MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1237, 21 February 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. T#Prseay, February 21. [Before G- Hellish, Esq., R.M.] Dbun3£ENNESO —Mary Goiig'h wgs #ned 20s, and two first offenders 5b each. Larceny yhom a Dweeeinq.—William Griffiths wcs charged with stealing a locket and chain valued at 10s from the house of Charles Martin, Cashel street. When arrested accused said that they had been given to Him by a young girl named Mary Jane Lawrence, and when he heard the triplets were missing he t.y.ck them to Mrs Martin, the girl’s mother- T ihe prosecutrix, called, stated that she slept at her mother's fop some nights in January last, and on the 211 th of that month missed a brooch, locket, and chain from her bedroom. Accused and_ his wife were staying in the house at the time. After missing them she gave information to the police. The locket and chain produced were portion of the missing property. Hid not give them to accused. In reply to accused, the witness said she had not given him the trinkets jn presence of his wife. Mrs Martin, mother of the last witness, deposed to hearing her daughter say she had lost the jewellery. Accused brought the locket and chain to her and said her daughter had given them to her, and that he had heard she' had said he bad stolen them. In reply to accused, the wit-

ness said a brooch was missing at the same time, and had been found by witness's husband on the floor. He had kept it, as he said her daughter was very careless. In reply to the Bench, accused said the prosecutrix had given him the trinkets in the presence of his wife, who could give evidence. His Worship told him he unfortunately could not call his wife, but as the trinkets were of a most trumpery description, he did not think any man would place himself in that position for the value uf them. As prosecutrix might have forgotten she gave them to accused ; he would give him the beneflt of the doubt and dismiss the case.

Foegeey and Utteeing. —Henry Richardson was charged with this offence. Alexander Cowan, who keeps the Malvern boarding house, Colombo street, stated that accused stayed at his place for four weeks and three days. On Saturday week witness presented him with his account. Accused asked for a Bank of New South Wales’ cheque, and witness gave him the book produced, on the Bank of New South Wales, and told him lie could alter it. Accused said all right. Accused then sat down to write the cheque and witness left the room. Accused afterwards left the house and returned in half an hour. He called him in and gave him £6 2s. On Monday, 11th instant, accused asked bow much more he owed, and gave witness 10s and loft. Could not say how many blank cheques had been taken out of his book, os it was often used in the house. The cheque produced hud been taken out of the hook which ■witness handed to accused. Albert Everett, of Everett Brothers, Cashel street, drapers, called, stated that accused purchased two articles at In’s shop on Saturday, 9th inst., in payment of which he tendered a cheque for £7 10s signed by F. H. Britton. Asked him if he hud been in Mr Britton’s employ, and he said “yes.” Witness asked him if the name of Wilson in the body of the cheque was his, and he replied it was. When presented at the Bank it was returned “no account.” Witness pointed out to accused that there was a pen murk running through the name of the Bank, and the accused said tne gentleman in drawing it out had accidentally scraped his pen across it. F. H. Brittan, called, stated that about fifteen months ago accused brought a letter of introduction to him from England. Witness got him a place with a runholder, and he had been employed up there for the last twelve months. Witness kept his account at the Union Bank. Accused was aware of this as he gave him a cheque some little time ago to buy a sheep dog. The signature to the cheque produced was not witness’s. Witness did not bank at the New South Wales. There was no other P. H. Brittan in Christchurch. A second charge was then preferred against accused. The evidence showed that he had gone to the shop of Mr Schwartz, tobacconist, on the night of Saturday, 9th instant, and asked him if he could cash a cheque for £5 10s. The cheque had Mr F. Brittan’s name to it, and was drawn in favor of Arthur 0. Farrington. He said it was Mr Mr Brittan, who owned the horse Royalty, who had signed the cheque. Accused bought 3s worth of tobacco, and received £5 7s in change. He also endorsed the cheque as Arthur C. Farrington. When presented at the Bank, the cheque was found to be a forgery. Mr Brittan deposed to the signature not being his. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial on both charges at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court,

False Pretences. —Thomas Foster was charged with obtaining a locket from Mrs Martha Hewston, Montreal street, by false pretences. Mr Izard appeared for accused. Mrs Hewston, called, stated that accused had often called at her place, and said he was working for a jeweller in Christchurch. On the 11th inst. gave him a locket to repair, and he was to bring it back again. He said lie was earning £4 a week, and was working for a person of the name like Stratz. There was no time stated when the locket was to be returned. Had not heard from him since ; valued the locket at £3. In cross-examination witness said she heard accused was going to, or gob a locket to repair from, a Miss White. He said he was working for a jeweller named Strouts or Stratz near the City Hotel, and was earning £4 a week. J. F. Stratz, watchmaker, High street, called, stated he knew the accused us Patrick Ryan. He told him he was working at Q-overnor’s Bay, and was sent to town by his master once a week. He used to bring watches to witness which he said people used bring to him to have repaired. He had never been in witness’s employ. He used sometimes bring watches in pieces which witness used to mend. Accused had never been in his employ, nor had he ever received authority to go about collecting jewellery on account of witness to be repaired. Mrs Hewston, recalled by Inspector Hickson, said she had not received Fpr locket back. Detective Walker said he arrested the accused on the 13th of the present mpnth on another charge. Told him of the present charge the preceding day, and he said h 6 had sent word to Mrs Hewston where she could get her locket. When witness searched accused he found some pawn tickets for watches on him, but no locket. Mr Izard called Henry Rossiter, watchmaker, Whately road, who stated the accused had brought him the locket produced to have a glass put in it. Accused was in the habit for about six weeks of bringing jewellery to him to be repaired. Mrs Hewston, recalled, stated that the locket produced was the one she had given to accused. Mr Izard submitted the ease must fall through, and his Worship dismissed the case.

Larceny as a Bailee. —Thomas Poster, the accused in the previous case, was charged with appropriating to his own use a watch valued at £l, belonging to W. H. Williams, residing in Conference street. The prosecutor deposed to accused repairing a watch at witness’s place about four weeks since. He called a few days afterwards to see if the watch went right. It did not, and witness subsequently gave it to him at Ids request to carry it, and see where it went wrong. He promised to give witness a watch to carry while he kept his. Some little time afterwards accused came to witness’s place with a little job which he had done for his wife. Witness asked him where the watch was he had promised witness, and accused said he had given it to some one else to carry while his was being repaired. He said witness would have his watch in about a fortnight. This was a week last Monday. Witness had not seen him since, nor had he received a message where the watch was. Understood that accused was a working jeweller, that he went about getting jobs. He did not mention the name of any watchmaker or jeweller to witness. In crossexamination witness said that he had not received a letter from accused saying where the watch was. He said it wanted a new balance verge. The watch was a single-cased one. He said he would have the work done. In reexamination witness said accused had received os 6d on account of the work. Henry llossiter, called by Mr Izard, produced a silver watch, given to him by accused to have a new verge placed in it. The repairs had not yet been started as witness had been very busy. Mr Williams re-culled, identified the watch produced as his property. _ Case dismissed. Inspector Hickson _ withdrew a charge against accused for having misappropriated a eewing machine to his own use.—A change of the larceny of a watch as bailee belonging to William Bennetts, fanner, Greenpavk, was next preferred, Prosecutor stated that on December 7th he saw accused at his place. He told witness that he was a watch-cleaner, and asked him if ho knew of am' oue who wanted some jobs done. Witness told him ho U* «•« old wa'cll which he alight clean, and witness sat down to the work aim nniHi.ed it on the Bth. Accused got Bs, and wont to do iomo ypyk gt a neigbour’s, the watch stopped and witness scut it to him, and accused took it into town. About a week afterwards witness'met accused between four and five miles from Christchurch, and he said he would return the watch on the following Monday. Had not seen him since. Valued the watch at £1 l ,ls - Accused gave his name on a piece of paper as “Thomas Eots, watchmaker and jeweller, Christchurch.” In cross-examination accused said he bad received no intimation from accused as to where the watch was. It was an old single case verge watch. Did not know whether his son had received a letter from

accused. Henry Palmer, boarding-house keeper, Colombo street, called, stated that accused had been staying four or five weeks at his place. He left before Christmas and owed witness a little money, which he said he would pay the day he left. Accused left a watch, part of a clock, and some other articles with accused, but did not leave the tilings in consideration of the money owing to him. Was quite sure of that, as he had often left articles in witness’s charge. Knew accused as a working jeweller, and he had repaired a clock for witness. In cross -eSamination witness said he did not know accused had been ill. Mr Bennetts recalled said the watch produced belonged to him. After further evidence his Worship dismissed the case. Henry Rossiter called, stated that he believed accused had not been very well for a few weeks past. Inspector Hickson withdrew two other charges of a similar nature. His Worship told accused that he had got himself into this difficulty through his carelessness in not communicating with those persons who had given him the articles to repair. He would have to be more careful in fui ure, if not he would someday get himself into trouble.