MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1392, 1 August 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, August 1. [Before GK L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. —Ellen Jordan, who complained that she had never been anywhere else but in goal since she was in Canterbury, and acknowledged that she was a regular nuisance to the place, was sent to gaol for twelve mouths. Breach of Peace.—Robert Allen was charged with committing a breach of the peace within view of a constable. He pleaded “Guilty,” but said that he had been greatly provoked. The man who had been assaulted did not, appear. The accused was fined 10s. Obtaining Money Under False Pretences. —Edward Driscoll and Thomas Lemon were charged, on remand, with obtaining money by false pretences. There were two charges. Mr Joynt, with Mr Thomas, appeared for the defence. Mr Joynt, after re questing that all witnesses should be ordered out of Court, objected to the vagueness of the information. Inspector Hickson at this stage said that he proposed to deal with one of the cases under the Larceny Act. Mr Joynt declined to argue law with the police. Inspector Hickson replied that he had no intention to argue law with learned counsel. Mr Joynt continued that the information had been laid under the Vagrancy Act, and was merely an echo of the clause of the statute without disclosing any particular offence. The accused had a right to have the particulars of the offence with which he was charged disclosed in the information. Then if the evidence did not prove that offence the charge must fail. He supported his contention by quoting from the Justice of the Peace Act. The Bench considered it a case in which reasonable adjournment might be granted, but did not think it imperative upon him to dismiss the case. Mr Joynt said be had no desire for an adjournment If a proper information wore laid at once, he had no objection to going on with the case. Inspector Hickson said that he had intended at first to proceed under the Larceny Act, but one charge, wherein the amount ex ceeded £5, would have to be taken under the Lirceny Act. The Court here referred to the information, and said it disclosed the date of the alleged offence, the name of the party imposed upon, and the amount obtained. Mr Joynt said that the nature of the misrepre sentation should also appear. The Court said it did not think so. Inspector Hickson here said he would tell Mr Joynt the false pretence, which was that prisoners had induced prosecutor to purchase cloth at more than its value, by representing that it could bo made up at certain prices, 5s and 12s 6d, at their establishment, which statement was untrue. At this stage the next case was called as follows. Larceny.—John Fraser was charged with stealing two books, the property of Joseph Osborne He admitted stealing one. Inspector Hickson said the man had off. red to sell the book for drink. Prisoner was sent to gaol for seven days with hard labor. False Pretences. —On the cases against Driscoll and Lennon being resumed, the following evidence was given, after the fresh informations had been read to the prisoners;— James Martin, blacksmith, of Timm street, deposed—Prisoners were at my shop on the 24ih July. They offered me some cloth. Driscoll said they had some very cheap cloth for sale. I said I never bought cloth, but bought my clothes ready made. He said it was from a bankrupt’s estate in Sydney, named O’Callaghan and Co., who had paid only 6d in the £, so he had got the cloth very cheap I said it was no use. He said “ I have some cheap goods I could show the missis,” and walked up to the house. He left the cloth on a water barrel. The other prisoner was in a buggy all the time in the street. At any rate he was not present. I saw Driscoll come out of the house, and take the cloth off the barrel. He returned with it to the house. He again came out and called me. I went to the house, and he threw down a piece of cloth and said “ You can have all this cloth for £6 10s, exhibiting the cloth—five pieces. I still refused to take the cloth. He then reduced the price. He threw one piece towards me and said, “ A suit of clothes of that stuff is worth £5 10s.” I am sure he said that He also said “ It’ll make a suit of clothes and a coat for you.” I told him I did not want it at all, as it would cost as much to make it up as I could get a suit for from a tailor. He then said that he had a place in town, close to the Terminus Hotel, where he had tailors working. He said if I would take them there they made men’s suits for 12s 6d and boys’s suits for ss. He said “ The misses has a machine I see, our cutters cut them out—men’s suits for” —I don’t remember the exact amount—“6s or 7s, and boys’ for 3s, if you wish to make them yourself.” The machine was close by. I said, “ All right, you guarantee this bit of cloth will make a suit of clothes for me and a coat.” He said it would. My wife said “You may as well take it; it will make a cheap suit of clothes at that money.” He threw in the rest of the pieces, each of which he said would make a vest and trousers. He reduced the whole lot from £6 10s to £5 10s, coming down by 5s at a time. This reduction had taken place before he represented that I could get it made up at his establishment. I would not have taken the clothes unless I could get it made up for that money, as I considered the cloth dear. Ho said that this O’Collaghan and Co. had taken a place near the Terminus Hotel, and that ho and his mate had been sent out from Glasgow to sell this cloth, as agents for O’Callaghan and Co., whoso estate they had taken over. Then I said, “ You are only selling for O’Callaghan aud Co,” He said, “Yes.” I gave him u cheque (ray own) for £5 10s. It was on the Union Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch. I took the five pieces of cloth (produced). I said, “ If I take this piece down to your place now, will you guarantee to make a suit of clothes and a coat out of it?” He said, “Yes.” There was no guarantee with regard to the other pieces. He only called them “trousers and vest pieces.” I went to look for the place indicated as their establishment, ard could not find it. I saw them the next day or the day after. I happened to meet them at the Piiuco of Wales corner. Driscoll was in a buggy, the other came out of the hotel while I was there and took a bundle of cloth from the buggy. I told DrDcoll, “ I have searched all over for that place of yours and can’t find it.” He said, “You can’t miss it, it’s by the first crossing between this and (lie Terminus Hotel.” By this time the other man came out of the hotel I suppose he heard what wo were talking about. Ho said “ Close by the Oddfellows’ Hall there’s a Maori keeps the hotel.” I said, “You mean old Belgravo, that’s the other way altogether, aud lie is not a Maori, but a coloured man.” Btlgrare keeps the Crown, on the South Belt. I said, “ What name did you say ?” Lemon was away at this time. Driscoll replied, “ It is Maguire.” I asked the direction to the place, and he said, “ Just at the corner you’ll see a largo calico sign in large letters, ‘ Maguire and Co,’ ” I said, “ You might give me a drive round to the place, it would not take you a minute,” He said, “Well, our tailors are

not at work to-day. The machines are all up in town, and a man is repairing them ; as we have a loti of heavy work in just now w e want to got the machines in proper repair, but they will bo ad right by Monday.” I still wanted him to take me round to the place. Re said, “If you slop a minute; my mate will bo out directly, he knows the town better than me, and will direct you to the proper place. I am a sli anger here myself.” I did not wait but said “ I’ll go down myself.” I went to my shop. During the time 1 was waitin he wanted to sell me a silk drees for the wife, for 30s. I have since tried to find Maguire’s place. I could see no such place or sign, nor could I hear of such. I made enquiries in the neighborhood. I have been a good many years in Christchurch. I believe the taller man to be Driscoll, because, when I was making out the cheque I asked him if I should make it out to O’Cullaghan and 00. and he said “ No, you had better make it out to me, Driscoll.” I understood it to be Drisco, and wrote it so. When I purchased the cloth I saw them come to my shop in a buggy, and the tall man jumped out. [Here Mr Joynt said that the tall man’s name was Lemon and the other’s Driscoll.] After I had given him a cheque he got into the buggy. The other man was then in a grocer’s shop. The pieces of cloth I handed to Detective Benjamin the day before yesterday. They were in the same state as when I received them. I had measured the cloth previously, and saw that I had been swindled a bit. I went to the bank after I saw 1 had been done, to stop the cheque. That was on the 25th. The cheque had been cashed, and has been charged to my account. The transaction between me and the prisoners took p ace about 2 o’clock in the alternoon. I went to the bank that afternoon, but it was closed. To Mr Joynt— I measured the cloth the same night, the 24th. I cOuld not say at what time, I went to look for O’Callaghan and Oo.’s establishment about six o’clock that night. I went to the bank a little after three, I knew then that the pieces would not make a pair of trousers, much less trousers and vest. I always had, i.i y dabes made to order at a tailors’ I don’t kuow what I pay for making, or for the cloth. As far as I have learned, it costs about £2 10s to make a suit. lam not a judge of cloth. I thought the cloth was right enough. If I had been a judge of cloth 1 should not have bought that. No number of yards was mentioned. I have not taken professional opinion as to the quality or quantity. Some friends have seen the cloth aud say it is nothing but shoddy. One piece was said to be suitable for an overcoat. Before they mention ad about having the stuff made up, they had reduced their price. Their promising to make up the cloth was the sole inducement that made me buy it. I did not care about their having machines as long as they made up the cloth as promised. This was my first speculation in cloth. I have not in cloth since. I asked them whether the suit would do for me. No money was paid by mo to them for making up the clothes. They did not ask me for any. To the Court 1 believed their statement ati to the cloth being sufficient. Toe Court— ' Did that belief lead you to. Mr Joyut protested that the witness had already stated that his sole inducement was the promise to make up the cloth. To Inspector Hickson —Mr Atkinson told me it would cost £2 10a to make a suit. With regard to one piece, I remembered it was not suitable for trousers aud vest. He said it would do very well for an overcoat. He called it by some name —some Irish stuff. Inspector Hickson asked if the representation that the cloth would make a suit . Mr J oynt'again protested against the “ learned ” inspector asking the question, whether something else had acted on his mind as an inducement besides the inducement he had Bwcm to as ihe slein ku ement. Inspector Hickson submitted that ho had been contented during the Jexaminatioii-in-chief to let the witness tell his own story, but in consequence of the question which had been put in cross-examination witness had given as a sole inducement what the evidence showed was no. the sole inducement. Mr Joynt said that the evidence should be allowed to speak for itself, as already taken, and referred to the difficulty he alwaj s had in the Resident Magistrate’s Court in keeping out of depositions evidence which w'as not admissible. The Court replied that the evidence as to what influenced the witness was admissible. Had he been asked “ did you believe this statement and that statement.” Mr Joynt argued that it was not a question of what had been admissable, but it was not for the prosecution now to attempt to qualify their own evidence. The Court said that it must not be lost sight of that a witness would be a somewhat skilled witness who would not answer “yes” or “no” to a direct question, “ Was that the sole inducement?” Mr Joynt said he had led the witness up to that statement, and not taken any advantage of him. [Left sitting.]