MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 73, 25 August 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, August 25. [Before 0. C, Bowen, Esq., E.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Richard Walker, arrested for drunkenness, was fined 10s ; and James Moore, for a similar, offence, was fined,2os, or forty-eight hours. - , FIGHTING. r., , ' ,r; William Brassington and John Quinn were, charged with, fighting in a right, of way, off: High street. ; ■ v _ Constable Dance stated that about six o’clock, the previous night he saw both prisoners fighting in the right of way. They were on the ground, and covered with blood, and were drunk at the time. ~ Bassiugton was fined. 10s, and Quinn—against whom there had been four previous convictions —was fined 20s, : LUNACY. . : . ~y Walter Smith,.,a lad,, was brought up charged-With lunacybus

Inspector Buckley told the Bench that the accused had only recently arrived in the Atratp. He had been found wandering about doing nothing, and since his arrest a passenger had been looking for his parents, but could not find where they had gone to since they left the immigration depot. The lad did not seem.to be well. Remanded until Wednesday, for medical examination. BREAKING INTO A STORE AND STEALING. Frederick Peiper, Henry JefEree, and George Doeig, were charged on remand, the former with breaking into a store in Montreal street and stealing thirty-seven boxes of soap therefrom, arid the latter prisoners with being accessories after the fact.- ' ' [; I Mr Joynt appeared for the 1 prisonfeJ’Sr and chief detective Feast, who conducted thecase for the prosecution,- asked that the charge against Henry Jeff rep Might be .'ashe intendedito calLhinTJasiia witneshooM. H iThe'charge waff then withdrawn j r,v tom The following evidence was takehisMokl ..Detective Benjamin statedr-rOQ; the, 20th instant T arrested ttie prisoner' Doeig at the Ashbuj, ton. I Told fifth he was charged with being’ 1 an accessory to stealing,'37 J bokespf soap from the 1 of Hugh Montreal street-south., JlHWsaid- 1 “ All right, all I know about it is that I saw it in Fred. -Pei per-s-paddock,-at -the back—of-his stable, covered with a tarpaulin, on- last Saturday morning ;'that he went into Pcipet’s house, arid : Peipet 1 'was ehgaged ; ‘/ mrikifiigi 1 up - his books, and be told him to go rip to Jeffree’s and to tell him,to bring down his.^r^y.,,The ■ dray "came:down between I‘2' the ‘morning, and' Peiper tbl d 1 him• t'ri go atid load that, soap on the dray and deliver it down at •Thomas Wilson’s tannery, on the Ferry rbad. ■He loaded the" dray; r with the - ! assistariee : 6f ■young 'Jeffree, and that he' deliyered ityvhrirb he had beeri told, and 'that "it Was' deft iri.^a ■ edw-shed tberri; Thaffie slept in ari "upper story of Peiper’s shop that night apd Peiper slept in a lowet room;; ‘ T was 1 preseritiwh'en possession was taken' of some soap at'Wiliori’h .tannery. . Some of it is iir Court ririd the rest locked up an the office. c; fcdiMdwp. Hugh Andrews—X lately carried fih' bhsiness at the soap^orkff;.Montreal (Street, and am now a'bankrupt. The notice produced is my notice of adjudication as bankrupt. I filed my declaration on the 15th July. Mr Walton, as Provincial Trustee, put a bailiff nami 3‘'Charles Duririage in’ charge,‘arid took an inventory of my-stoek. I went over the s ock with him. , 'there were 81; boxes soap Of one kind,' 108 of another, and 13 ’(if another. kind. Tfigre jwere 108 half-boxes soap 1 stacked in the' soap house atuhe bads’ of the premises, near prisoner Piper’s paddock. bailiff islept pn/the; 37 boxes on the 18th irist, arid reported the matter to the police and to the trustee. I afterwards examined a window leading to the paddock,(arid scratches on the window sill. That window was usually tied on the insider 'When the soap was missed, I, noticed ,that jibe .stringj.had been slacked. 1 Thet s'oa’p iri ‘Court is ApPftidn of that which w.as 'Stacked, and .was afterwards stolen. I idenHiyMtbyfffiei’fafeo bars produced, taken from the centre of the box, and which are,..branded .differently,,-and also by the label produced.” I had rieVerßent any of that kind of soap packed in that way out of the store, r The .soap jupw, belongs to the trustee, in the estate.. . The value of, the span is about £2O. I rievet gave the" prisbnet^oi 1 anyone else permission itbljtake the soap. After the soap was missed, I next saw it in the polipe depot., ,1 have seen i thirty,-,six at the depot. 1 ‘" " Charles John Duririage,’ I was bailiff on Hugh Andrew’s premises,'TM Montreal street, for. the! ProyiSiOnaii Trustee in Bankruptcy. I tjopk, possession of the premises on' the 15th'July last. I took an inventory of everything. with Mr Andrews’ assistance. 1 There J -were' 'IOB - 4 dwt J-boxes soap in one stack, .and. thirteen in another. I remained in charge, and afterwards missed, thirty-seven boxes this day week {the 18th instant) from the large stack. The matter was immediately reported to the police. I had not given permission, .tp r any one to take the soap away, I see the soap in Court: it is a portion lof the: soap that was htPlenv I have seen thirty-six boxes altogether at the policy ijepot. The preriaises were fastenedj up jat night, but not locked ; the gates were merely put together. with, a h00p... After the soap was,missed, I .noticed, that the. windpr? scraped, and the string with which- the window was fastened had been loosened. The string was fastened to the sill-post. I did not tie the string.- The remainder of the soap has since been sold fop jibe the creditors. '

By the .Bench—The windoy7' ; was at the back of the' warehouse, 'facing!'Mr Peiper’s paddock. I slept in’the'‘office’fronting on Montreal street, ; nehrly' 1 160 ■yards’lfrhm where the soap was stacked. ihffi By Mr Joynt—l slept in the office from the from the 15th to the 18th. I ,took .the inventory between the 16th and. 22nd; July.. : did not miss the soap, it; was a ,man named j Welstead who did. I had never taken, any notice of the window sill before. . ; The scratching seeriaed recent, not older than two or three days. Part of the soap'was manufactured and boxed I tooKi'ppSsfessitoo The whole 108| bo'xbs were all 'prickerrifter I took possession'. 1 I uriuhlly'’went- tb bed about eleven. I was round the warehouse during- the day, I would not have ‘ been going round until the present- 1 time, if the loss of the soap had not been pointed out as I was “ lotting ” the soap for salei arid Mr Andrews only sold iri the shop; and all by retail. , ; ’i ‘ r , Re-examined by Detective FestsL> ! ; The yard was fenced ali rouridi arid the only entrance to • Peiper’s paddock : was by the entrance.- ;

Goss Olliver Welstead—l : was lately xn) the employ of Mr Andrews, and <p ! Fnday,l 7th August, I had a conversation with Pei per and- he ; - mentioned to : me ; he" hadpaid Andrews for two tons of soap, and had only got 1 ten '2 cwtj delivered,* and that he would get the soap if possible. He offered me ! £1 if I would- > show him how he might get it. I did not help him to get it. The soap in<@ourt is tip soap that was in the warehouse, and I saw it being packed: There were 121 boxes, jcwts; 37 boxes were removed on Tuesday, the 18 th instant. The window in the warehouse near where' the soap was 1 stacked leads into Mr Peiper’s back premises. It was fastenedwith a string, and usually tied. It could not be unfastened from the paddock. On ■ openv ing the window when the soap was’Wbveil there were marks on the ground and on the sill. 1 The entrance to Mr Andrews’:premises! was by,i folding gates in Montreal street.} There arc- also two gates leading into Eeiper’h back premises,;but not through Mr Andrews!?, place. The premises are securely fenced. ' ‘ 1 Py Mr Joynt—-Onedf the folding gates fpoih Montreal street is bibkerr and supported by a

prop. I did not liye on the premises. J was tWAcirfthi with Mr Andrews prior insolvency. I did not know that Peipcr bad any other transactions with Mr Andrews but what’ he fold me of. : I did not keep the hooks. I missed the soap. I used to go round every evening, as X anticipated it would. £O, from what, Peiper. told ,ipp,„ I , Withered from that that he would take the first opportunity to get hold of the soap, and 1 that the-P-placed of ’ * tdangerl was the window, because he could take them thews h’ without'- otoeing 'seen; I •did ; p©t t*ks 'iny rounds-on' the 17th,! as rby : feetiwete sore from-tight boots. I didj not tell anyone that I expected the soap. Liwduld "fee takefc), blit I JielK that it Was probable that some of the soap would disappear. I have said-that it was not pos-; sible to open the window from Peiper’s pad- ! doßkK 1 Botnei'person: might, haves been left inside to fasten the window, and might have! walked GUitab-the front without apy notice being taken. I hadn’t “ puzzled ” out the Pjr ( wnd before Jhosoap;was taken. The marks outside the window were* not there before the soap was taken. I wad in Peiper’s paddock three weeks before. I ■ cannot say-bow; ;lopg before,,-they! 8 th winndow was opened before. The window! was opened once about a week before Mn Andrews filed on the 7th or the Bth of July,; and ths-t.ia the V! cmly-.time.J; remember it being open, t cahx remember what I went? - into* Peiper’? paddook for,thrpe weeks beforq ''the isth. I nCvcr got 'through the Window! It was .two, feet from the ground. ~. .. Re-eXammed ' by* -detective : Feast *— The prisoner Doeig was employed at Mr Peiper’s : ' lll ni hnn omtori uif’L To the r the so?ip on Fridays and it was' missed on Tuesdiy. Peipeu offered m.e,£l. if I would tell. him how hq could get ithe'soap. y blfly ?| /« Y John O’Neil—l was inTei'per’s employ for nearly 18 months. Doeig was in his employ for two or three months. I recollect lasij Friday week (14th), Mr P.eipej\wak 'ath'omq that day. I slept on the premises that night] and so did Doeig,. j peiper usually slept jin aj room down stairs off the kitchen, and I slept upstairs. ,X went, to - bed , that nighl| between 7 Aid '8 1 o’clock/- ‘On Saturday) morning, I saw Peiper and. Doeig were nol up when I was (I got upabouhhal£*past six), I afterwards saw them about as usual. The yard- at,the! hack of ’the hcruse leads into the road or into the paddock. They were both about the premises tfjat mornjng. Henry Jeffree—l live with my brother on the Rjqcartoa o;oafL r Tj .recollect going te PeipetVplace on Sathraay 15th August. 1 had had hay on [he dray. I loaded up some soap, Dohig l assisted- me to load it. We loaded it from the paddock. The soap was in boxei/J I.t6i)k, r il to Mr Wilson’s down the Ferry road, and then you turn to your right {lfhen ppap jn a cow-shed. Doeig was with me at the time. I think there wen somethin#. over r r 3Q - (boxes.,, The. boxes Jr Court boxes'. I‘aon‘t'khdw who Doeig wag .wording £°L ■ .the time, but he had been Peipe& -* ' Thomas Wilson, junior—l am a carrier, the! Heathcotc Tannery, Woolston. I recollect Saturday theprispnerq-Doeig and Jeffree at the tanyard, near the pits. They told me where they brought it from. They asked me where I would ;have it put, and I took them .up.to the,cowshed., I knew,.the * prisoner Ddeig had been Workihg for ‘Peiphr; but he told me he wasn’t working for thho/11' knew. !we Jhad ' doap itb r,eome SEromj Peiper, as some had been ordered from him; The soap was t£ken away by the! police. Thomas Wilson, senior, I am a fellmongeij and tanner at Heathcote. I have been buy-) ing skins from Peiper, have know Doeig! for thirteen or fourteen-ydaVs." In June last there was an.apcouut stapffixjg between my] self and Pei per, J he-skid He‘was-rather pressed for money, and asked me to settle the account. Two days afterwards he came down and said that Andrews, his neighbor, owed '•Mlh bdtoe * ifrihhey,. Wh’d f hh! wsifi goiUgJ tb'geti soap for it. I afterypprds agreed to take a ton of soap. he brought two hundredweight in -a fcart; and I said iaj that all, and he replied that the rest would; be down in a day or two. About the latter; . end, .of. July. ,I .said, to, Peiper “ well, \yhat vibout the hefifaiiider of the soap,’ l and he re-, plied that he didn’t think he would be abletcj get it, an,d.t?QUldbave] t 6 give' hiO the money instead. On Sunday, the 15th August, I saw the soap that had-been brought down, and placed in the cow-shed. The boxes in Court are a portion;of ntherPtF ’lrmarfjed them myself, The whole of the soap was taken pos-i Abe .-police,;! qeen / in the police depot. -,By,Mr r.Joypt—l. pannpt., say who was E -the ' manufacturer.' ‘of the., t\yb. ,p.wt. of.' isoap ■ first ' Tboxes brought dow.n were large boxes, twice the size of those in Court. ffobn, Howard T .clerk ~tor : Mr. WRgon,. also k’ejff the bboksffOr the tahnery. ' About-June last I,recollect seeing Peiper at the office; he brought ih an accoufat' to settle for skins dhrld * soapi • ' Had bought the soap from himi'Xand-ifc :j was -included in the account. The soap had not been delivered at the time, but the account had been sent up from the tannery in the usual way; There was f only* one ton of soap in the account. We took stock on the 22nd Julyj . and li found the,soap included; in the stock sheets had. not;been; delivered, and I spokej to Peiper, and he said’he would deliver it I bad bever* (poap until I' saw it in Court. 1 The, evidence, s then, read over to the prisoners. 14 ~, Pa the ..application, of Mr Joynt, all-that J'effree had told Detective Benjamin was struck put,, of the depositions, as hp (Jeffree) was now before the Court as a witness-only. / *,» r .. j After receiving the usual caution, the prit Boners, under. bd.yice. of their counsel, reserved their defence,’and wers committed to take their trial at .fbe next criminal session pf the, Supreme Court., , . . . f ,,, | > J Inlrfeply to 1 his Worship said he would take the same bail for Peiper as be-, fore, Vi?j himself in! £soo.and two sureties in £250 each, and wouhLtake the same sureties who had previously, gone .security. In Doeig’s 'lease he would takfe-himself L in £IOO, and two Sureties in £SO each. /iv/i y f ) LYTTELTON. J//If August 24 [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.J -- - DRUNKENNESS, i ;i, Willism Tucker and William Hooper, arrested by Constable Wallace, on. Saturday night ulast, charged with this offence, were both dismissed with* caution. . .. j .4TBX t oS teauisA .vßhaanl- -nomdojaijui-) f

DRUNK AND CREATING A DISTURBANCE IN, , : I STREET, /i Christopher Randall, Hugh Clark, Thomas Williams, and Francis Lough, all seamen be- ; longing to ihe ship Peeress, were charged by; Constable McGorman with this offence, who. stated that he; in company with .Constable Emson, arrested i the prisoners yesterday; afternoon, about half-past four o’clock, in, London street. They were all the worse fon drink, and fighting.' Prisoner#, Who had; nothing to say, were each fined 10s, which was, Paid. - rp J REFUSAL OP DUTY. Thomas Pring, a seaman belonging to the sbjp, Stqnehouse, .was changed, by .Captain: f ßloy iwith; this offeree] tfhd sentenced to fourteen day's*- impfikohmliit. 1 - i KAIAPOI. Monday, August 24. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.J C. Q. \ r’AqaQjiGij’ bye^l\; n ; \ \ on mabibti [ pf the police with a breach of the bye-laws by, allowing ca f tlc to stray on to the streets.i Fined ss, and JJif. ! SLAUGHTER-HOUSE ORDINANCE. A license was granted to W. McKeever, i Flptqmrr qTTITi j . Eil O- LA-S?4.pLT*iX eJ £ j Frank Smith was charged, on the informa-i tion of W. Henwood, that he did slap his, face on the 16 th, Evidence was given by Mrs Hoskins and | F. Hill. .... j ’‘"The Bench considered the case' proved,: and fined accused ss, and costs 6s 6d, ( FORGERY, i j William Harvey, from Oxford, in custody,! was charged on the information of the police: tha/he did iwithin six 'monthß-laist past alter and for fraud forge additions to a certain! valuable receipt. Inspector Barsham informed the Court that the case was laid under the 23rd clause of .the Forgery Act,j.j -.? •; i j ( ;j •,; j/ •:/ • \ Mounted-sergeant Mullih, stationed at : Oxford, stated—l arrested the accused on) Saturday evening on warrant produced. I cautioned him. He made a remark that the; civil case had been settled. I was present 1 at thp ‘ Resident Magistrate’s'jCpurt, Oxford, oh 20th July last/when a civil case was’ heard, Charleston v Harvey (the accused). Charleston sued accused for £lO 2s, wages for work done. He (accused) said that he did, not acknowledge .Charjestop.at all, and that'all’settlements were made with a man named Coleman. Accused produced the receipt (handed in),, to be. an acquittance for all am'otknls ’ due' ‘ tb ! 1 Charleston and, Coleman. The Resident Magistrate thought there;was Aonxething wrong with the.receipt, and adjourned the causb for One mWth* in, order that inquiries might be made. Joseph Coleman, -laborer, residing at Leßon’s Bay, said —I know the accused, I have,done bush work for him, and was in his: employ about! four tW6 other; mates named Charleston and Clarkson. Wei were doing contract,, work —squaring timber for him. I kept the books. We last had a settlement with him on May 6th. He owed us then £lO 14s ; and f ' riibshquiently gave: Charleston an order which accused had previously given us on J. Taylor fur £3B 14s,’ and a letter to accused/ Ibayiog Charleston; orders to collect the balance owing to us.'; This order had been dishonored. At the settlement referred to I gave him a receipt for £l6 (the one now produced), “ Oxford] May 6th, 1874. Received from William; Hkrvey the 'sum !of hbttcen pounds, settle) ment of dishonored order. (Signed) Joseph' Coleman, Valentine Clarkson.” The words,; “ balance due as a,"”*after the words pounds and “ and all claims to the above ;datej’’pibfh&ve:, -been’! Inserted since. At! the time I gave this receipt the sum of; £lO , <jue to. tbe.firhx Clarkson, Charleston] and myself, and Charleston had authority to receive it from accused, and I gave hfay ,an it.’ (The. order inj Court'is in "my writing. Clarkson was pre- ; sent when accused gave us the receipt. Accused knew where 1 ! had since gone to. I received one communication from Clarkson is, working. ,a£ kaverieje’s Bay. Accused here-applie ! (i i to know if he would: be allowed time to get witnesses. He had hoerb -taken : ab .ajmonpent’smotice.; He had 'witnesses to all the With these: parties. , The.,Resident Magistrate said, unless the case assumed a different complexion, he would be sent for- trial, when he would be able to call witnesses.

John Charleston, laborer, West Oxford, said know-tiCQuged. I have.doue squaring timber!dr>lidsa',hiy Contract in , partners with Coleman and Clarkson, during March and April, We settled up with accused when he gave us the order :.on Taylor (produced). There was then a balance due of £lO 2s, for which r I went ,to accused and asked /or payment! J-He said- : he ! Weuldr'ndt pay'any more money, and that Coleman and Clarkson had overdrawn upon him. f ; He did not then produce any receipt. I summoned accused for £lO 2s at the Oxford Court. He said inj j3ourt that/heldiCiriot owh/the money] and produced the receipt in support of his statement. I have since received the amount and costs from Mr'Cooper on accused’s ac-; count. (Accused here handed to the Bench a letter given hipi by the witness.; —“ Tp the clerk of Resident Magistrates’ Court, Oxford—Sir, —As our case, Charleston y Harvey, has been settled outside the Court, please give Mr Harvey any papers relating to the above case, (Signed.) John Char] LESTON.” . J f J.);’/ 1

John Foster, clerk to the Bench, Oxford, stated that on 29th July a civil case was heard at Oxford, charleston v Harvey ; claim £lO 2s. The defendant said he was not indebted to the plaiptiff, and produced a receipt which he said was given him as a settlement of all claims. The receipt produced was the one. Did not examine the documents handed in. The receipt was given to the police to make enquiries. Accused, who was cautioned, had nothing to’say, was then committed for trial to. the Supreme Court. [Before J._ Birch, Esq.] PERJURY. William Harvey ..was charged that on July 29the at the ' .Resident Magistrate’s Court, Oxford \ he' was guilty of wilful and deliberate perjury. The accused was. undefended. George Lilly Hellish said—l am Resident Magistrate for the Oxford district; I held a courttherbdn or about Jtriy 29th last, at which time a civil case of Charleston v. Harvey came on for hearing, during the hearing of the case the defendant was duly sworn. A receipt was produced by him purporting to be an acquittance in full of all demands due to Charleston. The receipt produced is the one handed to the court by the accused. My notice was attracted by the writing, and the .IT r 6i ,900 i i&i I

color of the ink with which the receipt was written, which varied in some portions of the receipt, as well as by the character of the writing, although it had evidently been written by the same himd. I called the attention of the accused to it, and then asked, pointing to some of the words which were in a different colored ink, whether or not the receipt had been altered since it was signed, or whether it was in the same state as when Originally signed. Ho said it was. I then read over the words “and all claims to the above date,” and asked him the same question again. He again positively asserted that the words were there when the receipt was signed. I asked him how it was that the ink was a different color to the main portion of the receipt; He replied that it was quite possible it might be so, without giving : any further reason. The fact of those words being inserted materially affected the issue of the case before the Court, or would have done so if they had not been noticed. By police—l won’t swear that accused said the receipt was in his handwriting. I :f may remark further that accused’s color deepened very considerably when ! called attention to the state of the receipt. To Bench —The defendant Harvey in the civil case is the accused now in Court. To accused —I won’t swear that you said the receipt was in your handwriting. iTo Bench—l have seen his writing, and swear, to.its being in his handwriting. J. Coleman said—l had transactions with accused, and know his handwriting. The receipt in Court was partly written by him in my presence on May 6th. The words written on that day were, “ Oxford, May 6th, 187.4. Received from William Harvey the sum of sixteen pounds, settlement of dishonored order,” and then signed by me. The words, “ balance due as a ” and “ and all claims to the above date” were not written in my presence. It was not true that the £l6 was received in full of all demands. To Bench—There was £7 or £8 due from accused to Charleston on Taylor’s order when I signed the receipt. Never authorised accused or any person at any time to insert the words “balance due as a” and “and all claims to the above date.”

Mounted-sergeant Mullin stated—l was present at the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Oxford, on 29th July last, when the case of Charleston v Harvey was heard. I administered the oath to accused on that occasion. During the hearing of the case a receipt (produced) was put in, which was minutely inspected by the Resident Magistrate. The Resident Magistrate asked accused when the words “and all claims to the above date ” were written, whether before or after the receipt was signed. Accused said that they were written before it was signed. He also asked him about the ink being different. Accused said it might be so. The receipt in its present state would shut the plaintiff out from any claim. i Accused, who declined to cross-examine the witnesses, was then committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. He was subsequently released on bail, himself in £3OO and two sureties of £l5O each. CIVIL CASES. F. S. Funston v E. Davie, claim £45 10s, on an adjourned summons, no appearance of defendant, warrant to issue ; Mrs Buchanan v W. Fraser, claim £8 10s, value of a watch bought from her son, which she claimed could not be sold without her consent, he being under age, nonsuited; Kavanagh and Burnett v J. Perrin, claim £lO 16s sd, judgment for, plaintiffs for amount and costs.