MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 592, 12 May 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, May 11. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M.) Civil Cases. —Curd v Henderson ; claim, £1 ; Mr Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cowlishaw for the defendant. It may bo remembered that a few days ago the plaintiff sued the defendant criminally, charging him with obtaining £1 under false pretences. The charge was, however, withdrawn, Mr Thomas, who then appeared for the prosecutor, intimating that civil proceedings would be taken to recover the amount said to be due. Stephen Curd, the plaintiff, deposed that about eighteen months or two years ago the defendant had pro mised to get him a situation on the railway if he would give him £5. Some short time afterwards witness gave him £l, and promised to give him the remaining £4 when he obtained the appointment. (All witnesses were here ordered out of Court.) He however, never received the appointment, and consequently he now brought the present action for the recovery of the £l, as the contract had not been completed. In cross examination witness stated that he had given defendant the £1 in an envelope in the presence of a person named Wilson. The money was given to him on the banks of the river, near the burying ground. Witnesf had previously been working on the line as a labourer, and the appointment he was to get was to be a better one. He was touring the bell and attend about the railway sta-

tion. He had been doing iome private I work for the defendant in his garden. Since that time he had been doing very little; but he had now got a constant employment. He had worked for some time as a gardener for Mr Spencer and for other gentlemen. He denied that he had been sent for, and instigated to make this charge. He would swear that upon oath. He had seen and passed Mr Henderson several times since he gave him the pound without speaking to him. He had spoken to Mr Wilson aa a friend on this subject. John Wilson deposed that he had been present on the occasion referred to, when the plaintiff gave the defendant an envelope. There was a pound in that envelope, and it was given to defendant to get plaintiff a situation. Plaintiff would have given the £5 all at once, but witness advised him not to do so. In cross-examina-tion the witness said that he had himself given defendant a guinea to get him (witness) a situation. His character was a perfectly good one, and he could show the Court certificates that he had been honestly employed f )T thirty-four years. He had been in gaol, but not as a convict, He had been warder of a gaol and had locked up many better men than some in that Court. He had been employed on the railway and had been dismissed. He had made certain eharges against the defendant of dishonesty. He believed those charges had been investigated by the Government. Was at present in charge of Mr Gresson's house at 30s a week. He had preferred the charge against Henderson about twelve months ago. Did not know how it had ended. It was a charge of stealing property from the railway store. He could not write, but had signed the letter of accusation, and himself handed it in to Mr Warner. He had left the railway with three other men. He did not know whether Mr Henderson had anything to do with his dismissal. He had his own opinion about it. The defendant deposed that the plaintiff had about two years ago gone to him and told him that he was hard up, and he had then given him a few days work in his garden out of kindness. He then asked witness if he wrote to Mr Warner whether he (defendant) would put in the application, and do what he could for him; He afterwards stuck witness up, and put a letter into his hand, stating that it was a present. Witness continued—l handed it back indignantly, and said that I would not take it, and that it was a paltry thing for any man to attempt to bribe another, and that therefore I would have nothing more to do with the matter. I distinctly swear I did not take the envelope from him. He has never spoken to me since, nor I to him. It was only the other day that I heard anything of this claim against me. Cross-examined I am quite confident that the witness Wilson was not present when the plaintiff handed me the envelope. The story he has told to the Court is quite false. I never took money from any person to get them a situation. I have no influence to do so. I deny, on my oath, that I ever received a penny from Wilson. I got Wilson on the railway, but I never received anything for so doing. He never made me a present of any kind. I afterwards got him dismissed because I found he was defrauding the Government. Mr Thomas— Did he ever prefer a charge against you ? Witness—Yes. Mr Thomas—Were you ever in gaol? Witness Never never even passed through one or was inside one on a visit ; I have looktd at the outside of one, and that is all. Mr Thomas—Never placed in the dock charged with anything 1 Witness -Never. Mr Thomas—Did you ever tell any other person that you had received this pound from Curd? Witness—Never. Mr Thomas—Did you never tell Mr Thomas that you had received a pound from the plaintiff ? Witness—No, sir, I never did. The accusation made against me was about eighteen months ago. I should be very sorry to take £5 for this this sort of thing. I had no power whatever to get any person a situation. I simply agreed to lay the plaintiff's written application before Mr Warner. Wilson made the accusation against me of stealing things, but could not support the charge. The charge was investigated, but it was not substantiated. A letter came from a Mr Perkins also laying certain charges against me, but Mr Perkins could not be found, and it was supposed to have been an anonymous production. If 1 could have found the writer I would have prosecuted him. I do not know anything of the antecedents of this man Wilson. The witness Wilson was here re-called, and again swore that he had paid the defendant a guinea to get him a situation on the railway. Samuel Wilson, the next witness, deposed he was employed on the railway in Mr Swinton's office. About twelve months ago John Wilson had been dismissed, and he then went to witness and said it was Henderson who had got him dismissed, and that he knew a fellow who could bring a case against him for taking money from him to get him a billet. Wit ness asked, " Did you see him," and Wilson replied, " No ; he told me so, and I will tell, for I don't care what it costs me;" and added, " that he would push him as far as he could." By Mr Thomas—Mr Henderson did not get me my appointment. I am not a friend of his ; quite the contrary. I heard what Wilson said in Court, and I tell him that he tells a lie. A good many of the railway employes may «be present. I came here for the express purpose of listening. I was not subpoeuaed as a witness, and did not go out of court. I have been upon the railway fivo or six years. 1 don't know how long Mr Henderson has been upon it, but I was there two or three years before him. I don't claim him as a friend. We had a big quarrel once. I came here to tell the truth. Alfred Lawson de posed—He was a clerk in the engineer's office. He knew John Wilson, who, about eighteen months ago, went to him and made a voluntary statement that Curd had paid Henderson some money to get him a billet on the railway, and that he (Wilson) had told him how to go about it. At that time Wilson had been dismissed, and was evidently under the impression that Henderson was the cause of it. A charge had been preferred against him by Mr Henderson. By Mr Thomas—l would not swear that Wilson said he knew that Curd had done this thing, but he said he told him how to do it, because Curd was not up to that sort of thing. By Mr Cowlishaw—As far as I understood, he had laid a trap tor Henderson, I did not trouble my head about it, believing it to be a piece of spite on the part of Wilson. James White deposed he was a clerk in the railway department. He knew a man named John Wilson. He was present at a conversation between him and a

man named Knight. The pum and substance of the conversation was that Mr Joynt had thrown the case over, and that he was advised to apply to Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas asked leave to call Mr Crowe, one of the station masters on the railway, Mr Crowe deposed— I had a conversation with Henderson on this subject. He said it was a fine way of making money, and that he was to receive £5 for getting a situation for Mr Curd. I said it was a paltry thing to do, and he then said that he had only received £l. No one was in the office. Heafterwards said he intended to return that pound. I had been told about this five pound business by Curd and Wilson. I knew a man named Jeffries, and Henderson told me he was going to get him a billet too. I was friendly with him then, but not afterwards, because I found he was false. I was disrated, but I did not put that down to Mr Henderson. It was proved to me that he was false. He reported certain things about me on various occasions. I don't wish to do him any harm, and have no bad feeling against him. I only know that Jeffries made a charge against Henderson, through Henderson telling me of it. Mr Henderson, recalled by the Bench—l gave Curd the envelope back there and then without looking at it. John Wilson, recalled by Mr Thomas—On one occasion 1 myself gave Henderson a guinea to get me a situation on the railway and he did so. This was in my own house. I did have a conversation with Mr Lawrence, because he obtained the | place which Curd should have had. By Mr Cowlishaw—l myself handed in a report to Mr Warner charging the defendant .With theft. I can't write, and don't remember who wrote the letter. It was written* Jfor: me. This was the whole case. After counsel on both sides had addressed the Bench, the Court gave judgment as follows :—The case resolves itself into this—whether the men Curd and Wilson and Crowe have committed deliberate and corrupt perjury, and whether they have banded themselves together for the purpose of carrying out a conspiracy to bring this charge forward against the defendant—what might almost amount tb a criminal charge—and to come here prepared to utter a tissue of deliberate lies. Either Imust disbelieve their statements altogether, or they must lie under the imputation of having commit 13d deliberate and corrupt perjury. On the other hand, if I believe their statement, the same imputation will lie against Henderson. Even taking into consideration that Curd and Wilson may have some ground of animosity against the defendant, I cannot see how Crowe can be uaid to be imbued with the same feeling. With regard to Wilson and Curd, there may possibly be some suspicion, but I don't see that there can be against Crowe, who gave his evidence in a most fair and straightforward manner, and neither do I believe that any slight animosity that the others might have against Henderson would cause them to come here with a lying statement and commit deliberate perjury. They must have trumped up the whole story, and must have been- very ingenious to get Crowe in with them as one of the parties to make the statement he has done. I don't believe it possible for one moment, nor do I think that any one who has heard the evidence believes it either. Judgment will be given for amount claimed, with costs. T. Hitchens vM. Clements ; claim £26 7s ; judgment by default for amount claimed and costs 255. B. Bose and C. Bose v G. L. Bradley ; claim £26 ; Mr O'Neill for plaintiff, Mr Slater for defendant ; plaintiff nonsuited, with costs £4 Bs. A. Maclaine vB. Little; claim £75 ; Mr Slater for plaintiff, Mr Thomas for defendant ; judgment for £45, and costs £ls 15s. Friday, May 12. (Before G. L. Lee and B. Westenra, Esqs, Js.P. Drunkenness.—Margaret Bowen, for being drunk and disorderly and smashing a pane of glass, was fined 10s, and ordered to make good the damage done ; and Anne Wharton, for drunkenness and soliciting prostitution, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour. Affiliation.—A case of this kind against Henry Hebden was adjourned until May 25th. Neglecting- to Obey an Order of the Court. —Thomas Helens brought up for neglecting to obey an order of the Court to pay 10s a week towards the support of his two children. The defendant said he wished to have the children in his own keeping. He was willing to pay up the arrears by £1 Is or £1 10s per week. Ordered to pay up the amount of arrears within one week. LYTTELTON. Thursday, May 11. (Before W. Donald, Esq, 8.M.) Absent Without Leave. Charles Stewart, cook and steward on board the brigantine Omaha, was charged by Captain Micklejohn with this offence, and ordered on board. Civil Cases.—-Heslop v McDougall; claim £3 15s 9d ; judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Mitchell v Isherwood ; claim £1 Is ; judgment by default with costs 10s. Eathorn v Wooton ; claim £2 10s, for services rendered on voyage of ship Inverdruie from London ; Mr Nalder for plaintiff; plaintiff nonsuited. Miller v Brough ; claim £34 0s 3d; judgment summons ; Mr Nalder for plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay amount within seven days, or in default three months' imprisonment.