RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3628, 8 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, October 8. I (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) i

Drunkenness. —Cornelius Carey and John Rose, charged with -this offence,- were-let off' ; vyith p, caution. u * } .: Evading Toll Payment.—Johii >yas charged, on the in formation of Win, Murray, toll collector at the Water ;ot Leith with.havmg,,,oq. rSeptember 24, evaded payment of toll, contrary to. clause 4, section 11, of the Turnpike Ordinance.;— Mr Stewart appealed foV complainant hnfi Mr Johnston defended.—Mr St^w^t' said' the facts were that defendant w4s in'the'elnplbv of Mr Bethune, butcher;’North Dunedin, and who keeps a slaughter-house,in th£ Northeast Valley district. A defendant; had endeavoured to avoid payment many ti’P.eSj and on this oceasioaresorte/d to getting manure on a cart drawn by two horses,-thuM , making if exempt." ‘ After'he /had passed through the toll he unyoked the leader afidused it as a butcher's horse, ‘By this means of getting the meat pn the manure he had thereby/saved toll of- the second horse, and this he (Mr Stewart) submitted was a deliberate btfasiori of 4 tH6 toll. Bethune had made a boast that he succeeded in doing the. i tbll-keepef out of or 30s a week by the means which he resorted to. William Murray* i toll-collector, add his name was on the door at the Leith Tol| Bar, Hqlt.the defendant, passed the toll baron September 24, witn a dray of manure, and two horses, and a basket of miefat on the off and of the cart. ! The toll chargeable would ' have been one. shilling,, hut he did not pay on account of the, manure. _ After he jgasstd ..through the toll, a boy in the cart—defendant's message boy, removed the leading horse and tied it to the back of the cart.—W. Bethune swore that no dray of his passed through the, 101 l on September 24.—Mr Stewart: Have you not boasted to the toll-bar keeper thafypu succeed .in-doing him out of 25s or 30 s a week, aiid that you mean to continue doing so W itn,ess : my life,. —Mr Stewart: If two persons'iwear you did go, will you contradict them’—Witness : Yes, if twenty do.—Mr Stewart asked to ball yebutting- evidence. If tbere Was a previous: resolution on the part of the defendant ,to avoid toll payment in every corib'eivable way and by reporting to those devices—Mr Johnston was surprised at his learbed friend making those assertions, knowing well that he would not be allowed to call witnesses.— His Worship said the case would have to rest where it was. He had no doubt that there was a fraudulent evasion of the toll, and he looked upon it 'With very serious disapprobation.,: If any case of the kind again came before hiin he would inflict the full penalty of L 5, with costs. As this was the first of its nature he would only inflict a fine of 20s and costs. He looked on an evasion of-'the toll as a" act of great meanness ; roads must be kept in a state of repair, and everyone must contribute his share towards doing so. —-Defendant muttered something- to the effect tha.; he paid'heavily enough for tolls. ' Petty Frauds.— Charles ; Brodie. hooper-was-charged,-oti remand,*'with obtaining on H ; Septambeb 10 from Henry Walker, the stfm of five shillings in silver and two one pound n'otfc* by m&a* of false p'retfcfcbw, wwh in- j

tent to defraud him of the same. Prisoner was not defended. —Prosecutor said be was an hotel-keeper carrying on business in Stafford street. On the evening of September 10 accused called upon him an&said that as Eft .was owin'; him Iss, if cheque produced for L 3 qraywM pay Witness did as requestedoiiva&f accural back two one pound bank and fira shillings in silver. On morning he paid the at the iN at ion il Bank, and nejrt morniugreeicved a note that there was not sufficient funds to meet it. Evidence -was then given as to ac.used’s knowledge that he had no money in the bank at -the-tamoi His jKorsklp._fo\ip i thg prisoner guilty, and the'dnly 'question "was tbat~ol imprisonment. It was proved tor the prisoner that he had paid prosecutor L2, and

-given aa-LO. U for thejothcr Ll. . It didnat_ affect the crime, when,.after an information was laid, the money was paid.-He would hot infl iqt so heavy a pun shment as U there had been no attempt to, atone or compensate. Prisoner would life sehtenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment. —Prisoner was then charged i mth obtaining [the?sum.of 3s, by moans of, 'false preteucefl, ;; from,, John Pugh Jones, hotelkeeper, at St. Kilda.- Prisoner Had gone into proseootor’sjhotel, and tendering a eutor_tweTve Shillings for k subscription list, returning hiiri three * Prisoner made up, de and Snb-L speetqr MallariT 'asked to be klWWerd tdput in >a coni was tdprqver ' and tjkd thhlthprer, ’jvas ho dh6' , preßent prisoner wai sentenced, but that h§ : wbild end for a warder of thh ! ghbl.KHia Worship coaM, n6t tkke the qqaviption into kcemmtr~ Prisoner- had—not. only . acted id .ft foolish} bpt; .alspp in a fraudulent manner. Prisoner had gone about with -a----1 the wbolq? the; frauds were;with hotelkeepers,- no doubt ■ ' the pailful position he ■ wast nownia iwaar the • 'Usftlt of intemperance.*—Prisoner rsaidrthat 1 he had beena& f hotelkeeper-himself.,—Huiwa§ sent -to gaols for- ahotherfUnjfceeo'. day*; the sentences to be cumulative, hia.Wbrship not assing a kqavy sentence, o.wiqg to ihe amill-, ,tier’s of the amount;^'Ptisofcler was then, barged' on' of Timothy d ■; yes, hotelkeeper, Kehsinston,“with kbtaiuing Ll si-%‘iieaVs'bf false pretences! Prisoner had owed-prosecutor L 3 12s to-, board l^d s in^- 10 lip! called on prosecutor and tendered a cgieque cor jLSjjts^ing,lum h^j| r aoequiiCfrpm it. Prosecutor demurred, saying he natT had. enough to do with cheques. o Pripmgr then told him that he had received money from 1 . Hfqmej rand ,tjw cheque would be jail right. He then gave prisoner the balanbe. - , —fcfo Worahip .jeonsidered .this thel wob-t’ , case of* the three, , here the^tterson

‘Taped Uqt/so edßMe'Sa iiy rest, hehav- 5 iag till■ ) toMt' n tt'w& all right, "whfereas Ht^MierwaWs 1 Ittrned-dlit thaL. Ik Wfidihlttwrbdg’./ ’Pdaoner was sentencedbo thirty days’ imprisonment. with hard l«boh.H*PtS»oner, was Juifthgr charged with ■haviagrobtsiued 20s by means of false pretences pa 9. —Pri&Mer in this, case also repreaentea that be had-money in the.bank.—He waS-Sen- : cfenced Jo s»>arteeH u - \ i, •, . Brown was charged Ion 1 the information of George MHntpsh with hsaaulting and beating him atGdsen Island, on September 27.—-Mr Hartbn appeared fotJbom - p lament, and : 'Mr Uoworth for defendant.'— Vlb Barton in statingthelacts said that for some alleged paltry disobedience on fthe ; part »f complainant/ was' brutually assaulted 'b^ 1 defendant;, his master. ‘ The assault was m brutal! that iWaa tdlowed 'thr go- bwn# foi? thrpii Weeks, so ; that' the, braises might not be seenj but .then, the mark* -were such -that-the father' thoughts it -Pnessesskry ; that dtftpdanfc, should be brought into Court. -» tptefn^llW^-Isd.dlduftfsmu^nj u of \ age, •laid that defendant had threatened tZ ChoV fe^ v W fc ilteH?«s B0 «e bujshi quickly enough. On a suhsequefit ocoasiqn, a broomstipk. He also told hp, would strike him with an ay e. —DirTergiasoh examined the on bis side and back. They were not marks of madejr»te ;^rrtption,v^ut; of brutal treatment.—Mr Ho worth said that there wjasT no foundation, whatever for the charge— 1 the whole being a pure fabrication," Hlis Worship a silent witness to defendant’s acts were" the Jbruises on the boy’s back, as these were not capable of exaggeration offalaehood. He did'nbtWcogniteiusy right on the part of the master to correct a servant, it wds Simply a ciVflibdntraotj and it would be a very dangerous thingjif one of the parties were allowed thtakfe the laW into his own hands and administer summary justice to the bthor 'side.; ! He cbuld hot fine defendant leSs than L 5 and costs; th 6 latter to include one gdinea professional coats ajd one guinea medical costs. Forgery ANb Uftaring. —William Bart- , lett was charged with forging an order with ihe name -of Albert Beck, for the 1 payment of money, with intent tb teheat abd def&ud redk. R; Chapman.— Prisoner was not defended.—Fredk. R. Chapman, barHster'and solicitor'of thb : Supreme' C art, said prisoner called tm; hjin on Ajugust-4, and cop. salted him professionally as. to some bankruptcy business, f v Vi told him to call' next day with hffpapers, which ,he .did. r Witness then told he con Id not carry out the proceedings - without some one to guarantee the” costs, as it would necessitate considerable outlay, and accused said he

could not pay him. The latter then tola him that Mr A, Beck, his master, would guarantee" the money : and pay the costs. After a lengthened interview w tnt?Bß consented to' aofc, and wrote* a letter (produced)—a guaranties that he would be answerable for the costs, which accused promised tp take, to Mr Book and get .signed, lie returned in about an hour with the order signed " Albert Beck,” and witnessed by one Davies.. Accused was then perfectly sober, and in a position to transact business! Witness said he did not know Mr.Beck, and accused then signed the declaration pro;' duced. On not getting any. money from aewitness wrote to Mr Beck, asking, hi^for. payment of .Bartlett’s costs as per his (Beck’s) guarantee. , Withers 'saw Beck' on the following >aturday, and ho denied having premised to become guarantee. The next step was to see the detectives.—(Laughter.)—Albert Beck said thathe neither gave uor promised to give prisoner a in' a bankruptcy business to Mr Chapman or’ anyone else. Witness first saw .the letter produced on Monday morning last; it.was then at Mr Chapman’s office. It purports to be signed with his name, and witnessed by one William Davies. The signature was a forgery. Constable Henderson, who arrested the prisoner, also gave evidence. Prisoner was committed for trial, baU being in LIOO, and twe’ sureties of LoOeach,

. JUDGMENT. Long y. Wright,— fn this case, a claim for board and lodging, Some days' ago, his Worship n6w g a y e judgment. * A preliminary objection had been taken , that the plaintiff, a married woman, was not e .®t'tled to sue in her own name. The plain* her husband in 1871 in England, and cahie out to the Colony. Her husband then -promised' to-follow her, but he had not done 80 * .The plaMliff a letter from a friend in England, stating that her has* o*at|'B said he wa* dead, but the plain-

made truth of c relatives oQ pSvisubject. [ jMwilai JBtejd not go into ü ba s i HfSharyfpwmption that her husband the rfPffi» toe^kpiraFeiroF mstanoes ,%^ e ' the del eQ Tr J a 18 78, acknowledging Wdeht.knd ppdnising to pay handsomely shown to him by the plamtiff, costs would not be allowed.