RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3620, 29 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, September 29. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., 8.M.)

Drunkenness.—Ed ward Grove and Alex. M Leon were let off with a caution; Peter M‘Luskey was fined 10s. with the option of three days’ imprisonment. Mary Anne Sullivan denied a charge of being drunk at the Immigration Barracks, adding that she was as sober as a judge. In answer to the Bench, she said that her husband gave her the “black eye” which she had on Sunday last She simply asked the constable to allow her to see her husband, who had been locked up some time previously, and he told her to accompany him. On arriving at the Dunedin Police Station, the constable—or rather the gentleman—told her that she might go and accompany her husband. She was solid and sober.—The charge of drunkenness was proved.—F)is Worship held that the Immigration Barracks was not a public place within the Act, and dismissed the charge.

x»^L SA i TIiTINO A Bodice Constable Michael Sullivan was charged with assaulting Constable Rooney whilst in the execution of his duty.—Prisoner complained that the constable, besides assaulting him, had him a vagabond and a returned cobviot,|and questioned him about the “Tickborne Claimant.”—Constable iiconey said that prisoner had severely scratched;, him m the face. He admitted having knelt on prisoner s chest while they were struggling. Prisoner struck his wife on Sunday, a«d the police had to be sent for. —His Worship said that when a man assaulted his wife or assaulted anybody in the barracks, he should be locked up at once. Discipline must be maintained there.—Confirmatory evidence was given, and the prisoner, on being asked if he had witnesses to call, said that about twenty of those in the barracks saw the tussle ; but the “ poor devils ” were afraid to come up.—He was fined 20s, or in default ten days’ imprisonment. Fraud,—Charles B. Cooper was charged, on remand, with obtaining the sum of L 3 from Samuel Jacobs by means of false pretences.—The case had been adjourned on a point raised by Mr Turtec, that, as no false pretences either by deed or act were made, the fraud jvas wanting.—Mr Turton, who defended, now submitted that the hst Act of the Ordinance provided ths,t tlje obtaining must be either of chattels, paoney, or valuable security. The interpretation deemed that the information should have been valuable security, bank notes having been obtained. When Mr Bathgate was Minister of Justice, the Stamp Duties Act was brought in and all moneys he dto include valuable security. He urged thet the information should have stated, obtaining valuable security and not obtaining money.—Sub-Inspeotor Mallard: The witness, when in the box, said he got money for the cheque,—Mr Turton :Mr Jacobs said i he got two pounds in notes and the third in ! silver.—His Worship said that two points : been raised by counsel against the prosecution. The first was that no false representations had been made. ' The wifcuesg Jacobs admitted that the accused was - known to him before; that he ask dno questions; and that he simply tendered the cheque and that it was immediately cashed. With regard to no representations havjug been made, it would be as well if he stated big opinion on the law point. The Act stated that whosoever should, by any false pretence, obtain anything from another person, whether money, chattels, or valuable security, with intend to defraud, should be guilty. In “ Roscoe ” it was laid down that when a person passed a cheque on a bank where he had no account, he committed fraud ; but the case before Justice Bay ley, when it was held that any person passing a cheque without funds to meet it committed an indictable offence was a still stronger case against the accused, tie found in another case that it was not necessary that money was obtained by false pretences to bring it within the statute. After referring to the case of the < >xford commoner, who, by being dressed as a commoner, obtained goods without uttering a word, and which was held to be a false pretence, his Worship said that had be any doubts on tfie pqint they would be removed by the case of DeWo'ulf, heard here at the Supreme Court in 1864. The facts were precisely similar—in fact on all fours with the present case—DeWoolf hav*nS given a cheque which, was returned marked “N.5.F.,” aud there the judge held that there were clear false p-etences. On the first point he was against the accused. Ibe second point was that the information Was laid as three pounds in money, whereas that received was banknotes; and money, witbm the sens© of the statute, meant current com, which did not inplufle bank notes. The information charged accused with obtaining money, but it was something ; else—valuable security—which he obtained, and therefore he (his Worship) thought he w<B bound to dismiss the case, but without prejudice to a fresh information being laid )f prosecutor desired to bring the charge on properly. Accused was discharged.

CIVIL CASE. North aud Scauilar v . Riddle—This was a fraud summons, defendant facing called upon to show why he should not satisfy a judgment given against him for the sum of Joyce, who appeared for plaintiffs, said that this was one of the most disreputable cases which ever came before his vl orsbip. In September last defendant was a single man, and obtained goods, for which judgment was given against him, in April. In May a distress warrant was issued ; and on t'm fraud summons being issued in June, defendant went away and filed a declaration of insolvency; and as he begged hard, no turther proceedmgs were taken. Even his solicitor had to sue him for L 6 for filing his declaration. One of North and ScouUar’s men went to defendant’s house a short time ago and found the sofa, which formed part of the claim, there.—His Worship (to defeudaut) : Have you paid one sixpence ?—Mr Joyce : Not one penny,— Hts Worship said tliat this was the worst ease of the he had seen. Defendant bought things belonging to plaintiffs’ apparently without the slightest intention of making any payment. Mr Joyce: We don’t want any order except an order for imprisonment.—Defendant said he had been paying off his debts—His Worship said it was time that defendant should learn that the law overtook him sooner Defendant, according to his own showing, had been defrauding plaintiffs and paying others, lie was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment.