal any, money planted. Edward John Searl, caterer, stated that De Laval was employed by him as chief cook. Do Laval left witness's employment on July. 21, on which date witness owed him £1 Bs., all tho other wages having been paid up. ! Do Laval made drawings on his wages occasionally, and when he signed for his'wages ho would get the weekly amonht, less any advances ho had been given during the week, • Tho day before De Laval left he drew 10s. from witnesses son, which ■ was the only amount in plaintiff's statement that was correct: -Tho same day De Laval wanted more money, and witness-paid him for-the balance of. the week, getting his signature to-the pay- - ment. On the morning in question witness, paid the .balance due, £1-Bs., and plaintiff signed the wages book. -Witness's son came into the room whilst"De -Laval was -there, and a Miss Williams also came and asked 1 witness if ho was engaged. The lady, waited outsido-tho door. De Laval appeared to be satisfied,* and. as bo went out just before midday witness advised him to go and see a Mr. itead about a. bicycle he (plaintiff) was buying. About 12.20 tho constable, De Laval, and Mr. Whitelaw came upstairs. The con-, stable asked witness what he had paid De Laval, and witness told him £1' Bs. • The constable said Do Laval had told him 'he only got 65., whereas he should havo got £9. The constable also said he had searched De. Laval, and only found 6s. Witness produced the cash book and wages book and explained, to. both tho constablo . and Whitelaw the method of paying wages and the entries' through the cash book, tracing-two other sets \ of wages through. De Laval also examinedthe boobs. The blotter was examined by , Whitelaw, who found.tho £1.85., but no sig-,. natures. Tho blotter produced in Court was tho one used at the time, and it had never been used or torn since. Tho constable wasinformed that he. could take away any of the books, ctc., but ho replied that it did not matter, it was only a question of who was speaking tho truth. It would bo a simple matter for anyone leaving witness's room to . get rid of the money on tho way to' the front shop. Evidenco was also given in support • of what defendant stated by Pearl Williams, John Wm. Reid, and Percy and Geo; Soarl, His Worship reserved his decision.