MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 793, 5 January 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, January 5. [Before C. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. Two inebriates, who appeared for the first time, were each fined 5s ; John Collins was fined 10s. Larceny of a Watch.— John Reic. Parker was charged on remand with this offence. Detective Bettington called, stated tl at from something that had come to his knowledge he searched accused on Sunday nig fit last. Witness told him he was looking for i watch. Accused said he had no watch m him. Witness found the watch produced on accused, who afterwards admitted that it had been stolen on Saturday night last, but not by him. The owner was subsequently found. Samuel Macllroy, farmer, Harewoo I road, stated that he was in Geddes’s hotel, in Cashel street, on Saturday night las;. Left there about 9 o’clock, and had been < jinking a little. Witness had a watch in hii vest at the time, and when he left the hotel fie went over the Cashel street bridge, lay d( >wn and went to sleep. When he awoke mis sed the watch. The watch produced was the one. Produced the receipt he got when he purchased it; valued the watch at £4 10s. Prisoner had no right to have it in Ms possession. In reply to the Bench accused said he did not know how the watch ca ne into his possession. There was a long list of convictions against accused, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisomm mt with hard labor. Obtaining Money by False Pretences. —Alexander Maclaine was chai ged on warrant with having obtained £2 12s from John Fox by false pretences. Mr Slater appeared for accused. When t rrested, accused said he had a written ore er from Messrs Newton and Ford, giving him permission to drawn upon them, and that he believed the draft would have been ] lonored. At Mr Slater’s request witness ha ided to the Bench a contract dated 1874 between Messrs Ford and Co found on accuse I giving him authority to purchase stock for them. John Fox called, stated that he vas proprietor of the Prince of Wales ho ;eL On last Saturday night accused cam< to hia place, and witness supplied him i frith two gallons of beer. Accused gave wit ness the order produced for £3 in payment. The beer and some drinks accused had a mounted to Bs. Witness gave him £2 12s cash in change. Witness would not have paid the man the money if he did not think t he order would have been honored. Did not know that accused had ever been in Mess: s Ford’s employ. In reply to Mr Slater, witness said he did not ask accused who 3 lessrs J. T. Ford and Co were, as he had no occasion to do so. Charles Newton called, stated that he is a member of the firm ol Messrs Newton and Ford, Hereford street. Accused was employed by the firm about twe months ago. He was sent up to take charge of a station as bailiff. The firm were not indebted to accused on the 30th Di cember. Accused had no authority to give an order on the firm, as he was cautioned against doing so. Witness cashed two orders at various times, but thei ■ were cashed simply for the sake of ;,ccused’a family. The contract shown witness was signed by Mr Ford in 1874, and wa i simply an authority to sell. It had been i escinded verbally. In cross-examination wit less Said accused had been cautioned net to give these orders, and must have known that the one produced would not be honoured. Accused was sent up about two months ago to take temporary charge of a stat on for a week. The firm paid accused for this work on account of Mr Cummins. There had been no settlement of accounts betv men the firm and accused for this work, a! he had been paid for what he had done. The firm had paid several orders given by the accused. The contract with accused in 1814 was to sell. Witness had repeatedly told accused not to give any more orders, and ehould’t think any had been paid since he last told him. In reply to the Bench, witness said accused could not have had any r sason to suppose that this order would hive been cashed. Frank Malcolm, employe !by Mr Beath, draper, called, state i that about five weeks ago accuse! came to the shop and purchased g iods to the value of 10s or 12s. He gave in order for £2 10s, in payment, on Messrs J. T. Ford and Co. The order was presented to that firm, who refused payment. When accused was told of this he asked that the matter might be allowed to stand over for a few days, and subsequently paid the money himself. After Mr Slater had addressed the Bench, hia Worship said accused had been repeatedly warned not to give thes 3 orders, and knew that the agreement between Messrs Ford and Co and him had been rescinded, and that it was not likely i fie order would be honoured. Accused w 3uld be sentenced to one month’s imprisonm 3ut with hard labour-. Violent Assault. —Stephen Saul Blighting was charged on warrant with having violently assaulted his wife, Miry Arm Brighting. Mrs Blighting called, arid whose face presented a fearful spectacle, stated that about one o’clock on the 3rd January her husband came home, and spoke to her about being in bed. She told him she was ill, but would get up in a few moments and attend to his dinner. He then wmt into the kitchen and commenced breaking the things. She went out to him and he took her by the hair, threw her down on the floor, placed his knees on her stomach, and commenced to strike her violently in the face with fajs fists He then battired her head against the floor, and when she tried to get up to escape ttirevv a sewing machine at her, which struck and severely injured her tiJe. Her husband was quite sober ; had he been otherwise witness did rot think he would have struck her as often a a he did. She screamed out, and a person came to her assistance. Mr Best called, gave evidence of the state of the woman from her husband’s treatment when he saw her, • Hoard the woman scream, and when he went into the house remained there until a constal le came, In reply to his Worship, accused said hia wife had aggravated him by the n imes she called hirp. Ho was exceedingly lorry for what he had done. Sentenced to ppe month’s imprisonment with hard labor. LYTTELTON. Friday, January 5. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] Indecency. —William Reny, arusted by Constable Devine, was brought up charged with having committed two offenc 38 of the above nature.' After hearing the Jvidence the Bench sentenced the prisoner to six months' imprisonment with hard abor ou each charge, the second sentence to take effect at the expiration of the first.