MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 218, 19 February 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHUIICH. Friday, February 19. [Before G. L. Mjllish, Esq, R.M., his Worship the Mayor, and W.I). Carruthers, Esq., J.P's.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Hugh McDowell was fined ss; Daisy Comfort, who has been repeatedly before the Court on this charge within a very short time, was given a last chance, and fined 40s; Hamilton Shaw was also fined 40s, and Johanna Connor 10s. LUNACY FROM DRIN'K. George Wilkin was brought up on this charge. The prisoner had been brought down from Ashburton, where he had entered a house and helped himself freely to some whiskey. A doctor's certificate was handed to the Bench stating that accused was slightly suffering from aberration of his mind. Remanded to Lyttelton for a week. DRUNK WHILE IN CHARGE OF AN OMNIBUS. James Kearney was charged with this offence. Sergeant Kennedy stated that the accused was drunk while in charge of a coach at the Heathcote the previous day. Another man had to drive the coach to Christchurch. Mr Mellish, who had left the Bench during the hearing of this case, stated that the previous day he was driving with Mr Murray-Aynsley on the Heathcote road, and when on the narrow portion of the road accused, who was driving very recklessly, nearly ran into them. They shouted out to him, but he took no notice, and it was a miracle the buggy was not thrown over the embankment. The man might have been able to stand, but was considerably the worse for liquor. The Bench told the accused that there had been several convictions for drunkenness against him, and he would be fined 60s. DISOBEYING AN ORDER. Wm. Kerr was brought up on warrant, charged with refusing to obey an order of the R. M. Court, Dunedin, for the support of his illegitimate child. Accused said he had heard that he was wanted, and was about to proceed to Dunedin to pay the monay. He would do so then if the Bench desired it. His Worship told him that, if he would pay the money into court, he would be discharged. WIFE DESERTION. Charles Post was charged on * remand with this offence. Mr Thomas appeared for defendant. The charge had arisen but of a misunderstanding between defendant and his wife, and the Bench, having expressed a hope that the matter would be set right, ordered a discharge. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. David Middleton was charged on remand from Ashburton with this offence. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the accused. A portion of the evidence in this case had been taken at Ashburton. The following further evidence was taken. John Laurie examined, stated —I am a farmer on the Corwar Station, Rakaia. I gave the order on Miles and Co produced, to defendant. Cross-examined by Mr Wynn Williams—l recollect, when examined at the Ashburton, that my evidence was taken down in writing. The document I signed is my correct evidence. 1 did sign a letter written by Mr Harper, admitting I had laid the information in error. The letter produced is the one signed. I don't think Mr Harper invented that letter. 1 did'nt tell Mr Harper I had laid the information in error, but I. told him I wanted to get out of it. I wanted to get out of it because I was frightened. I did meet Mr Saunders of the Ashburton at Dunsandel Station, and spoke of my intention not to appear to prosecute. When I met Saunders at Dunsandel, he did not induce me to appear, but he told me not to be frightened. 1 did'nt pay him (is 8d for his advice. I. did tell Mr Wason that I wouldu't have laid the information if it hadn't been forced upon me. The witness was asked the question who induced him to lay the information, but refused to answer, and the Bench held that he need not. Examination continued—Some person laid the police on to the case. When [ gave Mr Middleton the order, I had a running account with him, and used to pay him every three months if I was able. I did not instruct Mr Middleton to take up the bill at the Bank. Up to two years"ago I had been in the habit of paying money into the Bank to meet my bills. I recollect being in the store when Mr Middleton told the clerk to take up my bill, as the money had been paid by me, but the bill was not taken up. Re-examined by Inspector Buckley—The sole reason, for my wishiuy to withdraw the

information was that I was told I had made myself liable for a heavy penalty. Mr Wynn Williams here said that considering the many and strange reports that had been circulated around the country about this case, it would only be fair to his client that his books should be examined to see the entry on account of this money. James L. Finnerty called by Inspector Buckley, stated—l am a clerk in the Railway Engineer's office, Christchiirch. On the 15th September last I was employed at the Rakaia by Middleton and M'Quade as bookkeeper. I remember seeing Laurie in the store about that date. Mr Middleton came into the store with Laurie and said, "Mr Laurie has some money, you'd better take it and place it to Mr Laurie's account, and see that when the bill becomes due it is taken up at the bank." The order was for £6O. I can't say whether the order produced is the identical one. To the Bench —Before the bill became due Mr Middleton sent a cheque for the amount to the manager of the bank, and asked him to retire the bill. The cheque was dishonored, and the manager would not retire it. When the order was given by Lawrie the bill was not matured. That was the usual way of doing business. Re-examined by Inspector Buckley—l did not hear Laurie say, when giving the order, that his bill was to be taken up at once. His Worship said that the Bench were of opinion that there was no evidence before them to necessitate the case being proceeded with further. The charge would be dismissed. BIGAMY. James Walker was charged on remand with this offence, AVilliam Moffatt called, stated that he was a farmer living at Balclutha in Otago. He knew the prisoner, and was present when the prisoner was married in his house at Ellenslie on the 17th February, 1864, to Agnes Houlleston. They were married at my house, and afterwards lived together. Mr J. Kirkland officiated at the marriage. He is a Presbyterian minister at Inchclutha. He had signed a document like the one produced, and had also signed the register book as a witness. Alexander Cameron was the other witness. Chief Detective Feast put in the Gazette, January 7th, 1874, containing Mr Kirkland's name as a minister, licensed to perform marriages. The prisoner did live with Agnes Houlleston until within the last three or four months. Last saw her on Saturday night, 13th instant, in her own house. She was then alone.

Detective Feast handed in a copy of subpoena, which had been served on Mrs Walker, who had refused to attend, and so that was all the evidence in the first marriage. With permission of the Bench, he would go on with the second marriage. Susannah Mary Craddock calleol, stated that she resided in St Asaph street with her mother, who kept a boarding house. The prisoner oliol not stay in the house in 1871. Remembered being present at a marriage on September 21st, 1871. It took place at St Michael's Church. The prisoner was then married to Catherine Lee. Was one of the attesting witnesses to the marriage, which was* performed by the Very Rev the Dean of Christchurch. Prisoner—Was I in my right senses at the time? Witness—Oh, yes. Catherine Lee stated that, she knew the prisoner, ai\d was married to him on September 21st, 1871, at St Michael's Church, Christchurch. He told her he was a single man at the time. They lived together until the 23rd of November of thait year, and the prisoner then left her. Next saw him at the R.. M. Court. He told her he was going to work, and would fetch her in a week. After the evidence had been read over to prisoner, and he had been formally cautioned, he saiol he would reserve his defence, and was fully committed to take his trial at the next Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court. A second charge against the same prisoner for wife desertion was withdrawn. ASSAULT. John E. Bracher was charged on summons with having assaulted E. Mitchell. Mr Garrick appeared for the complainant, and Mr O'Neil for defendant. The defendant who was in complainant's employ, had used abusive language to him at the cattle yards on the 10th inst. The following day complainant sent him a memo, and in reply to that defendant called there, and after a conversation about the length of his engagement and other matters he was ordered out when he struck complainant in the mouth. In cross-examination the witness admitteol that there had been strong words between them as to the terms of defendant's employment, and that defendant's hands were bound up at the time, as he had been suffering from sore hands. After counsel had adolressed the Bench, his Worship said there was not a question but that the assault haol been committed. It could never be permitted that an employee shoulol go into an employers office, anol because a disagreement took place between them, raise his fist and commit an assault. He would be fined £5. THE CAB CASES. The informations laid by the police against several of the cabmen for obstructing the thoroughfare were heard. Mr Garrick stated that Dr Foster and himself haol agreed to take two cases only, one from Cathedral Sopiare and the other from Gloucester street. At a later stage of the proceedings, Mr Garrick said that he haol been informed by the Inspector that there were no informations laiol as regardeol Cathedral Square. He would therefore take one case only, for obstructing Gloucester street. The case against James JReid was first proceeded with for having obstructed Gloucester street on 4th February last. Constable Hughes, examined by Dr Foster, deposed—l was on duty from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the 4th February. I saw defendant there with his horse and cab alongside the pavement in front of the Criterion Hotel. He came there about a quarter to ten o'clock. At five minutes past ten I went to him and told him he was causing an obstruction, and requested him to remove his cab. He left at 10.45 p.m., after being there forty minutes after I told him to go away. He heard me tell him to go away; I have no doubt of this. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—l allowed the defendant to remain in front of the Criterion for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes before I spoke to him. He told me he was engaged. The Theatre was open that evening, There is only one bouse be*

tween the Criterion and the Theatre. I saw the cab go away ; I believe he had some one in it. I complained of bis obstructing Gloucester street by standing with his horse and cab. He did not prevent any oi t passing up or down either on the footpath or main road. Re-examined by Dr Foster—There were ten other cabs besides defendant's all drawn up in line in front of the Criterion. This was the case. After hearing counsel on both sides, His Worship said there was no doubt that he had been an obstruction, and he should fine defendant 10s. It was agreed that in all the cases—twenty six—convictions should be recorded on the understanding that no proceedings should be taken until after the result of the application to the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition was known.