MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 830, 20 February 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, Februarv 20. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M.J Drunk and Illegally on Preimses.— Mary Maule, a very old offender, charged with being drunk and allegally on the premises at Addington Gaol the previous morning, and also with using obscene language to Mr Reston, the gaoler, was fined 40s, and cautioned not to appear in Court again, but to take the pledge as Spromised by her. Three inebriates, who appeared for the first time, were each fined ss, and one who had been admitted to bail, 10s. Daniel Rough was fined 20s.

Conspiring to Defraud.—Agnes Brown and Ellen Stokes, two married women of respectable appearance, were charged on remand, with having conspired to defraud Berry Cass, draper, of a quantity of drapery. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Detective Kirby called, stated that he arrested Mrs Brown on warrant at Rangiora, on 29th January last, and charged her with conspiring to defraud Berry Cass, of Christchurch. Accused said she knew nothing about it. Witness took possession of articles produced, consisting of one piece of calico, a dress piece, some flannel, piece of tweed, and piece of Crimean shirting. Took possession of them at the house she was staying in at Kangiora. Accused handed them to witness after saying she had some things, and said she was residing at Kaiapoi on 22nd January ; that a person of the mame of Ellen Stokes had brought them to her ; that Mrs Stokes said Mr Brown (accused's husband) had been to her house at Waltham, and she (Mrs Stokes) had asked him to stand a present for her (Mrs Brown), and that he had done ; she and Mrs Stokes had got the things produced, and brought them up to her. Mrs Brown told witness that she believed her husband was at Dunedin. Witness knew that Brown had been searched for at Dunedin. Witness had seen correspondence that this had been done. [Mr Joynt objected to the evidence being taken down.] In cross-examination the witness stated that when he first saw Mr s Brown he told her a warrant had been issued for her and her husband's arrest, on a charge of conspiring to defraud Berry Cass, of Christchurch. Accused replied, " I know nothing about it." Witness then asked her if she had any property belonging to Mr Cass in the house. She said " I have got some things here that Mrs Stokes brought to me at Kaiapoi on the 22nd instant. Witness told her he wished to see them, and Mrs Brown then went with him to a box, and witness took possession of them. Mrs Brown told witness that, at Mrs Stokes's request, her (Mrs Brown's) husband stood a present for her by giving Mrs Stokes a cheque, and with that cheque Mrs Stokes had got the goods. Detective Neill called, stated that he arrested the accused, Ellen Stokes, on the 30 th of January last, on the warrant produced. Accused said that Mr Brown had sent her with a cheque to Mr Cass's, and that i'the Browns had got all the things (meaning the drapery named in the warrant which witness had read to her). Witness also found thei pair of child's drawers (produced) in accused's house, which were afterwards claimed by Mr Cass. Mrs Stokes i 3 a married woman, and has a family and dwelling-house. Witness knows her husband, and they reside at Waltham. Berry Cass, prosecutor, called, made an affirmation and stated that he is a linendraper in Oashel street. On the 20th of January Mrs Stokes waa at his shop; she brought the order and cheque produced. [Order from Messrs Bishop and Brown requesting Mr Cass to allow bearer to select a few things on account of signers as they had not time to come to town, enclosing cheque for £5, dated 15th January, and drawn on Bank of New Zealand, Kaiapoi, signed by Bishop and Brown.] Accused said Bhe came from Bishop and Brown's at Kaiapoi, and witness understood that both their families lived together in the same bouse. Witness had received cheques and orders previously in the same handwriting as those now before the Court. Couldn't say whose hand-writing it was to the order and cheque, but orders in the same hand-writing had been previously executed, and the cheques paid. Witness had no misgiving about the hand writing. Witness supplied goods to the amount of £ 7 9s 4d. [ Recognised goods produced.] Thought ot course that the cheque wan all right, but it was returned dishonored three daya afterwards. Went to Kaiapoi the day the cheque was returned, and found the firm had cleared out, In cross-examination, witness said he had recognised the hand-writing on the order and cheque. Knew it was the signature of the firm, but did not know which partner had signed them. Bißhop and Brown had dealt with witness for about three months prior to this. On previous occasions the firm since it was Mr Bishop) had purchased cheese cloth three times before this date from witness. [Witness then gave flu account Jof his [transaction with the firm.] Xb« orders need tc be presented by oarrierfl,

accompanied by cheque or cash. On a previous occasion, when an order had been presented by another person, accompanied by a cheque, witness had executed it. Was not prepared to say that only one Buch order was executed. The pencil invoice produced was made out three days after the goods were taken away. Witness spoke to Mrs Stokes after supplying the first article about the goods, when she said they were to be divided on her return to Kaiapoi between Mrs Brown and Mrs Bishop. Witness did not tell her about his misgivings about the cheque, but she had that impression, as she remarked that it was all right, and they had plenty of money. Would solemnly affirm that, but for that remark from her, he would not have supplied the goods. [Witnesshere detailed conversations between him and Mrs Stokes.") Recognised the cheque as one of Bishop and Brown's, and had no misgivings at first where it came from, nor had he any as to its genuineness during the whole of the interview. Thought Mrs Stokes was a reasonable authority as to the value of the cheque. W. B. Willock called, stated that he was teller at the Bank of New Zealand, Kaiapoi; recognise the handwriting on the cheque and order produced aa that of Mr Brown, of Bishop and Brown. The cheque had been presented at the bank and returned dishonoured ; there were not funds to meet it when presented. The memorandum produced to the manager of the Bank was in Brown's ' handwriting, and was used either on the 17th or 18th of January, Both Brown and Bißhop sigDed cheques. In consequence of that memo no more cheques of the firm were honored. Other chequeß had been dishonored about this time. [Mr Joynt objected to this evidence, as it would be desirable first to show that the acoused could be associated with the financial position of the firm] His Worship disallowed further evideace "being taken in this direction. His Worship here asked Inspector Feast if he had any more evidence, and having received a reply in the negative, said he did not think it would be necessary to go further in the case. Mr Joynt said he would nov' dispute Mr Cass's right to the goods. They had not been taken from Mrs Stokes, but from Mrs Brown, and Mr Cass.having relied on the word of Mrs Stokes as to the solvency of the firm was absurd. It was his (Mr Joynt's) firm conviction that this case had been instituted by the prosecutor merely for the purpose of getting the goodß back again. So far as Mrs Stokes' remarks were concerned, the landlord had gone into the premises suddenly on the Monday previous. He (Mr Joynt) had gone through the premises some short time prior to this and was prepared to state that the firm was doing a large cheese business. As a question of legality he should dispute Mr Gasa's right to the goods, and did not think he deserved to have them. His Worship said that, under the circumstances, he could not make an order for the goods to be delivered over to Mr Oass; but as a question of common honesty, he was exceedingly surprised that the objection had been made. Mr Joynt desired his Worship's permission to say that each person looked at honesty from their own standpoint view, and elsewhere he (Mr Joynt) would be entitled to his own opinion in this matter. He had not been instructed to make the application he had made. The goods belonged to Mrs Brown, and she could please herself whether she gave them up or not. Again, he considered that under all the circumstances Mr Cass was not entitled to have them returned to him. Case dismissed.

LYTTELTON. Tuesday, Febuary 20. (Before W. Donald, Esq, 11M.) Breach oe Borough By-Laws.—Robert Smith, for allowing a horse to wander at' large, wag lined ss, and 6s costs. John Hunter, for having a horse at large, was lined ss, and costs 4s. John Dewey was also fined ss, and 5s costs, for a similar breach of the by-law.