MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1361, 25 June 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, June 25. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. One first offender was fined ss. Indecent Assault.— Michael Murphy was charged with indecently assaulting Martha Yates. The prosecutrix detailed with great circumstantiality the particulars of the assault. Mr Izard appeared for defendant, and put into the witness-box his client, who denied upon oath the truth of prosecutrix’s statement. Another witness was called for the defence. He corroborated the evidence of defendant in some particulars, in which there was a direct contradiction between the statements of prosecutrix and defendant. The case was dismissed. Larceny. —John Bishop Hunter, on remand, was charged with larceny whilst in the public service of her Majesty, in Hew Zealand, of the sum of £7 11s lOd, belonging to her Majesty. T. S. Duncan, Crown Prosecutor, instructed by Superintendent Broham, appeared for the prosecution. Mr Izard appeared for the prisoner and applied for a remand as he had only just been instructed, Mr Duncan objected to a remand as prisoner should have suggested counsel earlier. The Bench said he would hear the evidence first, and then, if necessary, grant a remand. John H. Baker, chief surveyor of the district of Canterbury, deposed—Prisoner was assistant surveyor for this district in the service of the Colonial Government, He commenced his his duties about November last, and was to act under my instructions. He was working between Ashburton and Rakaia. He was allowed imprest accounts. His duty, with respect to these, was to pay his men and contingency accounts —incidental expenses. He had to send his vouchers to my office once a month. His salary was £175 a year and £IOO for equipment and 2s a day for camp allowance. If he required leave of absence he should have applied to me. He has not done so since February. I have ascertained that he was absent. The “ Gazette” produced contains a notice of his appointment, dated 24th Hovember, 1877. I ascertained that he had gone out of the colony. It was without my knowledge or permission. To Mr Izard— What I quoted was the whole of his salary. No, he had £l3O allowance, as he had more than other surveyors. Re-examined —The accountant reported a deficiency in his accounts, £7 10s lid I think ; that was after he left. To Mr Izard—The contingencies which he was allowed to charge against Government were firewood, calico for flagging, poles and pegs, railway fare, not equipment generally. He was supposed to keep his own horse. The Government would probably pay carriage by railway, but not beyond. Richard B. Trudgeon, clerk in the chief surveyor’s office, deposed—The accused was employed as assistant surveyor. He was in the habit of receiving imprests from the Pay-master-General, Wellington. His duties with the imprests were to pay wages and contingencies, and to deliver his accounts once a month to the survey office in Christchurch. He should send them up early in the month. His accounts were sent in up to February JLOih. They showed a Or. balance in the hands of £za Od 104. That ought to have been in the Bank of New Zealand at Rakaia. On the 31st March he ought to have had £7 lls lOd. He has not accounted for that. On the sth April he made an application for an imprest of £SO. We transmitted it to Wellington for payment. If it was allowed, it would be passed to his credit at the Bank of New Zealand. From information we received we stopped payment of another imprest for £6O, which he applied for on the 13th April. We stayed that requisition. From February 16th till now he received only one imprest of £SO. There was no imprest for £6O on the 18th February, With the addition of the £SO imprest, which was placed to his credit the day he left the colony, there would be a deficiency of £57 10s lid. The £SO should be at his credit now in the Bank at Rakaia I produce a statement of his account. Mr Izard declined to cross-examine this witness, but applied for an adjournment for a day. The Crown Prosecutor considered that there was a pnma facie case for committal, and nothing would be gained by the accused by a remand. Mr Izard said that the best way to get a prisoner’s statement before a jury was to have it put on the depositions. The Bench considered there was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Mr Izard urged that the accused had sent to Mr Joynt, who was not at home, and had had no opportunity of consulting his solicitor. The Bench said that unless accused disclosed what was the nature of his defence, he (the Bench) would refuse an adjournment. Mr Izard said that the accused most positively would refuse to disclose his defence at tins stage. The depositions were read by the clerk, and the prisoner received the usual caution and question. He reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. He was admitted to bail —two sureties of £IOO each, and himself in £2OO.

LYTTELTON. Tuesday, J une 26, [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. —John Melsome, ar/csted by Constable Hewitt, was fined 10s, ° r > in default, forty-eight hours. Fighting in the Stbeets. Charles Gildmore and David Griffiths, for this offence, were each fined 20s, or four days* imprisonment. The same person* were further charged with wilful dosage to private property, and were ordered to pay a further sum of 20s. ‘ >L '> in default, four days’ imprisonmout. Vagrancy. —J. W. Ross, an old man, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Refusal of Duty. —Samuel Rogers and Edward Aiken, seamen belonging to the Himalaya, were ordered aboard.

Assault. —Constable Marooney was accused of assaulting Alfred Opie on the 15th June last. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the prosecutor. The constable objected to the case being heard, on the ground that every constable must receive a month’s notice of proceedings. The Bench over-ruled the objection, as the constable was in private clothes at the time of the assault, Alfred Opie stated—l was on Norwich quay on the night of Saturday, J une 15th. I was locked up, and next morning fonnd my face cut. The scars on my face are those I got that night. My head still hurts me ; at times it goes round and round. The coat produced is the one I wore that night. The blood that covers it is mine, William Hildyard deposed he saw Opie on the night in question. He was drunk. Ho saw Opie arrested by Constable Hewitt, his face was not then injured. Opie was dragged Marooney and Hewitt along the ground I

several yards, and then Marooney struck him twice across the face with a pair of handcuffs. Opie groaned and bled very much. Opie was not resisting violently or kicking when Marooney struck him. By Marooney—l saw some irons in your hands. Wm. Johnson gave similar evidence to that of Hildyard; he could not swear that handcuff’s were in Marooney’s hands when he struck Opie. Charles Batchelor deposed to witnessing the arrest of Opie. He saw the irons on Marooney’s hand. They were round his knuckles. He (witness) lifted up his hand to sea what Marooney had struck Opie with ; that was how he saw the irons. Marooney hit Opie most unmercifully in the face. J. Kelly gave similar evidence as to the arrest; did not see the irons on Marooney’s hands, but asked him if he had handcuffs about him, and accused replied in the affirmative. Sergeant-Major C’Grady deposed that he saw Opie’s face after he was brought to the station; it was badly cut. For the defence Constable Hewitt was called. In reply to Maronney, Hewitt stated he saw no handcuffs in Marooney’s possession when Opie was arrested. Did not see Marooney strike prisoner. In answer to a question from Mr Haider, witness said he thought there was nothing to justify Opie being struck with the handcuffs. The blood came principally from Opie’s nose. Constable Moutray deposed that Constable Marooney’s handcuffs had been left on the mantelpiece at the station when he went out on the night in question, so he could not have had them with him. In reply to Mr Haider, witness said he did not know whether Marooney had two pair of haudeuffs, but such a thing was very unusual. They were allowed no other weapons but handcuffs. Saw no knuckledusters or other weapon in Marooney’s possession. Constable Sullen did not see handcuffs in Marooney’s possession when Opie was arrested; did not see Marooney strike Opie. Mr Haider having addressed the Court, the Bench fined accused 40s ; witnesses’ expenses, 10s; Court costs, 12s 6d; professional fee, 21s.