RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 362, 2 April 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CLYDE.

Wednesday, March 24. Courtney v. Napier. This was an information laid by D. Courtney, the Bailiff of the Court against Charles Napier for having assaulted him in the execution of his duty. Mr. Bailey stated that he had been request fed to appear on behalf of the defendant. Mr. Vincent Pyke said, that it was his painful duty to inform Mr. Bailey that an objection had been taken to his appearing in either civil or criminal cases in Court, which objection he, Mr. Pyke was compelled to sustain—The words of the Act being as follows : “It shall be lawful for the party to any suit or proceeding to be taken under this Act to appear and act personally or by a Barri-ter or Solicitor of the Supreme Court and not otherwise, provided that under special circumstances the Court may permit any party to appear by an Agent authorised in writing, not being a Barrister or Solicitor, but such Agent shall not be entitled to receive any fee or reward for so appearing or acting.” Mr. Brough expressed his willingness to waive the objection with regard to the present case, as he was anxious to avoid the possibility of any inconvenience being suffered by the defendant, Napier. The case was then proceeded with. It appeared from the evidence that an assault had been committed, and the defendant was fined 40s. and costs.

An information had also been laid against the wife of the above named defendant for a similar offence. The evidence was the same as in the former case. Mr. Vincent Pyke expressed his determination to support the officers in the execution of their duty, but taking all the-facts into consideration, he dismissed the defendant with a caution.

Robert Littleoot was charged by Sergeant Thompson with having no sufficient visible lawful means of support. Mr. Brough who appeared for the prisoner contende I that the charge could not be sustained on the following ground, viz. —That the prisoner, who was in February last sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for obtaining money by a fraudulent representation, had on Saturday last been discharged from custody, but before he had left the precincts of the gaol, had been rearrested on the present charge, and that thereby ho, the prisoner had been by the action taken by the police deprived of the opportunity of obtaining employment, although he was most anxious to do so. Mr. Brough added that if the police were to be allowed to arrest a man on such a frivolous charge as the present one, and any man seeking employment and travelling from place to place with the view of obtaining a situation might be placed in a similar position to that now occupied by the prisoner. Mr. Vincent Pyke held that the charge could not bo sustained and the prisoner was accordingly discharged. On leaving the Court-house however, Robert Lillicot was again arrested, and brought before the Magistrate, charged by Sergeant Thompson, with having by means of a fraudulent representation, obt’.inedthe sum of £3 from Mr. George Stephenson of Alexandra. Mr. Brough appeared for the prisoner. From the evidence of Mr. Stephenson, it appeared that on or about the day of February last, the accused called at the Bank of New Zealand at Alexandra, and presented an Order drawn by himself on Mr. Beighton, a storekeeper at the Teviot, representing himself as being in Mr. Beighton’s employment, and authorised to draw upon him for the amount named, in consequence of which statement, Mr. Stephenson was induced to give him the cash. There was no evidence of the Order ever having been presented for payment and dishonored, and Mr, Brough contended that in the absence of such evidence there was not a prima facie case against the prisoner, and he urged that the charge must be dismissed. Sergeant Thompson stated that by Tuesday next, he could secure Mr. Beighton’s attendance, and asked for a remand. The case was then adjourned until that day, the Magistrate refusing to admit the accused to bail. March 30.

re Robert Littlecot. Remanded from Wednesday last. Mr. Brough appeared for the prisoner, and said that before the case went any further, he would point out to the Bench what he considered would be a fatal objection. The Section of the Vagrant Act under which the information was laid, was aimed at a class of persons familiarly known as Begging Letter Impostors Who made use of a fraudulent representation “ with the view ” of obtaining money, such offenders would be properly chargeable under the Vagrant Act, but in the case now pending, it had been clearly proved that a certain sum “ had actually been obtained by the accused, consequently the prisoner would be guilty of a misdemeanor, which could not be dealt with in that Court. Mr. Vincent Pyke declined to adopt that view of the law. Mr. Beighton was then examined, and deposed that the prisoner had been in his employment as storeman for about six months. That there was an account still unsettled between himself and the prisoner who was indebted to him to the extent of between £lO and £2O. That he had in his possession a horse, saddle and bridle, which he held as security for the sum owing, and that he had given the accused no authority to draw upon him. On cross examination by Mr. Brough, he admitted that he had not realised the security in his possession. In reply to a question as to whether the prisoner had ever drawn upoij him previously, he stated that he could opt recollect his ever having done so, but be. would not swear that he had not. It was also admitted that the accused had written to the witness advising

him of his having drawn upon him and rcquesting him to pay it on presentation. Mr. H. C. Jones was then called to prove the presentation of the Order and its dishonor. This closed the casd for the prosecution. Mr. Brough in addressing the Bench on behalf of the prisoner said, with regard to the information now laid against the prison or, it must be clearly proved that the money had been obtained with intent to defraud. His employer had property belonging to the accused in his possession, which was still unsold, and he might rer • sonably have believed that although he had no authority to draw, yet that taking all the circumstances into consideration, his draft would have been honored ; moreover the fact of the accused having written, advising Mr. Beighton of his having drawn upon him, was in itself evidence that at the time when the Order was given to Mr. Stephenson, the prisoner could have had intent to defraud, and that the present charge must fall to the ground. Mr. Vincent Pyke addressing the accused rsraarked that he had had a very narrow escape, and he advised him to adopt a different course of life for the future, and not to bring disgrace upon himself and all connected with him. The prisoner was then, discharged. CROMWELL. March 31. This was an information laid by Sergeant Cassels against Qui Lem, alias Oh Wong for having no visible means of support. Mr. Brough defended the prisoner. The prisoner w r as sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labor. Ah Moa another Chinaman, was also charged by Sergeint Cassells with hav ing on the 28th day of February last, by means of certain false representations—to wit, by selling one pennyweight and twelve grains of spurious gold, obtained from one Charles O’ Donnell a sum of sterling money Mr. Brough defended the prisoner. Chas. O’Donnell on being sworn said, —I know the prisoner, ho came to my store on the 2Sth February last; b« wanted to sell some gold, I handed him the blower, he emptied the gold into it. I looked at the gold, the prisoner then said “ For what you look ” I said I did not fancy the look of it. He said he would not sell such a small quantity as that, unless it was good. I bought the gold and paid for it. I took it to the hank at Cromwell on March Sth, and on presenting it to Mr. Preshaw, I told him that I had suspicion of it. On cross examination said, the appearance of the gold was such, that I could not tell whether it was good or bad. I sold the gold to the Bank of Now South Wales, but I cannot remember what I got for it. I cannot say whether I gave more than five shillings for it. I cai - not say whether I have lost anything by the transaction or not. The case thus completely broke down, and the prisoner was discharged. The prisoner was again arrestol on a charge of vagrancy, and remanded till next Court day