MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 108, 5 October 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, October 5. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Alexander Macgregor and Charles George, arrested for drunkenness, were each fined 10s. ABUSIVE AND THREATENING- LANGUAGE. Emily Mitchell was charged with using abusive language to Mary Brown. Complainant and defendant were represented by Mr Thomas and Mr Jameson. After hearing the evidence, His Worship dismissed the case on the defendant’s promising to keep the peace towards the complainant for the future. EMBEZZLEMENT. Thomas Rowley was charged with embezzling 2s 4d belonging to his employer, A. Hulme, baker, Colombo street. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Chief detective Feast deposed to the arrest of the prisoner on the warrant produced. When arrested, prisoner requested to be allowed to see Mr Hulme, and said some-, thing with reference to his going into busi-’ ness for himself. Ambrose J. Hulme stated that he was a baker in Colombo and Peterboro’ streets. The prisoner had been in his employ for eight or nine months, and left his employ on Wednesday morning last. His (prisoner’s) duty was to deliver bread, and account for it in the evening. He had a book with him to enter moneys received. He had one customer named Jack. On the26th September prisoner accounted for two large loaves supplied to Mr Jack. On the 28th he accounted for having served Mr Jack with one loaf, and on the 29th, one large loaf. He paid these amounts to him (witness).

By Mr Joynt—The 26th September was the day I gave prisoner notice to leave, and the 28th and 29th were Monday and Tuesday. As prisoner delivered the bread from house to house, he was supposed to enter it in the book. To do this is practicable. I have delivered bread, and when it was raining I have entered it in the house where I delivered the bread, but sometimes I did not make the entries until I got home. I can’t say that within the last twelve months similar mistakes in making entries have not occurred to myself. I have found prisoner in his money matters correct before last week. Monday and Tuesday last were very wet days. On Wednesday I accused him of soliciting trade while in my employ. Prisoner has opened a shop on his own account during the last three weeks, and it made me angry his asking my customers to deal with him while he was receiving payment from me. I have about 160 to 180 customers. On Wednesday prisoner and I struck each other.

To his Worship—This happened before the charge was laid. Cross-examination continued—When I spoke to prisoner on the Wednesday about the mistake in Jack's bread, he said he’d settle it on Monday, Sand before that day arrived he was in gaol. I have told people that I was highly pleased with Rowley, and it was a pity he did not come to work for me before. On Monday and Tuesday prisoner entered up his deliveries when he returned at night time, and when I spoke to him about Mr Jack, he did not deny it, but he said he’d look through his book.

Mrs Jack gave evidence of the deliveries of bread to her by prisoner, referred to by the previous witness. She had paid for it at the time, and had always got four loaves each through the week, and eight on Saturday ; never less. She nearly always paid him cash.

Joseph Hague, acting as shopman and clerk to Mr Hulme, said that prisoner was supposed to account every evening for what money he had received during the day. The witness then stated the amounts that prisoner had paid him on the dates referred to. By Mr .1 )ynt—On the Monday and Tuesday, which were very wet days, prisoner made his entries when he came home at r night. Mr Joynt addressed the Bench for the accused, and submitted that though the entries had been incorrect, they were not intentionally so, as these mistakes had been made on those evenings when prisoner had returned from delivering bread to nearly 180 customers* All the surrounding circumstances favored the view that prisoner would not have been guilty of committing such a paltry theft, when he was about to commence business for himself, and knew that his employer Was angry for informing his customers of this. His Worship said that in a case like this he should be glad to think it was a mistake. But after looking at the delivery book he' should remand the accused, as he saw thatduring the whole of that week the entries against the customers had been systematically entered as one-half of what Mrs Jack stated she had taken. He would remand the prisoner until Saturday, and would admit him to bail in one surety of £SO and himself 1 in £IOO.