MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 998, 6 September 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, September 5. (Before Q-. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.) Libel. —The following evidence in this case was given after we went to press yesterday:— He had been paid for the day in question, and it was true that he had even asked Roderick to say nothing about it, but on pay night witness waited to pay for the day he had driven witness’s horse, and he said he had been paid by the Council. Witness remarked that it was all right, believing that he (witness) had been allowed the day on account of overtime which he had given the Council. Witness had got one of the Council’s horses shod on the 22nd of July, but he had no horses shod on the other days mentioned. Witness had not received consideration equivalent to the value of the overtime which he had given the Council. Mr Joynt cross-examined the witwitness, who admitted that he could not have made out a bill giving the details of his overtime if he had been asked. He had never since the 30th of January last had any allowance made to him for overtime to the City Council. Alexander Agnew had worked for the City Council in July last. He had always been allowed time to shoe his horses on account of overtime which he gave to the Council, which still owed him for overtime. Mr Joynt cross-examined the witness, who was the last called by Hr. Foster. Mr Joynt called no witnesses, and Dr. Foster then addressed the Court. After reviewing the evidence he asked the Court to send the case to a jury. Mr Joynt urged that the other side had advanced no reasons, no sufficient cause why the [case should be sent before a jury, and that the country would be put to uncalled for expense if the Court took that course. He contended that the statements made in the letter had been sustained by the evidence, suggested a comparison between O’Malley and the unjust steward of Scriptural story, and ironically described his own client as a man of vast intellectual powers—just enough to enable him to earn 6s 8d a day. His Worship said —I shall dismiss tliis case, as I don’t think there would be the slightest chance of a conviction being given by a jury. I think that the matter has arisen to a very great extent, if not entirely, through the irregularity of the system adopted. The man became acquainted with certain facts without knowing the arrangement come to in regard to them — facts which show that less laxity ot dealing should exist as between the Council and others. The case is dismissed.

LARCENY. —Philip Cator Newington was charged with larceny from the Public Library in the matter of a book valued at Bs, on the 4th instant, Mr Izard appeared for the accused. Constable Collins said that he had been in the reference room of the Public Library on Tuesday afternoon. He had seen accused there. He entered the room, crossed it, took down two or three books, and sat down, remaining about twenty minutes. After that he replaced the books, and took down several others, amongst them the one produced, which he kept, having replaced the rest. Witness saw the shape of the purloined book under his buttoned coat, and as prisoner was leaving the room witness asked him what he was going to do with the book, and he replied “Read it, and then return it.” Witness then arrested the prisoner. John Watt, care-taker of the Public Library, recognised the book as belonging to the reference room of the Library. He had verbal instructions from the Registrar of the Canterbury College to allow no books to be removed froja tjje room, Mr Isard objected to tide an #Tideace. Mr Watt, in replying

to counsel, said there were no published rules regarding the management of the Library. Francis Steelman, Registrar of the Canterbury College, said that the Public Library was under the care of the Canterbury College. The book produced had belonged to the old Provincial library, which had been placed under the care of the Canterbury College. Mr Izard objected to the Court allowing this evidence. The book was worth about 7s. Anyone who liked could enter the reference room, but permission had been given to no one to remove books from that particular room. Witness, in crossexamination, said that he received all instructions relative to the library from the Library Committee, and he himself had no authority to make by-laws. The rules made by the Board of Governors were not pasted up in the rooms, Mr Izard for the defence called Theodore Jeffrey, who had lived in the same boarding house as the prisoner, whom he had seen with books belonging to the Library. One of the books was Beranger’s songs and the other Beaumont and Fletcher, and he told witness that he was in the habit of taking books from the Library on Saturdays for Sunday reading, and replacing them on Monday. Witness had cautioned prisoner against taking the books, thinking he might get into trouble. His Worship remarked that the case was one of considerable importance to the public in more ways than one, and if the accused were to get off on any technical point it would simply result in the Library being closed to the public entirely, and as one of the Board of Governors his Worship would recommend that some remedial action should be taken. In the meantime he thought it would be better to adjourn the case. Mr Izard agreed, saying that he had raised a number of points solely that the matter might be fully ventilated. The prisoner was remanded till'Saturday, . Thursday, September 6. (Before Q-. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly. Margaret Clark, charged with being drunk and soliciting prostitution, was fined 60s. False Pretences. Alfred Shaw was charged with obtaining a pair of boots, valued 235, from James Heslop, by false pretences. When arrested by Detective Walker, accused asked if there was anything else against him, and being told that he would also be charged with stealing a coat from the Borough Hotel, said it was all done in a drunken lark. James Heslop, bootmaker, stated that during the middle of last month accused came into his shop and left an order for twenty-four pairs of boots, to be sent up to the Clarence Station, Amuri District, and said he was head-shepherd there. He wrote out the address, and left his measure for a pair to be made for himself. Accused called several times afterwards to know if the boots were ready, and on the 24th August he took a way the pair in question, and a few days subsequently ordered nine pairs more. Witness then communicated with Mr Low, the owner of Clarence Station, and from what he heard from that gentleman, did not forward the boots and laid an information against accused for the pair he had taken away. W. H. Low, owner of Clarence station, called, stated that accused had been employed as cook on the station. He had been discharged by the head shepherd, and on 24th August received a cheque from witness for his wages. Accused had no right to order boots on witness’s behalf, and had never been employed as head shepherd on the station. Inspector Buckley told his Worship that that was all the evidence he had to offer on this charge. He would ask that accused be remanded on the charge of stealing a coat, as the principal witness was out of town. His Worship deferred sentence on the first charge, and remanded accused on the second until the 10th instant.