MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1000, 8 September 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, September 8,

(Before Q-. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., Gr. L, Lee, and Sir Cracroft Wilson, J.P.’s.)

False Pretences. —Robert Lillecott was charged with having on the 27th August obtained money under false pretences from William Radcliffe by means of a valueless cheque for £4. Detective Benjamin deposed to having arrested the prisoner, who at the time, on being charged, said “ Oh, I ’ll admit it.” W. Radcliffe, sen., the proprietor of Warner’s Hotel, said that the accused had stayed at the hotel for three or four days, having come there on the 24th August. On the 28th accused said he was short of change, and asked for a cheque on the Bank of Hew Zealand, and witness got him one on the Bank of Australasia. Witness saw him scratch out “Bank of Australasia ” and write in “ Bank of New Zealand.” Witness gave him full change for the amount £4. When presented the cheque was returned marked “no account.” Witness believed the cheque was genuine. By Prisoner —Witness gave the cheque personally. A. H. Anderson, clerk Bank New Zealand, Christchurch, said that the cheque produced had been presented, but had been returned marked “no account.” Sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Larceny. —Philip Cator Newington' was brought up on remand charged with stealing a book from the Public Library. Mr Izard, for the prisoner, submitted that as regarded the merits of the case there coidd be no doubt as to the innocent intentions of the prisoner, who merely meant to read it and then return it. He had taken out books before under similar circumstances and had retujnjpd them. Then with regard to stealing from the Public Library, there was no such thing as a Public Library—no snch entity. The book was not shown to belong to anybody, and he could not be charged with larceny unless the property were laid. If the Bench told him whose property his client was charged with stealing, he would try to deal with the case. Mr Mellisli pointed out that the book had belonged to the Provincial Council, that it had been vested in the Canbury College, by whom it was vested in the Public Library, which was in the custody of certain oilicers*. Mr Izard contended that the books in the Public Library were for the use and benefit of the public, and the question was whether this book was being used in a proper way. The public were entitled to do as they liked with the books provided they did not steal them from the corporate body—the College—subject to any bye-laws, rules, and regulations made by the body. But then were no bye-laws. Mr Mellish—Do yon mean to tell us that you or I or anybody could drive a dray up to the Public Library and take away what books we thought fit. Mr i there aye so bye-lavra o* yegula-

tions. There is nothing before the Court to show that one man has more right than another to the books, and there is no evidence to show that the prisoner intended to deal with the book in a manner inconsistent with his rights as one of the public. Mr Cowlishaw for the prosecution, said his learned friend in the evidence he called at the first hearing, had shown that there was a guilty intention on the part of the prisoner. Again, the prisoner took the book away in a surreptious manner. Mr Izard was objecting, but the Court thought that was the strongest point against the accused. As to the property, Mr Cowlishaw thought it was not necessary to trouble the Court as it was sufficient to show that the property belonged to the Canterbury College. Mr Mellish thought there could be no doubt that the prisoner’s intention had been felonious—• his conduct throughout shewed that clearly enough. The man had the same right to enter the library as any one of the public, but his intentions on this occasion were shown to have been felonious, and his conduct tended to prejudice the rights of the public, as, if it were persisted in, more stringent regulations would have to be made, and the public would be restricted in its use of the library. Mr Izard—Then you consider he was found stealing ? Mr Mellish—Yes. Mr Izard — Won’t you send him for trial, your Worship ? I would sooner you did. Mr Mellish —I certainly shan’t send him for trial, nor shall I in any way stretch the case to screen him from what he deserves. The accused is sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor.—Daniel Munro, a lad, charged with stealing a horse cover of the value of 10s, the property of G. Kay, was sentenced to 48 hours’ imprisonment and a dozen lashes.