MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 235, 11 March 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, March 11. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M., and W. H. Pilliett, Esq, J.P.] DRUNK AND RESISTING THE POLICE, Charles Deal, charged with this offence, was fined 20s. LUNACV FROM DRINK, Archibald McDonald, who had been remanded for medical treatment, was again brought up. Mr Reston, chief gaolor, said the man had now recovered from the effects of drink, but was rather eccentric. His (accused’s) wife had been down at the gaol, and had promised to look after him. Discharged, BREACH OP CITY BYE-LAWS. For permitting horses and cattle to wander, the following persons were dealt with : Josiah Hodges, fined 5s ; Daniel Burns (two informations), 10s ; J. Garland, 5s ; Fredk. Peiper, ss; Robert McPherson, ss; Benjamin Bulmer, ss; Alfred Culliford, ss; James Hogg, 5s ; Andrew McTaggart (two informations), 10s ; E. W. Millett (a goat), ss; Thomas Anson (four horses), 10s; Robert Sunderland, ss, and George Chisnall. ss. For being absent from his horse and vehicle, James Willis was fined 10s. BREACH OF POLICE ORDINANCE. James Reed, a cabman, was charged with obstructing the public thoroughfare, byallowing his cab to remain in Gloucester street. Defendant did not appear. Constable Hughes stated that on that day defendant allowed his cab to remain in Glou cester street for fifty minutes. He (witness) had warned defendant to move on, but he would not. Fined 10s. NEGLECTING TO KEEP A LIGHT BURNING. Fer neglecting to keep a lamp burning over his licensed house, the Golden Age Hotel, Henry Allen was fined 10s. BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. Honoria Fitzgerald was charged with selling beer in her house, Kilmore street. Mr Slater appeared for defendant. Sergeant Kennedy stated that on the 14th February a man who said his name was William Watson, told him he had lost some money in defendant’s house, and had paid for beer in her house. He (the sergeant) searched the house, but could not find the money. He had since learnt that the man’s name was Robert Weatherall. Weatherall called, stated that he did not remember paying for drink in defendant’s house. He was drunk at the time, and had since found the money he thought he had lost in defendant’s house. Case dismissed. BREACH OF RAILWAY BYE-LAWS. George Davis was summoned for contra veiling the above laws by crossing the railway line in sight of a train. Evidence was given that defendant had crossed the line between Dunsandel and Middleton when the train was approaching, The driver had to blow the whistle, but defendant took no notice, and he (the driver) had then to signal to the guard, who was compelled to put on both brakes to prevent an accident. If the train had not been nearly brought to a standstill, the result might have been very serious. Defendant said he had not heard the signal nor did he think the train was approaching, or else he would never have been guilty of such a foolish act as to attempt to cross the line. When he saw the train he tried to pull the horse back, but it was a young one, and he was not able to manage it. t His Worship did not think the act had been committed wantonly, but if defendant could not have managed the horse, he should not have driven it. He trusted this would be a caution to him to be more careful for the future. Fined 10s. USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Thomas Leslie was charged on summons with using obscene language in Gloucester street on the Bth February.

Constable Hughes proved the offence, and defendant was find 10s. OBSTRUCTING THE THOROUGHFARE. Andrew McTaggart was summoned for obstructing the thoroughfare on the 23rd inst, with his horse and cab. The defendant admitted the offence, but said that there were several cases of the same nature pending, and he -would ask his Worship not to enforce his decision. He had protection from the City Council. Inspector Buckley told the Bench that he had been instructed that morning by the Town Clerk to proceed with the information. His Worship said he would inflict a fine of 10s, and defendent could then take the usual course. Defendant said he would “ appale,” FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OF THE COURT. Charles Littlecot was summoned for failing to comply with an order of the Court to contribute towards the support of his son in the Industrial School. Mr Oolee, master of the Industrial School, stated that since he last summoned defendant he had only paid one month towards the support of his son. There were three months now due, and as defendant had failed to keep his word on more than one occasion, he found it necessary to bring him before the Court to enforce payment. Defendant’s wife appeared in court, and stated that her husband was not permanently employed, though he was in good health, and was willing to pay 6s per week. His Worship said defendant would have to pay more than that. He could no doubt obtain permanent employment if he desired, and would have to pay 12s per week until the arrears were paid up. USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Charles Crombie was summoned for using abusive language to David Whyte. These parties were neighbours, and a misunderstanding had arisen about plaintiff’s boys, having, it was said, drowned defendant’s dog. From the evidence it turned out that both parties had used equally bad language, and the case was dismissed. USING ABUSIVE AND THREATENING LANGUAGE. William Dunnage was charged on summons with using abusive language to George Kimmer on the 6th March. Complainant was too ill to appear, but his wife related to the Court the annoyances she and her husband had received from defendant and his family for a long time. A daughter of complainant repeated the language made use of by defendant to her father on the morning of the 6th. Defendant said he had a witness in court, but he thought the case was too paltry to call him. His Worship told defendant that he seemed to have tried to annoy the complainant and his family in a systematic manner. From the evidence of the little girl, there had been sufficiently annoying language used by defendant on the 6th instant to provoke a breach of the peace if the complainant had not been in a delicate state of health, and he (his Worship) was surprised that even the state of the complainant did not excite defendant’s commiseration. He would have to find two sureties to keep the peace for six months in £25 each, and himself in £SO, or be imprisoned for one month, and he (his Worship) would also advise him for the future to prevent his children from annoying the complainant and his family. EANGIORA. Tuesday, March 9. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., A. H. Cunningham, and J. C. Boys, Esqs.J ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Elizabeth Meyers was charged by Jane Jones with having used abusive language towards her on February 11th. Mr Clark appeared for the accused. The Bench dismissed the case, allowing Mr Clark his costs, Richard Stringer was charged by mountedsergeant Wallace with having behaved towards him to provoke a breach of the peace. Fined 20s and costs. The fine was paid. Mrs Austin was charged by Jane Jones with having used language towards her on February 25th calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Clark appeared for the accused. Fined 10s and costs. EMBEZZLEMENT. James Jefford was charged, on information of George Cone, butcher, Rangiora, with embezzling £2 0s 10£d, and divers other sums when in his employ. Inspector Barsham conducted the case. Prosecutor stated—Accused was in his employ from January, 1874, to February 19th, 1875. Whenever witness was away, accused had authority to collect accounts from the customers, His duties were to collect orders, enter them in the order book, and insert opposite to each name the weight of joint sold, and send out the meat with a ticket on it of the weight. In the event of anyone paying him for a joint it was the accused’s duty to pay the amount to Mrs Cone or witness, so that it could be struck off the book and not entered into the ledger. He hadL failed to do this on several occasions. In the case of Mr W. Sansom,Jsen, his account in witness’s book shewed that £2 0s lOJd was due, and witness had not received the amount. The usual way with Mrs Sansom was to pay for every joint as she had it. Referring to the ledger, Sansom’s account for August was £1 9s 9d, for which accused took out the bill and paid it, for September £1 5s 2.)d, and for October and November £2 7s 4-Jd, of which sums the latter was paid to Mrs Cone by accused in January, 1875. From January 12th to January 27th, witness continued to supply Sansom with meat, but there were no entries made by accused in the book. From February 2nd to February 9th, there was no order put down in the order book. Accused was employed at 30s per week which was paid to him every Saturday, except what might be deducted for money lent and 8s house rent. He never authorised accused to keep money to pay his wages. In consequence of having found that these items had not been paid, witness taxed accused about it. He first denied the accusation, but afterwards said he was sorry for it. Witness dismissed him then. Accused could have sold meat and taken money in many instances without accounting for it. It was quite easy for him to do so. Accused only once or twice paid the money as paid by Mr Sansom, Witness’s wife made up the books. By Accused—Sometimes a ponnd was stopped to pay for money I had lent to you. I gave you a pound towards furniture. I frequently gave you money over your wages, and also lent you £2, By the Bench—There is another man authorised to sell meat. Accused was supposed to deliver meat. No one else except J, Card, Mn Coue, aad accused were author

rised to sell, give credit, or receive money. Card had to take orders from the accused in my absence, and used to always go to Sansom’s. I considered accused in my employ superior to Card. Ellen Cone, wife of last witness, stated the manner in which their trade was conducted. In reference to Sansom’s, they paid cash almost daily till August, when accused said they wanted the account sent in monthly. Any money he received was supposed to be paid to witness. The account of October and November, £2 7s 4fd was paid by accused on January 25th, when he gave witness £2 7s 3d, stating he had to pay Mrs Sansom one penny for the stamp. Saneom’s account for December was £2 Os IOJd, which she had not received from anyone. According to the order-book there was no entry to Sansom from January 12th to January 27th. Witness never lent arty money to or gave him authority to deduct money from what he collected. The other man had faithfully accounted for all he had taken. In December, accused asked to have his wages paid weekly, and they were so paid till about the time of his leaving. Wages were due to him £4 10s less £1 2s 6d for cash lent, and £1 4s for rent. Ann Sansom, wife of W. Sansom, sen, stated she dealt at Cone’s, and had meat in regular quantities from his shop, receiving the meat from the accused, and always paying him for it. Accused never presented an account for £2 7s 4-;|d. Cone presented such an account, but she declined to pay it, having never owed him anything. Card called for orders, but very seldom, about three or four times during the seven months. She always paid cash for all meat had from Cone’s during August, September, October, November, December, and January. Never received a stamped receipt from accused. Gr. Cone, recalled, said that in his book were entries of 12s B|d paid by accused from William Bell in September last. There was booked against her on January 30th 4s 3d, and on February 13th 2s 4d, neither of which had been paid by Bell or accused. Ann Bell, wife of William Bell, said she paid accused for each joint as it was delivered. Never received a bill for such an amount as 12s Bfd, Had paid both the 4s 3d and 2s 4d, per ticket produced, as she always paid cash for meat from Cone’s. Annie Elizabeth Bell gave corroborative evidence. Accused, who said he would plead guilty to all the charges and throw himself on the mercy of the Court for the sake of his wife and family, was committed for trial.