MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 793, 6 January 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, January 6, [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. Maurice O’Connell, charged with drunkenness, was fined 20s ; Robert Curry, 10s ; and Edward Stevens, 10s James Parr, who had been remanded for medical treatment, was brought up and discharged; Robbery with Violence, George Mnsson was charged on warrant with this offence, Mr Joynt appeared for the accused. Sergeant Wilson deposed to arresting the prisoner the previous day. When witness read the warrant accused denied the charge. Witness afterwards took possession of a"hat, two purses, two gold rings, and three receipts at the house of the prosecutrix. In cross-examination, witness was asked to relate* the conversation that took place between the woman and him, and said she told him that George (meaning the accused) had returned the property to her. The woman also told witness that on the night of the 29th December George met her at the Theatre. They had some drinks together, and left there in company between ten and eleven. They went down Gloucester street, into Manchester street, and turned up Worcester street towards the square, and went together into Collins’ Hotel. Accused had purchased four bottles of porter there, and also shouted two drinks before leaving. They afterwards left there and went to Worcester street east, where prosecutrix lives. When they got inside some conversation took place about money, and accused gave the woman £1 10s. Sometime afterwards accused asked the woman for a key of the box produced, which was on the kitchen table at the time. Prosecutrix refused to give it to him, and accused then told her he had heard she had plenty of money, if she didn t give him the key he would take the box away and break it open. She begged of him not to take the box as she had some valuables in it which she would not like to lose. Accused then got hold of her by the neck, and tied a large scarf round it, and threw her on the bed. She was then unable to speak, but managed to loosen the scarf, and still begged of him not to take the box away. He opened the door, went out and took the box away, leaving the hat produced behind him. The .box contained the property previously described, some books, photographs, and wearing apparel. The woman had put the money given her by accused into one of the purses produced ; he saw her put it away into the box. Prosecutrix told witness that each of the three purses contained money. A petticoat valued at between £5 and £6 was also in the box when taken away, and she had told witness that she was covered with bruises inflicted by accused when he was attempting to choke her. Prosecutrix told witness that the man assaulted her because she would not give him the key. Accused, according to the woman’s statement was not drunk, nor was she. Accused had stated to the woman that he had come down from Rangiora, and it was only by going to the hotel next day where they had purchased the porter that she found out who he was. Witness knew of his own knowledge that the prosecutrix was a woman of ill-fame. Rebecca Stewart, prosecutrix called, corroborated in the main particulars the statement she had made to last witness. Accused when he asked her for the key; had threatened to kill her if she did not give it to him. Witness was in bed when accused tied the muffler round her neck and tried to choke her. It was witness’s impression that the man thought she was dead when he left her. She heard him rummaging about in the next room, as she sat up and tried to loosen the scarf. When she succeeded in doing this she went into the room where accused was and handed him the muffler. Saw accused take a purse out of her black dress pocket, containing his money and more. He put the purse into his vest, and then went away, leaving his hat produced. Saw that accused had the box produced in his hands when he was going out of the door of that room. Accused then told her he was a married man, and when she said she would summons him, he told her he could easily say she took £5 from him, and that her word would not be taken against his. Next day she saw him in Mr Montgomery’s timber-yard, and asked him if be was going to give her the box and other things he had taken away. He said know you.” She then called a policeman and told him the particulars, and also as to the attempt on her life. When accused was afterwards asked his name by the constable he said it was Mitchell. Witness told the manager of the yard all about the case in the presence of accused. Next day, Wednesday, she again went to the yard, and asked accused if he had made away with the likenesses. He told witness he had everything but the money, and asked her not to tell the detectives, and he would give her any money. He asked her what name she had told the police, and she said “ Mitchell,” and she thought that was his right name. He made an appointment with witness to meet her in front of the .Scotch Stores at nine o’clock that night. She met him at the time appointed, and they went down Manchester street to the South belt, and he told her it was near a broken place in a hedge, which he pointed out. She went in and found the box, and as it was dark she struck a match, when he

blew it out, and said they did not know who might be watching him, and that he had a great deal of trouble to get the box to that place without being seen. Accused promised to meet her again at the same place on Thursday night, at nine o’clock, but did not keep the appointment. When she got the box back, it had been forced open, and , il the articles in it svUen taken away with the exception of a white petticoat. The articles she handed to Sergeant Wilson were in the box. Accused when he mot her that night handed a purse back, and said everything was in it but the money. The petticoat was a very expensive one and worth about £lO. Accused left the hat produced behind him the night he went away. The remaining property would be worth about €5. Was certain accused was the man. Mr Joynt hare asked his Worship whether it was the intention of the Bench to deal with the case summarily, as that would guide his cross-examination. His Worship said he was afraid he could not deal with it so, as the charge was a serious one, and the value of the property taken over £5. In crossexamination witness said she learnt accused’s right name in the timber yard next day. When she asked him his name first, he refused to tell her. They had drank one of the bottles of porter, and accused left the other three in the house. Accused was not drunk, and witness had never been drunk in her life. There must have been at least £5 in the three purses, all of which accused took away with him. There were some other men with accused when she met him first at the Theatre. There was nobody at the house that evening but accused and witness. It was six months ago that she first saw accused, she thought, in Messrs Montgomery’s yard, but would not be certain that it was there. She knew his face, however. Witness had purchased timber at Montgomery’s and fancied she had seen him there. Witness could not say that accused had ever been in her house before, as she could not remember everyone who had been there. When she went to enquire at Collins’ hotel about accused she was given to understand that accused did not live at Rangiora. In re-examination witness said she was sure accused was the man who was at her house that night. James M'Kenna, called, identified accused coming to him in front of the Theatre on the night of the 29th December, and gave him a shilling for some nuts. After purchasing the nuts both of them went in the direction of Latimer square. Had no doubt whatever that accused was the man. In cross-exami-nation the witness said he would not undertake to say that he could identify every one who bought nuts from him, but as the woman came up with the man for the nuts he remembered the man distinctly. When the woman spoke to him on the Saturday night about accused, he told her he would be able to recognise him. Saw accused between eight and nine o’clock next morning (Sunday) at Wilson’s corner, and spoke to him about the affair when accused said he would bet him £5 that he had never purchased any nuts from him. William Thomas Baugh, one of the proprietors of Collins’ Hotel, called, stated that accused was at the hotel about a quarter to eleven on the Friday night. Did not see the woman with him. Accused ordered two glasses of stout, and took one to some person outside, but witness did not see who that person was. Accused took four bottles of stout away with him. There was a trifling conversation about Rangiora, but witness did not recognise the man in any way as connected with that place. Accused appeared to know witness, but he (witness) could not remember him. When witness handed accused the glass of porter across the counter he took it outside. Prosecutrix came to the hotel next day. George Buckman, bootmaker, Hereford street east, remembered being at Collins’s Hotel on Friday night, 29th December, about ten minutes to 11. Saw accused there, and leave the hotel in the company of a female, not unlike the prosecutrix, but the woman had on a different dress to that worn by the woman at present. They both went up Hereford street, towards the East belt. Accused had a light suit on, and a black billycock hat, similar to the one produced. In crossexamination witness said he could not swear to the clothes, but they were similar to the ones now worn by accused. Recognised the hat by two eyelit holes in it, Gould not say that the hat was in the same shape as at present. Was shown the hat that morning in Court by Sergeant Wilson. Had known accused for years at Rangiora, The woman he saw there that night standing at the door bore a general resemblance to the prosecutrix, Was nearly certain that accused was dressed as at present, and had the hat now in Court on at the time. Samuel Needham, called, gave evidence of having seen prosecutrix at Montgomery’s timber yard on Tuesday last. Saw the woman speaking to accused and the other men in the yard. Head the woman ask accused for his name, and be replied “ George Mussen.” Witness was only a few yards from accused at the time. Constable Watson gave evidence of seeing the prosecutrix in Hereford street about half-past nine on last Wednesday night, carrying a brown box. She was going in the direction of the East Town belt. This was all the evidence, and after the depositions had been read over to accused, he reserved his defence, and was fully committed to take his trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court. In reply to Mr Joynt, his Worship said he would grant bail in two sureties in £IOO each. The Bench accepted the names of Messrs Needham and Davidson who offered bail, and accused was liberated during the day. Forgery and Uttering. William Sykes was charged with having forged a promissory note for £l2 on 3rd January, and W. J. Falloon was charged with having uttered the same. Inspector Feast said that the prisoner Sykes came to the detective office the previous day and said he had been induced to sign his name to a cheque or bill; that he had been drinking for a couple of days, and Falloon had brought this document to him and asked him to write the name of James Rosser upon it, which he did, and that Falloon bed afterwards got cash for it; that Falloon had kept him for two days, and on that (Thursday) morning, when he ■ (Sykes) found he had done wrong, he spoke to Falloon, who had given him four half crowns, which money he (Sykes) handed to witness, and that Falloon had told him to clear out. Witness subsequently got possession of the promissory note produced from M. Murphy, and Sykes told witness that the name James Rosser on it wis written by him. Witness subsequently showed the bill to J. Rosser, who denied that he had written the name on it. When witness arrested Falloon, he said there was some mistake about it, and aub-

sequently witness arrested Sykes on the charge of forging the bill. Michael Morphy, bill discounter, Colombo street, gave evl dence of Falloon coming to him on the 3rd instant to discount the bill for £l2 produced at one month, and said the name on it was J. Rosser, contractor. Witness discounted the bill, and gave the man a cheque for £lO, which was paid at the bank. When witness spoke to Rosser about, he did not deny that the signature was his at the time, but did so nest day. Rosser had stated several times in witness’ presence that he would back a bill for accused. Falloon here told the Bench that Murphy had drawn up the bill himself at his office, and Sykes had backed it for him when he asked him, but he did not think he wan writing Rosser’s name, James Rosser stated that the endorsement to the bill was not his, nor had he seen the bill until the previous day. Murphy, however, came to witness that morning and wanted him to acknowledge the signature to save some trouble and said he would"take it back at £1 per week. Witness had told Falloon that he would back a bill for him. In reply to the Bench, Falloon said he had repeatedly borrowed money from Murphy, and had always paid him up. He would be prepared to take up this bill when it became due. Both prisoners were committed for trial, bail being allowed in two sureties of £IOO each. Illegally on Premises and Larceny. —Benjamin Brunston, charged with being found illegally on the premises of Mr R. Davidson, Colombo street south, and also with stealing a bottle of neatsfoot oil from the stables of Messrs Weedon and Co, was sentenced to seven days imprisonment, with hard labour. James Connor, who had been arrested for being found illegally on preg ises in Colombo street, and had been remanded for medical treatment, was brought up and discharged. Lunacy from Drink. —C. P. Fox was remanded to Lyttelton for eight days for medical treatment.