MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1253, 25 March 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHEISTCHUECH. Monday, Maech 25. [Before Q-. L. Mellish, Esq., 8.M., J. Anderson, Esq., and Dr. Deamer, J.lVs.] * Deuneennbss. —Bridget Ferrick was fined 40s. Two first offenders were each fined ss. Houses and Cattle at Labgk. —For fjermitting horses and cattle to wander at arge the following persons were each fined 5s :—Stanley Edwards, J. S. Wagner, J. Garland, W. E. Parker, H. Garde, H. Buhner, J. Pepper, W. Peai-son, M. Howard, and O. Peacock. On two informations John Tetley and A. Blythe were each fined 10s. Abusive Language. —William Emerson was summoned for using abusive language to the railway constable, and also with plying for hire off the stand. In reply to the Bench, the constable stated that the stand was not laid down, hut the Town Clerk had marked it off. Defendant brought evidence to show that he was 75ft, from the main entrance at the time. His Worship dismissed this case, saying at the same time that if the stand were pitched it would tend to save these disputes. On the charge of using abusive language defendant was fined 30s. Abusive Lanqdaob.— The adjourned case pf abusive la»§uage agaiast Crew was

called on. Mr Slater appeared for the complainant, Sarah Ann Schmidt, who stated Sat when the offence took place the witness who was in Court last Monday, was m the house, and not in the cab as stated by him , and he could not hare heard the language complained of. A former witness recalled by defendant said he was in the house foi about ten minutes, but he believed he was in the cab during the time the conversation was going on. His Worship said the Bench were of opinion that the charge had not been sustained, and the case would be dismissed. Public-house Ordinance.— Wm. Maples, summoned for keeping open and selling drink in his licensed house, the Southern hotel, during prohibited hours, admitted the offence and was fined £5. Obstructing a Thoroughfare.— Duncan Campbell, summoned for obstructing the footpath in the Springfield road, was fined 10s. „ _ Order fob Maintenance. Mrs box applied for an order for maintenance tor herself and family against her husband 0. rPox. Defendant did not appear, but it was stated that he had consented to pay 2os per week. Order made for that amount. Neglected Childrens’ Act. R- A. Collee applied for an order to compel Thomas Lee to contribute towards the support of his son in the Industrial school. _ Mr Collee stated that defendant had paid 7s 6d per week for the first month his son was in the institution, but as he had got into difficulties afterwards witness did not trouble him for a little while. He now believed that defendant was in work and ho desired to obtain an order of the Court for a weekly payment. Order made for payment of 7s 6d weekly.

["Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] _ Larceny of a Watch. —Charles Smith was charged on remand with stealing a watch from Davis’s pawn shop. Mr Izard appeared for accused. The following further evidence was taken: Mrs Selig stated that her son was absent from the shop for about half an hour, after accused had gone out, the morning the watch was stolen. The only person that came in during his absence was a woman who wanted a comb, and she left immediately. No person could have entered the shop without witness seeing them. Mrs Ireland, called, stated that accused came out about five years ago in the Eorfarshare, under the name of Brooks. J. Donaldson re-called by Mr Izard stated that he knew something about watches, and thought the watch in Court was worth from £6 to £6 10s. J. F. Stratz, watchmaker, called by the police said that the watch handed to him would be worth, new, wholesale, from £4, to £4 10s, and retail from £5 10a to £6. The watch had been worn for about six months. Witness had it in his place a little while ago, and could have bought it for £4 10s. It was Donaldson who offered it to him. Mr Izard said that the case should be sent for trial or he should be allowed to produce expert evidence as to the watch being valued at over £5. After consideration his Worship said that as Mr Izard was so anxious to send the case for trial he should accede to his request, only on the question or value. The case, however, seemed very clear to him. Committed for trial at the April session.

Foeqbey AND Utteeing.— Amos James Tudball was charged, on warrant, with forg - ing the name of Martin Burns, St. Albans, to a promisory note for £2OO on 27th November last, and also with having uttered the same. Dr. Foster appeared to prosecute, and Mr Joynt for the defence. Martin Burns, called, stating that he was a farmer residing at St. Albans. The signature to the document was not his. Never authorised any person to put his signature to it. Saw the name of A. J. Tudball to the bill. On the night or two before Tudball’s sale, witness had a conversation with accused about the bill. Witness asked him how it was he came to put his (witness’s) name to the bill, and he said he had never done so. This was opposite accused’s shop. On the Tuesday night afterwards accused said that all that was troubling him was that bill. Witness told him that if he had done such a thing he deserved seven years, and Tudball said “ You keep quiet and I’ll make it all right.” In cross-examination witness said he had worked for accused, who had bought some potatoes from him, and also rented land from him. In re-examination witness said accused was to lease an acre of land from him on 27th August last for £25. Accused got witness’s lease to copy, but had not yet returned it. Witness got a cheque for £2O from accused. Thomas Ingram, manager of the Bank of Australasia, stated that the bill in Court had been discounted in the bank for Tudball. Before discounting it witness told Tudball he had enquired at the Bank where the bill was domiciled. [Bank of New Zealand] —and was told that the acceptor of the Bill (Martin Burns) had an account there. The bill was discounted on the 3rd December. Witness was then assured by Tudball that Burns was a landowner of means residing at St. Albans, and a miser. Witness then reluctantly yielded to Tudball’s persuasion, and discounted the bill. The endorsement as to the sale of lease was not then on the bill. At a subsequent date Tudball said that the crop of potatoes on the land was a part of the value for which the bill was given. On the faith of accused’s representations witness, with some reluctance, discounted the bill. Witness had no doubt whatever that the names of the drawer and endorser were Tudball’s. The writing of the address “To Mr Martin Burns,” was nob unlike Tudball’s. It was the same day or the day before the bill was discounted, that witness had the conversations with Tudball. In cross-examination, the witness said ho could not say for certain who took the bill to the bank for discount. Accused always did the banking business himself. There was presumptive evidence that accused had given in the bill with others, but ft was put through on 3rd December. Accused may have given witness the bill himself. Was not aware that any one but accused bad done bis banking business. Believed a clerk had paid in cash over the counter on a few occasions. Witness had never been in communication with any person as to Tudball’s banking business. In crossexamination the witness said that accused had never led him during their conversation to understand that he had not put the bill in for discount. On the contrary, he pressed him to discount it. Dr. Foster said this was all the evidence he intended to offer. Accused reserved his defence by advice of the counsel, and was committed to take bis trial at the coming criminal session of the Supreme Court. Mr Joynt applied for bail ; his client was in a weak state of health, and incarceration would not improve bis health. Dr. Foster said lie would press for substantial bail, as be had heard of two other cases. Inspector Hickson said he would be prepared to hand the case over to Dr. Foster on the following morning. He (the inspector) had just been informed that accused would not be taken back to the Hospital, even if accused wore remanded there. Mr Joynt said he would then again apply for bail. His Worship said he would withdraw the formal committal, and remand accused on this charge until Wednesday next. Bail would bo granted in two sureties of £2OO each, accused in £4OO. In reply to the Bench, Dr, Foster said he would certainly be prepared to go on with the case he had mentioned on the following morning. Threatening Language. —Frederick Key was summoned for using abusive and threatening language towards Alexander Hall. Mr Joynt appeared for the complainant. The parties are neighbours, and, a great deal of evidence having been heard, a second case was taken, in which Mrs Margaret Burgess, a friend of the Keys’s, was defendant, and Mrs Hall complainant. After hearing contradictory evidence, his Worship dismissed the case against Mrs Burgess, and fined Key 20s and costs 16s 6d, telling him at the same time that it was all through him the row had occurred, Failing to Comply with an Obdee.— Robert Beattie was summoned for failing to comply with an order of the Court to contribute £1 per week towards the support of his wife. Complainant also applied for an order the new Act, Mr Thomas appeared for complainant, and Mr Slater for defendant, lire- Beattie stated that the payment fell into ptteatf tout? weeks ago, and her husband went

to her and said he would sell all his property and clear out if she enforced the order. He offered her shelter, and she returned to his house and had a room in it. She worked all the while she was there, and during the time he illtreated her, keeping her without necessaries, and at last turned her out. While she was living in the house, she was seeing a friend off one day at the railway, her foot slipped, and she was taken into custody for drunkenness, and was sent to Addington. Though her husband had allowed the payment of the £1 weekly to fall into arrear he had houses, land, and horses. Defendant, in his examination, stated that when he returned home one day he found his wife drinking a bottle of rum with some man. It was then he turned her out of the house. She afterwards returned and took her clothes. He had not intended to take her back as his wife. Constable Brooks deposed to seeing complainant one night in a helpless state of drunkenness, in not very good company, and another night he met her out late. In reply to Mr Thomas, the constable said that this night was the one she was turned out by her husband. Had she been in the habit of keeping bad company he must certainly have seen her, and he had not done so. Other evidence was given showing that drink had been found in the house after complainant had gone, and that she was in the habit of receiving visitors during defendant’s absence. She was always allowed plenty of everything. After counsel had addressed the Bench, his Worship said he did not think on the evidence that an order should be made, as it was shown that complainant had misbehaved herself after being taken home. It was also shown that she had been seen in one of the worst houses in Christchurch in a state of intoxication. He would decline to make any order.

LYTTELTON. [Before H. R. Webb and H. Allwright, Esq.’s, J.P.’s.] Monday, March 25, Larceny. —William Morris Ross, an apprentice belonging to the Laju, ship, aged fourteen years, was charged with the above offence. George Clark, cook of that vessel, said accused slept in same berth with him. On Saturday night he missed £4 out of his bunk. On the Friday he had put the £4 in the pocket of a pair of trousers, and placed them under the mattress on his bed. When he missed the money he told the carpenter, and they questioned prisoner regarding it. He denied having it, but on the carpenter commencing to search him he pulled out the money and purse produced. He identified the purse as the one in which he had put the four sovereigns when he placed them under his bed. Wm. Wood, the carpenter, gave corroborative evidence. Accused said in reply that he had taken the purse in fun, and that the cook was often in the habit of hiding away things of his. He had never had any intention of taking the money. Accused was sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment with hard labour.