RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1920, 1 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day,

(Before James Fulton, Esq,, R.M.)

WUI.N ICKN X ESS. Jane Cloud and William Stephens were each fined 20s, or in default 48 hours’ imprisonment, for this offence. / EMBEZZLEMENT. / Francis Cogan was charged hy Mr Wm. Strachan, brewer, with embezzling cei/ain sums of money. * Mr Strachan said he entered Lis employ as collector on the 21st April last, /nd remained in Ids employ to the 2Sih /if that month. His duties were to tal ek orders, collect accounts in the country,/ud to account for the money received hy Aim when he returned to town. He ae/o anted for many sums of money but there were several accounts receive/ by him of which he gave no account. / The account presented represented an account amounting to L 27 10s, owing by Mr Barr of Baldutba, /

part of which the prisoner had received, but for which lie had not accounted. It was not due, bub the receipt acknowledging the payment was in the prisoner s handwriting. The account against Mr D, Scotb for Ls° 10s, for a hogshead of ale, was also receipted by the prisoner ; but he never ac counted for the money so received. An entry in the book produced, which was kept by the prisoner, represented the receipt by him of a sum of money from Mr Jenkins, Springbauk. The entry, which was in the prisoner’s handwriting, was as follows : “Jenkins, Spriugbank, cash 1.8, April ‘2l. On the Saturday previous to his arrest, Wifc- | rmss saw the prisoner, and asked him if he had accounted f>r all the moneys he had received. He replied that he had. Witness then asked him with reference to the LS. He said that he thought it was a mistake ; if he had received it he must have entered it into one book or another.

Robert Kilgour, clerk to the first witness, to whom the prisoner had to account on his return for the sums received by him, produced the accounts of Messrs Barr, Jenkins, ami duly receipted by the prisoner, who had never accounted to him for the sums so received.

John Jenkins, landlord of the Spriugbank Hotel, East Taieri, stated that about the end of April the prisoner called upon him, and obtained the sum of L 5 10s from him on account of Mr Strachan.

John Barr, landlord of the Crown Hotel, Balchitha, deposed to having paid the prisoner Ll6 10s, on account of Mr Strachan, on the 28th of May. The prisoner, having reserved his defence, was committed for trial at the ensuing sessions of the Supreme Court. ASSAULT. John Beid, merchant, was charged with having assaulted George Forster, a license I cab driver, at Caver-ham, on the 2(itb nit. Mr Wilson appeared for the complainant, and Mr Macassey for the defriidant. At about six o’clock on the evening in question, the complainant, who is the driver of a two horse coach on the Caversham road, was landing i ome passengers near the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, when the defendant and Mr Jago, who were both on horseback, came up. The defendant passed by the coach, striking the complainant, who was seated on the box, on the face with his whip, remarking at the time that he (complainant) was on the wrong side of the road. Mr Macassey said that the defendant did not deny having struck the complainant, but the assault was of a very trifling character, and under the circumstances deserved, as the complainant gave provocation, because he was not only on the wrong side of the road, but he used strong language towards the defendant, and was travelling without lights. AH these allegations were denied by the complainant, and contradicted by two witnesses. The Magistrate held that Mr Beid was not justified in striking the complainant, and fined him 40s and costs. The cross-summ ms, Beid v. Forster, was next hoard. The complainant charged Forster with having, some cen minutes after the first assault, when he came up to him at the Parkside Hotel, caught hold of his horse, abused and threatened him. The Magistrate thought that, under the circumstancts, he should not impose a fine,, as Forster was in a state of considerable excitement consequent upon the first assault. The case was dismissed. f J. W. Jago v. Forster, was a further I charge of assault, arising out of the same § affair. The defendant was fined 10a and I costs.