MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 997, 5 September 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, Septembee 4. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.] “A Dangerous Chaeactee.” Mary Taylor was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining goods from Robert Cole on false pretences. Mrs Cole, wife of a publichouse keeper at Lyttelton, stated that her mother, Mrs McCauley, was at present in the Hospital, where witness had seen the accused, who had called on witness at Lyttelton. She then said that she had come from Mrs McCauley, and on account of her representations, witness gave her a shawl and other articles. Detective Smith deposed that he had found some of the articles in question at Stewart’s licensed pawn shop, and some at the shop of Mr Davis, who, on being called, identified the accused as the person who had pawned the shawl produced. She had obtained 16s on the article. Mrs Stewart, wife of S. Stewart, licensed pawnbroker, also identified some of the articles produced as those having been pawned by the accused for 20s. J. Mitchell Walker proved having arrested the accused on warrant. A second case in which, which accused was charged with larceny as a bailee in the matter of a carpet bag belonging to Margaret McCaidey, was then called. Detective Smith produced the bag in question, having obtained it from Stewart’s simp. The bag had since been identified by Die owner, a patient at the Hospital. Mrs Stewart gave corroborative evidence. Prisoner made no statement. His Worship remarked that the prisoner was a dangerous person to be at large, being well skilled in imposition. It appeared that she had been sent to gaol not so long ago, and after getting out of it she took the first opportunity that occurred to commit herself. Both charges had been clearly proved, and he would sentence her in respect of each to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor, the sentences to be cumulative —in all twelve mouths’ imprisonment with hard labor. Wednesday, September 5.?| (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Miscellaneous. William Cody, for drunkenness, was fined 40s ; Jas. McDonald, for being drunk, using obscene language, and resisting the police, was sentenced to pay a fine of 20s, it being his first appearance ; and Francis Brown, accused of being drunk, and wit h using obscene language, was ordered to [iay a fine of 20s. Libel. —Emanuel Roderick was charged with, that he did on the 30th of July, write and publish, or cause to be written and published, a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libel, concerning John O’Malley, he, Emanuel Roderick, knowing the said libel to be false. Dr. Foster appeared.for the prosecution, and Mr Joynt for the defence. The following letter, dated July GUI D. 1677, and addressed to the Mayor and City Councillors, and attested by Roderick as having been written at his instigation, formed the ground of the action ; —“ Gentlemen, —I was working for a man named James Moore, who is working for the Council, and I worked a day and a half for him, and my time was paid to mo by his foreman, O’Malley, out of moneys belong to the Council. James Moore has I believe also received pay for the same day and a half from the Council, and has asked

me to say nothing about it, I worked for him on the 21st and the 31st days of January this year. He got horses shod in the Council time on the 6th, the 7th, and the 14th days of July, and charged the Council withhorscs and van hire during those periods. On the 24th July a man employed by the Council named Nelson filled the other people’s drays all day long.” The Town Clerk, called by Dr. Foster, said he was present at the meeting of the works committee of the Town Council on the 31st July. The meeting was held partly to consider a letter written by the defendant, and addressed to the Council. The defendant was present at the investigation. Letter handed in, but witness could not say whose signature was attached to it; but he had heard defendant say that it was the letter which he had intended to send to the Council. The James Moore referred to in the letter was a carter in the employment of the Council, and O’Malley was the foreman of works for the Town Council. He had filled that office before the 21st of January last. The foreman gave in the time of the men to the surveyor, who checked it, and payment was made accordingly. Charles Walkden, city surveyor, had held his present office for some time. Had been present at a meeting of the Works Committee of the Town Council on 31st July. The defendant was present, and he admitted that he had attached his mark to the letter produced. J. Moore, carter, and O’Malley, the foreman, were mentioned in the letter. The foreman kept the time of the men, and the pay sheet was made out from the foreman’s list, Henry Thomson said he was a member of the Town Council and the Works Committee. Had been present at the meeting of the committee when the letter produced was considered. Roderick and O’Malley were present, and the former declined to give the name of the writer, but said that he had paid for having it done by a man in Hereford street, and admitted that he knew the contents of the letter to which he had appended his mark. The man previously complained to witness that he had been discharged while other men had been kept on, by the orders of the surveyor witness understood Roderick to say. He persisted in maintaining the charges at the meeting. John O’Malley, foreman of works to the Town Council, and prosecutor in the case, had to furnish the time of the men to the surveyor. There was no entry of time in the day-book on the 21st of January, as that was a Sunday, but there was an entry of work done by Roderick on the 31st ol January. Witness had reason to believe that Roderick worked for James Moore on the 24th of January, and witness put down Roderick’s work on that day as having been done for the Council. Witness was proceeding to explain why he had done this, but Mr Joynt objected to the explanations, and urged that there were no insinuations as to corruption in the alleged libel. Ho would not consent to the introduction of side issues for the sake of giving a colour lo the case which it would not otherwise bear. Speaking of the general principle of libel, .the learned counsel said that where language if spoken by word of mouth would be actionable, it would, if reduced to writing be criminally libellous. Dr. Foster combatted Mr Joynt’s arguments against the witness giving an explanation on the gronnd that the document imputed corrupt conduct to his (Dr. Foster’s) client, who naturally wished to vindicate his character. It was admitted that O’Malley had done what was stated, but he had not done it corruptly, as was imputed. The Court thought the evidence admissablc under the circumstances. The witness resumed—On the 24th he was short of drays. On that day Moore ■was absent on leave, and witness sent Roderick to work Moore’s horse, and Roderick’s time was charged to the Council. Moore had done overtime for the Council in January, and on the 24th there was money due to Moore on that account —possibly a couple of pounds. Moore’s horse was entered as having done work for the Council on the 24th, and on that account James Moore was credited with eight hours’ work. It was impossible that Moore coidd have shod horses of his own on the 6th, 7th, and 14th July, as he was then driving horses belonging to the Council. He might have got any of the Council’s horses shod then had it been necessary to shoe them. So far as witness knew, none of the men employed by the Council had filled any drays on the Council’s works except those they were authorised to fill. On the 24th July Nelson was trimming footpaths and roadsides. Witness had authority to cause any drays to be filled if necessary, and Nelson had instructions to (ill drays not belonging to the Council on the day in question. Mr Joynt cross-examined. Witness said that Roderick was getting 6s 8d a day —a lawyer’s fee ; and Moore was receiving 13s a day for himself and his horse and van. Generally, in the case of a man employed by the Council going to drive the horse and cart of another in the employment of the Council witness deducted his time from the paysheet, and left him to be paid by the owner of the horse and cart, [’here was nothing in witness’s time-book lo show (he city surveyor that Moore was absent on the 24th January. Roderick was entered as working on that day at Cambridge terrace, but as a matter of fact he was engaged in driving Moore’s cart in connection with some channelling work, but both were entitled to what was credited to them. Witness could not enter up the minute details of such matters. Roderick also worked an hour for Moore on the 23rd of January, and both were credited with work done at that time for the Council, but Roderick never worked for Moore more than one day and one hour —at least he had never been paid by the Council for more than that time, so far as witness was concerned. In allowing overtime,Jwitness was not permitted to credit for less than the fourth part of day ; half hours and hours were not entered separately, but were allowed to accumulate till they made up the division of time recognised by the Council. Witness had no entry of the overtime Moore had worked, and could not speak as to dates, but Moore had been very useful to witness. Witness did not us a rule a written record of small divisions of overtime, but trusted to some extent to his memory. As a matter of fact the time taken up by a man named Agnew in getting his horses shod was not credited to the Council, and witness was in the habit of allowing draymen this privilege, and of receiving considerations in the shape of small jobs for the Council in return. Dr. Foster examined the witness O’Malley, who said that he made no difference between Moore’s time and that of the other men. Moore’s overtime was made up ol driblets, and witness never entered portions of overtime that amounted to less than a quarter of a day. Moore had on several occasions worked overtime, and so witness did not feel justified in deducting his money for the day he was absent. Witness allowed Moore to absent himself, as his (Moore’s) daughter was dangerously ill. Charles Walkden, examined by Dr, Foster, said that Roderick admitted to the meeting of the

Works Committee that he had written the letter because he had been discharged. It would not be unfair to let hired horses be shad during the Council’s time in return for overtime given by their drivers. Moore was driving one of the Council’s carts on the 14th July, also on the 6th and 7th of the same month. He did not consider that O’Malley had, in the matter under investigation, ext reised any improper discretion, for he had only acted in accordance with instructions given to him previously by the witness. James Moore, carter for the Town Council, remembered one occasion early in the year when Roderick worked for him. Witness at that time obtained leave of absence from O’Malley, and it was arranged that witness should leave his horse at work, and that O’Malley should send a man to drive it. (Left sitting.) LYTTELTON. Wednesday, September 5. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Two inebriates made their first appearance, and -were fined 10s each. Lunacy from Drink. —Michael Morgan, on remand from Christchurch, was brought before the Court on the above charge, and was discharged, having fully recovered. Civil Cases. —T. H. Parkinson v. W. Kelly, claim £1 14s 6d; judgment for plaintiff; costs 6s. Same v. T. Kelly, claim £1 Is 9d ; judgment for plaintiff; costs 6s.