MAGISTRATES’ COURTS

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1211, 21 January 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, January 21. [Before G-. L. M.-llish, E-q , R.M.] Drunkenness. — D.ivid McKcllopwas fined 20-? ; Albert Cbarlhind 60s; and C. F. Anderson, 10s. A first offender was fined os. Valueless Cheques. William James Lovell answered to Ins bail on the remanded chances of having obtained goods by means of valueless cheques. Mr Joynt appeared for accused. A charge of obtaining £2 from William Collier was first heard, —Detective Benjamin called, staged that he arrested the accused on 14th instant on this charge.—Accused said ho had heard of it before. He had given one cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, hut that was a mistake ; it should have been Ashburton. Witness presented the cheque produced at the Ashburton Bank and it was dishonored. —ln cross-examination witness said he had known the accused for some time past. Ho had been drinking since he came to town, hut was sober when arrested. Accused had been staying at prosecutor’s place. Win. Collier, son of the prosecutor, who is licensee of the White Swan Hotel, Tuam street, stated that accused was staying at the hotel the week before last. Ho asked witness if he would cash him a cheque, and witness said yes. Witness gave him a blank cheque on the Bank of New Zealand,Christchurch,and when it’was filled up witness cashed it. It was altered to the Bank of New Zealand, Ashburton, and was for £3, This was on the fith January. Witness afterwards paid it into his father’s credit at the Bank, and on the 9th inst. it was returned dishonored. Spoke to accused the following day, and lie promised to make it all right. A few days’ afterwards again spoke to him and told him if he did not attend to it quickly witness would put the matter into the hands of the police. -Accused said he would attend to it at once.— In cross-examination witness said accused had been staying at the house for about a fortnight. He was to do some trust business for witness’s father, but witness did not know whether he had commenced it or not. R. W. Westenra, clerk in the Bank of New Zealand, Ashburton, stated that he knew accused by sight. He has an account at the Bank there, but witness declined to state the amount. The cheque produced had been preaented at the Bank, but was not cashed, as there was not sufficient funds to the accused’s credit. — In cross-examination witness said there was a balance at the present time to accused’s credit at the Bank.—By his Worship—There are not sufficient funds to his credit to meet the cheque produced.—By Inspector Hickson —I have no reason to believe that accused was aware of the amount of his account at the bank. Could not say whether any cheques had been presented and refused payment prior lo the cheque in the present case. —A. J. Rattray, ledger-keeper in the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, stated that he did not recognise the accused. He had no account in die bank at Christchurch.—A case of obtaining £1 from William Radcliffe was next heard. —William Radcliffe, jun., clerk at the Commercial Hotel, stated that he gave accused a one-pound note in return for the cheque produced. “Christchurch” was scratched out on the cheque when witness received it, and on remarking this to accused he said it was a mistake, and wrote “ Ashburton” over the erasure. This was on the Bth of January. Two days afterwards saw accused; told him the cheque had been returned, and asked him for the money. Accused said he knew all about it, and that he would make all right with Radcliffe himself. He also said he ought to have £2O or £25 in the bank. —In cross-examination, witness said accused used to come into the house occasionally. Could not bo certain it was on the Bth of January he received the cheque. Prisoner had no account at the house since witness has been there. —R. W. Westenra, called, repeated his former evidence. —J. L. Coster, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, called, stated that he knew accused by sight. Had had no conversation with him regarding any cheques, and accused had no reason to believe he would receive an overdraft, so far as witness was concerned. From witness’s long experience in banking matters he should say that unless the cheques were presented on the same day the remitting number on the cheque for £2, handed to him, would show that it was the first cheque of the three produced which had been presented at the bank. — George Beattie, licensee of the Palace Hotel, slated that accused asked him, about a fortnight or three weeks ago, if he could oblige him with a blank cheque. Witness did so. Accused filled it up, and witness told him ho could not cash it. Accused was sensible at the time, but had the appearance of haying been drinking. Knew accused for a long time. A case of receiving £1 from John Collier, Swan Hotel, was next gone into. The evidence was similar throughout to that given in the case for £2. The next charge proceeded with was for obtaining £2 from < Klingenstein, of the Provincial Larder, Cashel street, by means of a valueless cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch. Accused owed prosecutor a small account, and on sth December asked witness for a blank cheque, and on obtaining it filled it in for £2. Witness gave accused £1 5s or £1 10s change, ho could not say which. Witness paid, it into the Bank, and on the 10th instant it was dishonored. Witness saw accused afterwards at Now Brighton, and he said lie would make it all right. Witness got another cheque from accused about the Bth instant for £1 on (he Ashburton Bank, and it was honored. In cross-examination, witness said he had known accused for the last six years. Knew lie had been drinking very heavily for some little time past. Judging from the notice and documents shown him, witness could say that t he cheque in t he present case lad been presented at the Bank before the other two. The other o'idence given was the same as in the prciious cases. This was the last of the cases. In reply to Mr Joynt, Ids Worship said he would deal summarily with the charges. Mr Joynt, addressing the Bench, submitted that the evidence showed very great carelessness on the part of accused when he did not quite know what he was doing. There had been no intentions hown to defraud, and no criminal purpose shown. Ho trusted the Bench would sec that accused had not been going about with any deliberate intention of lefraudiug by means of valueless cheques, and Ids Worship would also sec that accused had a small balance at the Bank, and .vas well-known by those persons with whom ho had been dealing. The premmption was that it was gross carelessness, amounting to recklessness, but without any intention of defrauding. His Warship said, if desired, he would |send the case for trial. —At Mr Joynt’s request, the case stood oyer for a few moments to allow of his consulting with scewetj sod friende.—Ou returning

to Court, Mr Joynt said he had decided to place the ease in his Worship’s hands. Mr Shand, of Messrs Wood, Shnnd, and Co., called by Mr Joynt, stated that he had known accused for twelve years. He had held responsible positions, and had always had a. reputation for being scrupulously honest. Latterly ho had unfortunately taken to drink, but witness had never heard of his doing a dishonest action. —His Worship said that as accused had a balance in the hank when he gave Klingenstein’s cheque, he would gbe him the benefit of not knowing the amount of the balance, and would give him the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss that charge. On the other three charges accused would be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor on each charge, making three months in all.

Defective Drainage —Thomas Poole was charged on summons under the Local Healtn Act with being the owner of premises in Colombo street, occupied by Mr Mundy. from which the drainage was in a very defective state. Mr Cowlishaw appeared to prosecute, and asked for an adjournment for a fortnight as accused had promised to comply with the provisions of the Act in the meantime. Adjournment granted. Burglary and Stealing. George Stevens was charged on remand with breaking into and stealing from a store. Inspector Hickson told the Bench that accused had been remanded to enable the police to trace the remaining property stolen. As the evidence was not yet complete he would ask for a further remand. Remanded until 28th inst.

Harassing a Horse. - Christopher Dalwood was charged with having hurt and harassed a horse on the Ist January. It was shown that on that day Constable Cullen s attention was attracted to a horse in a Sumner ’bus driven by accused. The horse had a sore on the neck under the collar, about two inches in length and one in width. Sergeant Beck stated that three days afterwards ho examined the horse in question, and found a wound under the near shoulder. There was clotted blood on the collar, which defendant scraped off with his knife. Henry Reynolds stated that he drew the constable’s attention to the horse in question on Ist January. Did not examine the horse closely, but could see the sore on the neck under the collar. George Ditford, called by defendant, said he saw the horse eight days ago. The wound in the neck was not raw when lie saw it first. Defendant said all tin's business was to be attributed to Ids friend, Mr Ball. Fined 10s. Breaking Window-fanes. —Joseph Sheehan, Wm. Knowles, Thomas Patten, three boys, were charged with breaking twenty-two panes of glass and two window-sashes in a house at Addington. Mr J. G. Ruddenklau stated that about a fortnight since be was having a cottage moved in Addington, and lie heard that two of the window-snshes and all the panes of glass hid been broken. When ho went to the cottage lie saw Sheehan—the biggest hoy—running away. Believed he was the ringleader of the lot. Valued the damage at- between £3 and £4. Mrs Esther Johnston stated that, on the 3rd January she saw the three hoys breaking the glass in Mr Ruddenklnn’s cottage. Stic went over to them, and the boy Sheehan spoke impertinently to her. She sent to Mr Ruddenklau, and in the evening the boy returned and commenced hurraying in front of her house. In reply to Ids Worship, Mr Ruddenklau said he would ho satisfied if the damage were made good His Worship said that as the damage would be heavy, no doubt the parents of the lads would see that this conduct did not occur again. He would allow the |Case to stand over for a week, in the hope that the damage would be made good and Mrs Johnston’s expenses paid. If this were not done he would deal with the charge on the 28th inst. Permitting Gambling in a Licensed House. —The adjourned case against Joseph Morling, for permitting gambling in bis licensed house, the Victoria Hotel, was called on, Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. It was shown that at about a quarter to one on Christmas morning six persons were playing euchre in the billiard-room. They were not playing for money. They played for drinks, but did not get any after eleven o’clock. There was a band in front of the house, and after it had finished playing a lot of persons rushed in, amongst others the policeman, who saw the cards on the table. Dismissed. Breach of Police Ordinance— The adjourned case against William James was called on, for selling a bottle of brandy on 2nd December, at his licensed house, the Selwyn Hotel. It was shown that the wife of the person who had received the brandy at defendant’s place had asked him not Jo supply her husband with drink. I ined £5 ; witnesses, expenses 10s. Industrial School Act. —Abel Joy was charged on summons with neglecting to contribute towards the maintenance of his two children in the Industrial School. —Mr Colee stated that the children were committed on 7th February last. No order had been made against defendant, as he could not be found before.—His Worship ordered defendant to pay 15s per week towards the support of the children.

Failing to Suppoet his Wife. —W. T. Whiteman was’oharged with this offence. —Mr Thomas appeared for defendant, and stated that Mrs Whiteman had refused to return to her home—Complainant did not appear, and the ease was dismissed.

Protection Order. —Mrs Maria Slatter obtained an order protecting her earnings against her husband John Slatter, on the ground of habitual drunkenness.—Complainant said she bad four children ; her husband was a shoemaker, and could earn £2 per week, but would not work at bis trade. — His Worship ordered him to pay £1 towards the support of his family. Breach oe Scab Act. —William Bennison was summoned for having 370 sheep, same not being branded with registered brand as required by the Act. —The Inspector said lie did not wish to press the charge.—His Worship said he would not pass this case over with a nominal lino, as defendant must have seen the newspapers, and a number of these cases bad been already before the Court. — Fined 10s. Neglecting to Support a Mother. — Charles Mazey and James Mazey were charged with neglecting to provide for the support of their mother.—Mrs Mazey stated that she could do a little work, but could not earn su(llcient to support herself. She had no properly of her own. —Charles Mazey stated that ho had a largo family of his own, depending on his good name. Tho information said lie had done nothing to contribute towards the support of his mother. He had done everything for her that lay in his power and the reports in the newspapers were ealeu luted to do him great harm. —Mrs Mazey told his Worship that this statement was correct. —Her eldest son (Charles) had eight children, and had done everything for her that lid could. She had re*

ceived little or nothing from her other son—His Worship said it was a pity any information had been laid against the elder defendant. He would dismiss the case against Charles Mazey. His Worship read James Mazey a lesson for expressions which it, was stated ho had used towards his mother during her illness—who had worked for him when he could not work for him-elf, and ordered him to pay 2s (id per week towards her support. Abusive Language. —Mary Fogarty was summoned for using abusive language to Sophia Gilkes on the 15th of January. The parties are neighbours, and a whole bevy of female witnesses were examined for complainant, who showed, amid explosions from defendant, —that it was a pity they liad’nt something to do at home—that defendant had used very abusive language, not fit to be repeated, on the day in question.—Among the witnesses called by defendant a Mr Joseph Doig stated that whe™ returning from his work at half-past six that night he saw Mrs Gilkes walking in front of defendant’s place in a very provoking manner. At this time Mrs Fogarty was standing inside her own window. - Mrs Doig called, said Mrs Q- Ikes was a perfect nuisance to the whole neighborhood. One of her boys had a kettledrum and another a rifleman’s bugle, and when they blew the one and rattled the other, a muckle dog of witness’s commenced to roar, and (be noise was perfectly terrible. One party was just as bad as the other, and were she (witness) to open her door every time she beard a row inthe neighborhood—as the other witness did—she would be kept constantly employed at it all day.—His Worship said that defendant had certainly used had language on this occasion. She would be fined 20s, and 16s fid costs, and if be beard of any more rows between the parties lie would bind them both over to keep the peace.

LYTTELTON. Monday, January 21. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.,] Inebriates. —Two of these gentlemen were fined 10s each, or in default forty-eight hours. Lunacy from Drink. William Ellworthy having recovered was discharged.