MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1235, 18 February 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, February 18. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. —Four inebriates, who appeared for the first time, were each fined ss. Thomas Barton was fined 10s. Using Obscene Language.— Robert Lemont, charged with using obscene language in a public place late on Saturday night, was fined 10s.

Conspiring to Defraud.— Mary O’Connell, Ellen Wanlnce, and William Tonkins were charged with having conspired to defraud Messrs Wood, Shand and Co. of certain moneys owing to that firm by Mary O’Connell. Mr Cowlishaw appeared to prosecute j Mr Joynt for O’Connell and Tonkins, and Mr Izard for Mrs Wanlace, Mr Shand, of Wood, Shand Co., called, stated that on the 7th February the accused O’Connell was indebted to his firm in the sum of £IOO for goods sold and delivered. In consequence of some information a summons was issued against her by his firm, and judgment obtained. The money had not since been paid. Robert McKnight, bailiff to the R.M. Court, Christchurch, stated that ho had caused a warrant taken out by Wood, Shand and Co. against accused O’Connell to be executed on her goods. Witness wont down to her house shortly after the bailiffs entered. Saw two large packing cases, a trunk and a box in the house. Witness had one of the packing cases opened. It partly contained bedding and groceries packed in layers from bottom to top. When he saw what was in the case he caused it to be nailed up again. Alone of the defendants were there at the time. Previous to going down a second time, Mrs Wanlace laid claim verbally to the fixtures and some of the furniture that were in the shop, and said she had bought them. Told her she would have to send in a claim in writing, and he would take out an interpleader. Witness went down the second time between D and 10 o’clock same night. Sonic receipts were shown to witness as having been given to Mrs Wanlace for money paid for the goods and furniture. Those produced are the sumo. When witness went down at night time ho saw Mrs Wanlace, and had some conversation with her. Sho said ehs was sorry she Jj*d had anything to (jo wjth the plwe,

that Mrs O’Connell had offered her her money back again to clear out again. Witness told her she was foolish not to take it. O’Connel was not in the house at the time. Mrs Wanlaco was excited at the time and _gare witness to understand she had given £ls for the goods in the shop. Received a written claim on behalf of Mrs Wanlaco on the following day. Witness then went up to the house and removed all goods, excepting a bedstead and throe chairs, that were not claimed by Mrs Wanalce to 'Alport’s salerooms. The claim produced is the one received from Mrs Wanlacc. Witness left a man in charge of tho things that were left, but took no inventory of them. Tho value of all the goods and furniture that were left, including fixtures, would exceed £l4 in all. Witness took out an interpleader and was present at the hearing of the case on Saturday, 9th instant. Mrs Wanlace appeared in support of her claim, Mr Izard appearing as her solicitor. The .’goods that were removed to Alport’s, were sold by public auction, except about £5 worth of wearing apparel. The boxes were opened and the things taken out. The account sales produced are those rendered by the auctioneer.! Mr Joynt objected to the papers being received as evidence. Mr Alport would have to come himself and say what tho goods fetched. His Worship allowed the objection. Examination continued —Witness was present when all the boxes were opened. One contained groceries, the other wearing appeal, crockery ware, three clocks, plated tea service, linen and other artices. By Mr Izard—The result of the interpleader was that the goods were given up to Mrs Wanlance. When witness had the conversation with Mrs Wanlace, her daughter, Mr Wilkinson, and his wife, Barclay, and the bailiff in charge named Arnold were present. There was a great deal of talk about the £ls, and Mrs Wanlance had said O’Connell had deceived her, and that she would lose that amount. At tho hearing of the interpleader, MrsWanlace stated she had bought the goods from Mrs O’Connell, and hud paid £6O, £2O for goodwill and fixtures, and £4O for the stock. Was not quite clear about the latter item. Reexamined —Mrs Wanlace was asked at the hearing of the case whether she had taken an inventory of the stock, and she said not, that she had taken them in bulk, and not being accustomed to the trade, didn’t know much about the value of goods. H. E. Alport, auctioneer, called, stated that he sold goods on 13th February in a case, Wood, Shandaud Co. v O’Connell, under instructions from tho bailiff. The goods were brought to the rooms in cases. The account sales are a copy of witness’s sale-book, and set forth the contents of the cases brought to the rooms, with the exception of some wearing apparel which was returned. Tho gross proceeds of the sale were £3O lls 7d. Mr Joynt again objected to the account sales being admitted into the case in any form. His Worship said that for the purposes of tho present hearing, he would admit the document pro forma. Walter Martin, assistant clerk at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, produced the papers in the case of Wood, Shand and Co. v Mary O’Connell. The summons was issued on the 7th February, aud heard on the same day, judgment being given for the plaintiff. Execution was taken out on same day. Witness then detailed the particulars of the interpleading case hoard on the 9th of February, in which Mrs Wanlace appeared to support her claim, from notes taken by him, and which he produced. Mrs Mary Ann Holland called, stated she lived in Colombo street north, next door to Mrs O’Connell. Remembered the bailiffs coming into Mrs O’Connell’s house. Knew all the defendants. Remembered seeing O’Connell and Tonkin in rear of her own place tho day before the bailiffs came in, and witness went up stairs to see what they were doing. Saw them engaged in nailing up a case. There were two other cases iu the yard. Witness thought it was on the 6bh insb. Tonkin was often about the place, as he bought goods there occasionally. Witness saw the cases the next day when the bailiff made the seizure. These were the same the bailiffs took away. Could not say when Mrs Wanlace came to lire at the shop. Samuel Dowdall, carrier, culled stated that ho had seen tho defendant Tonkin before. He came on the stand on a Tuesday, and asked witness to take two empty cases to a place behind the Garrick Hotel. Witness did so. This was to the back of Mrs O’Connell’s house, and she paid him the cartage. At her request he went back and got two more. She also said if he would come back between 3 and 4 o’clock ho should have the job of taking them down to the railway. When witness went on the Thursday he found the bailiffs in the house. Constable Brookes deposed to arresting all the accused on the present charge. Had a conversation with Tonkin on the 10th instant, previous to the arrest. Witness went to his house to tell him that that Mrs O’Connell wanted to see him, and he said ho certainly had advised Mrs O’Connell as regards the receipt for £2O. He said that he knew that sale was only a sham, aud that he had left the room purposely so that ho shouldn’t see where the money had come from. His remark was “If you don’t, see anything, you don’t know anything.” He also said that he knew very well it was the old woman’s money; witness thought ho alluded to Mrs O’Connell, of whom they were talking at the time. Tonkin said in addition, that if he had known it was the Magistrate who was asking him questions he would have spoken plainer, but he thought it was Mrs O’Connell’s lawyer who was speaking to him. He said ho had witnessed the receipt for £2O, and he knew at the time that it was a sham. By Mr Joynt—When Tonkins said he knew that sale was only a sham he was referring to the sale for £2O which had taken place on the Thursday. It was to that particular transaction that Tonkins was referring during the whole of the conversation. He said he had signed his name on the receipt as a witness. Witness was in Court when the case was previously heard, and knew that it was admitted that Tonkins had signed his name to the receipt. Mr McKnight, re-called by Mr Cowlishaw, said that when he went up to take possession of the cases Mrs Wanlace told him then that she had been in the house since the Monday, and Mrs O’Connoll had given up her bed to her, This was all the evidence. Mr Joynt said that he felt bound to submit under tho evidence that there was no case, and the charge of conspiring to defraud could not be sustained. The learned counsel then reviewed tho evidence as regarded the disposition of the goods. All the proceedings of defendants had been completed before Wood, Shand and Co, commenced any action, and he contended there was nothing to show a conspiracy against that firm to prevent them recovering payment of their just claim. He would contend that until an execution had been granted to Wood, Shand and Co. they were not in a position and had no claim on the goods whatever : not a title of evidence had been given to show combined action by the defendants after tho date the firm had obtaind judgment and execution, hpnoo the charge of conspiracy for action taken anterior to that date could not bo sustained. Nothing whatever had been shown that Tonkin or even Mrs Wanlace knew that Mrs O’Connell owed Wood, Shand and Co. any money at all. His Worship said that it would of course be subject for argument whether Tonkin did or did not know of Mrs O’Connell’s transactions with Wood, Shand arid Co. Mr Joynt said if the Court had decided to commit he would say no more. Mr Izard iu his remarks to the Bench said that on the interpleader his Worship had upheld Mrs Wanlace’s right to the goods damn d by her. His Worship said that had he had the evidence before him at the time of the quantity of goods packed up, his judgment might possibly have been different, He would send the cases for trial. After the depositions had been read over, accused reserved (heir defence, and were committed to take their trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court. On the application of counsel, tho Bench granted bail each in two sureties of £SO, accused in £IOO.

Driving Bound Corners. —Henry Fcaron, J. T. Matson, Henry Hawker, T. Goodyer, sen., J. McGee, S. Taylor, P. MaDonagh, H. McConnell, A. Back, J. Stanton, H. Matson, E. J. Joblin" W. B. Brown, P. Taylor, H. Perritt. B. Cullen, S. Pertlett, W. Smith, F. Holloway, G. Taylor, D. Kerr, W. Partridge, W. McDougall, A- Smith, C. Orchard, and % WqUs, were pucamoned for driving

along the road common to Colombo and Hereford streets at a faster pace than walking pace, coutaray to the by-law. Defendants admitted the offence. His Worship said that as this was the first time defendants had contravened the by-law the cases would be dismissed, ns he did not think the City Council desired to press for a penalty for the first offence. A. Nalder, H. Scrimshaw, L. Slay, P. Pryde, J. Bligh, and W, Graham, similarly charged, did not appear when called, and were cadi fined 10s.

Abusive Language. —James Hawton was charged with, using abusive language towards Thomas Snclling. The parties are neighbors, and aceordiug to complainant the language complained of had been used on the 9th February by defendant, because he said Snelling had abused hii wife. After corroborative evidence had been given for complainant, defendant called his wife who stated that she had been abused by Snelling on three different occasions. His Worship told defendant that no matter what had taken place previously, he had no right to use the language complained of, lie would be fined 10s.

Throwing Stones. —F. A. Coleman, a young lad, was charged with throwing stones at a sign board belonging to S. R. Coleman, of Kilmore street, A cross summons for assault wag heard at the same time. It was shown that some boys had been in the habit for several evenings of congregating near Mr Coleman’s place, and on the night of the 13th inst. the complainant gave chase and caught defendant, who kicked violently and hit him. The assault, complained of consisted, according Coleman, of a few smacks which ho had given the lad to compel him to let go of his trousers. The lad, who was examined, stated that he was going on a message when the boys threw the stones. After they ran away, Mr Coleman went after them, and lie followed to see what was done. When Mr Coleman returned he caught hold of him, struck him with his fist, threw him on the ground, tore his clothes, and tried to choke him. Ho know nothing of the boys who were throwing stones. Why he had given a wrong name was that he was known by the name of Weston. A young woman named Christina Williamson deposed to seeing Mr Coleman shake the lad, and hearing the latter call out that he was being choked. Evidence of the boy’s state afterwards was given by his aunt. Coleman called a little boy who attends the Normal school, who stated that he saw the lad Coleman throw stones at the signboard, and afterwards run after Mr Coleman. As the evidence was very conflicting, and it was stated that another hoy could be produced who saw the stonethrowing, his Worship said he would adjourn the case for the attendance of the lad.

[Loft sitting.}

LYTTELTON. Monday, February 18.

[Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M., and J. T. Rouse, Esq., J.P.] Drunkenness, Henry Swan, Thomas Matthews, Patrick White, and Evan Jones were fined 10s each.

Drunkenness on Railway. —John Curtin was fined 40s, or in default ninety-six hours. Drunk and Disorderly. —Wm. Woolner was fined 20s, or in default forty-eight hours.