MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 443, 15 November 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTCHUBCH. Monday, November 15. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, 8.M.) Drunkenness. —The following inebriates were dealt with:—Edward Malcolm, charged with being drunk at the Christchurch Bailway Station was discharged. His Worship remarking that he scarcely thought that the defendant was in such a state as to warrant his being taken into custody. William Neilson, for making use of obscene language whilst drunk, was fined 20s ; John Watson, for a similar offence, and an old offender, was fined 40s ; John Lane was fined 20s ; Albert Hewitt, for drunkenness and assaulting the police, was fined 20s; Archibald Hammill was fined ss. Vagrancy.—Mary Bowen, a young girl fifteen years of age, was charged with having no visible means of support. The defendant was given into custody by her father, who stated that she left her home on Thursday last, and had not returned. Inspector Buckley said that the girl had posively refused to go home, although she had several chances offered to her on Saturday. The girl was in the habit of frequenting houses of ill-fame. The girl, whose parents were in Court, consented to go home with them, and she was accordingly discharged. Larceny as a Bailee.—John Dawson, who had been arrested on a telegram from Dunedin, charged with stealing a saddle at Balclutha, was brought up and remanded for seven days, to be brought up sooner provided the warrant arrived from Dunedin. Larceny from a Dwelling.—Proctor Mullin, who had been apprehended for this offence on a warrant from Akaroa, was remanded to Akaroa. Embezzlement.—George Holmes Brunt was brought up on remand charged with embezzling certain moneys belonging to his master, James Pearson, grocer, Colombo street. Mr Thomas appeared to watch the case on behalf of Mr Pearson, and Mr Wynn Williams for the accused. The prosecutor deposed that prisoner was in his employ. In October, Mrs Alderton was indebted to him in £1 7s lid for goods supplied to her. Witness produced a bill made out in Brunt's handwriting, and receipted by him. Prisoner had never accounted to witness for that money. Prisoner was in the habit of entering the money received in a small order book, but witness could not find that order book. It would also have been prisoner's duty to enter any moneys received in the book produced; there was no entry of the £1 7s 11 d received by prisoner on 7 th October, but there are subsequent entries up to the 9th. Prisoner left witness's employment on the 11th October, having previously given notice on the 7th, the same day that he signed the receipt for the money. Cross-examined by Mr Williams—All moneys taken by prisoner out of doors ought to be entered by the prisoner in the book produced. I swear that I have not received the money, because there is no entry of it in the book produced. I do not keep books. On the 7fch October prisoner never accounted for any money. I told the detective that my boy told me that Mrs Jenkins had paid prisoner money, and he accordingly went to her, and I afterwards found out that it was not the case. I never balanced my cash-book. Prisoner left my employment and went to my brother. By Inspector Feast—The book produced is simply a receipt-book. Prisoner should make entries of all 'moneys received by him. By Mr Williams Prisoner used to give slips of paper with the accounts received, and hand over the money, the entries were often made next day. Mrs Mary Ann Pearson, prosecutor's wife, stated that it was prisoner's duty to enter moneys received in the cash-book before he gave up the money. Would swear that the entries had not been made up a week after the receipts of the money ; had no other means of knowing that she had not received the money except that it was not entered in the cash-book. Sometimes when Mr Pearson and prisoner were making up the books they used to call out, " Mrs Pearson, do you know whether such and such a sum has been received," The cash-book was for entering up money received outside. Mrs Alderton said the payment of #1 7i lid was made to the prisoner at the door of her house, at Addtogtcn.

Mr Pearson had once before sent witness in an account for goods she had oot had. For the defence, Mr Williams Petec'ive Bettington, who stated thamTn consequence of instructions received from Pearson he saw a Mrs JenkiDS, who said she had not paid money to prisoner as stated by Pearson. The prosec itor was re-called, and said that he had not, to his knowledge, told a lad named Roberts to warn his customers against Brunt. The lad Roberts was called, and deposed that he had run down Brunt a little on his own act ; never told James Matthews that Pearson told him to do so. Pearson did tell witness that he did not like the way Brunt was taking the customers away. James Matthews deposed that ha had lived with Pearson after Brunt left. Witness left Pearson's service because Mrs Pearson interfered too much in the business, partly because witness wanted an increase of wages, and partly because their books were kept in such an unsatisfactory manner. Believed that the present information had been laid by Pearson, in consequence of Brunt having left Pearson's employ aud gone to his brother. In making out accounts, witness had often to refer to Mrs Pearson, who told him from, memory whether the money had been paid or not. William Clark, another witness, gave evidence as to the loose manner in which, the books had been kept. No cash-book was kept whilst witness was in Pearson's employ. Mrs Ashton deposed that in September last Mrs Pearson sent witness in an account which had been paid before and it was rectified. Mr Williams addressed the Bench for the prisoner, contending that it was simply a case of omitting to make an entry on the part of the prisoner. There was no evidence that the money had not been paid to either prosecutor or his wife, in fact there was a total want of evidence showing an intention to defraud on the part of the prisoner. He would also wish to point out that there appeared to be animus on the part of prosecutor against the prisoner. His Worship said there was no doubt but prisoner had received the money, and that he had failed to account for it; on the other hand, if prisoner had intended to defraud he (Mr Mellish) did not think prisoner would have gone about the business in such a clumsy manner. He would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt as to the intention and would discharge him.