MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1221, 1 February 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, February 1. [Before G. L, Mellisb, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.—A first offender was fined ss. Forgery and Uttering. Robert McFarlane, jun. was charged on remand with forging his father’s name to a cheque for £7, on the Union Bonk, and also with uttering the same on C. Klingenstein.—Mr JMcFarlane recalled, stated that the writing in the body of the cheque was his son’s. His son knew that witness kept an account at the Union Bank, Christchurch. Several cheques were missing from witness’s cheque-boot, but could not say whether the cheque produced had been taken out of his book. Witness did not obtain a cheque-book at the Bank in in May last, nor did he authorise any person to obtain one. Had heard in the evidence taken when the case was last before the Court, that such a book had been obtained in his name. Mr McFarlane repeated his evidence on the remanded charge of forging a cheque for £9, and uttering it on the same person. A charge for forging and uttering a cheque for £8 on Mr Joseph Strange, draper, High street, was then preferred.—Mr Strange stated that about the end of December accused made some purchases at his shop. It would bo about the 28th December. Accused bought goods amounting to between £2 and £2 10s, and gave the cheque produced in payment. Witness gave the accused the balance in cash. When the cheque was tendered, witness asked accused if the cheque was his own, and he said not; that it was his father’s. Witi ess paid the cheque into his account at the National Bank on 31st December, and was duly credited with the amount. —J. 0. Jones, lodger keeper at the Union Bank of Australia, Christchurch, called, stated that the cheque produced was presented by the National Bank on 31st December, and debited to Mr MoFarlane’s account. Knew Mr McFailane, who had an account at the Bank. Did not know accused. There was no other account of the same name at the Bank. The signature to the cheque was a close resemblance to Mr McFarlane ’a signature. The writing in the body seemed to bo different from the signature. —Robert McFarlane, called, stated that the signature to the cheque produced was not his, but a very good imitation. The writing in the body of the cheque was his son’s. He had no power or authority whatever to sign cheques in the name of witness. His son knew that he kept an account at the Union Bank. Could not say whether the cheque was taken from any of his cheque hooks. —A charge of obtaining £l3 from J. O. Sheppard, by means of a cheque, was next heard. —Mr Sheppard, called, stated that he knew accused as the son of Mr McFarlane, of Armagh street. He called at the White Hart Hotel, with the cheque produced, about the 15th of December last—it was on a Saturday night—and asked witness if he could change it. Witness cashed the cheque and paid it into his account at the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, and it was placed to his credit.—Mr Jones, called, repeated his previous evidence. The cheque produced had been taken from a book issued in Mr McFarlane’s name on 29th May last.—Mr McFarlane called repeated his previous evidence. —Another charge of obtaining £7 os from Mr W. Harris, Cashel street, was next heard.—Thomas Harris called, stated that he knew the accused. About the end of December accused came to his father’s shop and purchase a pair of boots and a trunk. The amount came to a little over £l. Accused tendered the cheque produced in payment, and received the change. When accused tendered the cheque, witness asked him if it wis his own cheque, and he said no it was his father’s, and he had received it for wages. The cheque was paid into the Bank of Australasia. —Mr Jones, called, stated that the cheque produced had been presented by the Bank of Australasia on 31st December, and debited to Mr MeFarlane’s account. The cheque had come out of a book issued to Mr R. McFarlane on 29th May last.—The evidence having been read over, accused sftid he had nothing to say, and was coipmitted to take his trial on the five charges at the next criminal session of the Supreme Oourf.