MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1545, 31 January 1879, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Feiday, Januahy 31, [Before GK L. Lee, Esq., R. Walton, Esq, and Dr. Back, J.P.’s.] Illegally on Peemisbs. Alexander Stewart was charged with being illegally on the premises of William Hiscock, in St Asaph street. The offence was admitted, but the accused said he was drunk, and did not inow how he got on Mr Hiscock’s premises A fine of 10s was imposed. MISArPEOPEIATING A CHEQUE. —Robert Vinson, remanded from the 23rd instant, was charged with misappropriating a cheque for £24, entrusted to him as an agent. Mr Neck appeared for the accused. Mr Inspector Hickson said the alleged offence was con;» mitted at Napier, and the accused had been already remanded in Christchurch pending the arrival of the warrant from Napier, »s he had been arrested on a telegam. The warrant had now arrived, and Mr Hickson applied that the accused should he remanded to Napier. Mr Neck applied that the accused should be remanded in Christchurch for a fortnight, to give the accused time to communicate with his legal adviser in Napier, as the offence committed was only a statutory one, and he had only acted under his legal adviser. The Bench would not accede to so long a re mand, but, adjourned it until February 7th, the same bail as the accused was now out on being allowed. Labcsny.— Richard Roberts and Franks John Ormanby were charged with stealing five bottles of wine, value 30s, the property of Richard Walton. Mr Izard appeared for the accused. Mr L. B. Nathan deposed that be was a merchant, carrying on business in Hereford street. On the 24th instant he found a bottle of wine in a cask which had been previously unpacked ; it was concealed amongst some chips which had formed the packing of the cask. It was about a little before three in the afternoon. He saw one of his storemen, named PUrirk Cerrett, and spoke to him about it, and the latter left his sight for a few minutes. The witness had no knowledge how the wine came there. The prisoner, Ormandy. was formerly in his employ as a storeman. He left, and up to the time of bis arrest had been in the service of Mr Walton. Patrick Skerrett dc posed he had been in the employ of the last witness as storeman. On this day week be remembered Mr Nathan finding a bottle of wine in some chips in a cask in his warehouse Mr Nathan had a conversation with him about the wine, and he (witness) saw thedefendan'e and spoke to them about it. Mr Richard Walton, merchant, deposed that both the prisoners had been in his employ up to a week ago. At that time his attention was called to a bottle of sparkling Burgundy, his property, at Mr L. E. Nathan’s office. The bottle of wine produced was the fac simile of it. Had one ullage case containing four or five bottles of wine like it on his premises. They were in the sense of merchandise for sale. After seeing the wine at Mr Nathan’s, witness had a conversation with the prisoners. He understood at first that Ormandy had given the wine to Kent, but Roberts afterwards admitted he had given it him, but at the same time ho had bought and paid for it out of the store, and had it entered in the books of the firm. On being asked what had become of the other bottles, he (Roberts) at first denied knowing anything about them, but afterwards produced four empty bottles, and said they had drunk them. Ormandy disclaimed having had any of it. Witness told detective Walker the circumstances, and the latter took him in custody. Witness said he had had a conversation with Ormandy, who told him they had commenced drinking the wine at half-past eight in the morning, but from his manner the witness thought he wished him to infer that the wine was the property of Ormandy. The wine was worth 62s per dozen. Cross-examined by Mr Izard, the witness said Ormandy came to him with a good character from Mr Fisher. He owed Ormandy nearly a week’s wages, which would have been more than sufficient to pay for the value of the wine taken, but he did not permit his employees to forestal their wages by taking goods and entering them to their debit in the books. John Wachsman, a clerk in Mr Walton’s office, deposed that the prisoners had been in the employ of Mr Walton as storeman, and Roberts came to him on the 24th inst., and asked him to enter against him in the books five-twelfths of a case of champagne. This was the first time witness had heard of any wine having been taken by the prisoners. Knew there were ullage cases of wine on the premises, but could not say what quantity of wine they contained. Witness debited Robert with the wine, Roberts would receive at the end of the week 50s, the amount of his wages. It was about three o’clock when the entry against Roberts was made in the books. Detective Walker deposed that ho arrested the prisoner Roberts about twenty minutes past 4 p.m. on the 24th inst., and Ormandy about 7 p.m. on the same date. Roberts said nothing when ho was arrested. In a conversation previous to his arrest Roberts admitted having given a bottle of wino to Skerrett. Ormandy asked had he ever drank any of the wine, and Roberts said “l’)l not say no for you.” This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr Izard called Mr Ayers to speak to the character of both of the accus* d. The wi r ness gave Ormandy an excellent character, and spoke favorably of Rob-rts, whom ho had not known so long. Mr Percy also gave them a good character. Mr Izard submitted there was no evidence aguinst Ormandy, in which the Bench concurred, and he was at once discharged, and Mr Izard put him in the witatsa box to speak in favor of Roberts.

From the statement of the witness it appealed that the parties implicated drank the wine under the impression that Roberts had purchased it. On the Thursday night lie said lie meant to buy it, and the following morning the wine was drank. Mr Izard hero addressed the Bench in favor of Roberts, and while the Bench were deliberating Mr Walton addressed the Court for leniency to Roberts, on the ground that he might have supposed he could take the property as a purchase in the way ho had done, A former storeman hr.l been in the habit of taking goods and debiting himself with them until ha (Mr Walton) had given orders that the practice would no longer he allowed, and pnssibily the accused did not know of this regulation. The Bench said under these circumstances they would discharge accused. Patrick Skerrett was also charged with stealing five meerschaum pipes and cases value 335, the property of L. E. Nathan. He was further charged with receiving one bottle of wine value G>, knowing the same to have been stolen. Mr Tzml appeared for the accused who pleaded gu l'y. and threw hims.-lr’ on the mercy of the Court, Mr Inspector Hickson said the accused had hitherto borne [a good character, and it was his first offence. The accused was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor.

False Pretences. Edward Mitchell Davis was charged wiih endeavouring to im pose on a private individual by a false representation. Mr Neck defended the accused. William Q-riffiths was called but did not answer to his name. The Inspector of Police said he had been subpoenaed and ought to hare been present. The case was adjourned fer a tine.

Foegeky and UttebiNG.— Edgar Bastings, on remand, was charged with frying n cheque for £7 5s on the Bank of New Zealand and also with uttering the s me. Mr Neck app tired for the accused, and said he should reserve his defence and not cross-examine the witness as he had no doubt the Bench would consider a prima facie case had been made suf ficient to warrant the case being sent to a jury. Joseph William Francis depcs d that h* was a waiter at the White Hart hotel. He knew the prisoner as a frequenter or the hotel, and saw him there on or about January 10th. lie asked for a blank cheque which witness gave him. It was on the Christchurch branch of the Bank of New Zealand. Detective Benjamin had the block of the cheque he had given him. The cheque produced was the one he had given the prisoner; it was then blank. Henry Allen, proprietor of the Golden Ago hotel, deposed that the prisoner came to his hotel on the 26th December, and stayed three weeks. About the 13th of January, in the evening, be came into the bar with another man, and bad a drink, asking if he (witness) could change a cheque for £7 for him. Witness replied he did not think he had sufficient, and the accused said it did not much matter, bat if he could change it he should take it as a favour. He said it was one of Mr Back’s, the traffic manager, cheques. Prisoner vouched for its genuineness, and said he would endorse it, and did so. The cheque produced is the one. Deducting for the two drinks, the witness gave the prisoner £7 4s change. On presenting it at the B»mk of New Zealand it was returned marked “ No account.” Mr F. Back, general manager of railways, deposed that the signature to the cheque proposed was rot his. He had no a c unt at the Bank of New Zealand. There was no other person to his knowledge of the same name as himself, and he had not authorised any one to sign his name. This was the case for the Crown. The evidence having been read over, and the prisoner cautioned, he was committed to take his trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. On the application of Mr Neck the accused was admitted to bail, himself in £2OO, and two sureties in £IOO each. IJttebing Countebfeit Coin. —Edward Michael Divis, on remand, was charged with uttering counterfeit coin. Mr Neck appeared for the accused. Wili am Griffiths, who was now in Court, being sworn, deposed he was a hairdresser in the emplov of Mr Ayers, On the morning of January 21st, last Tuesday week, the accused came into the shop and asked for a cigar, which witness gave him. tccused put a coin down, which looked like a half-sovereign, and said, “ Take it out of that.” Witness took the coin up, and noticing that it did not look quite the.'thing, declined to take it. At the suggestion of Mr Reynolds, he then asked the accuse 1 if he had any more coins like that, and he gave him three, two large and one small one. Subsequently he gav* them to a constable. The coins produced are the same given him by the accused. A young man named Reynolds was present it the time. Cross • examined by Mr Neck, the witness said he had seen similar coins suspended to watcbgu<rdß, ni fact he had seen hundreds of them. Alfred Reynolds deposed that lie was a hairdresser at Mr Ayers, and remember 'd the circumsianees as detailed by the lust witness. He recollected the accused saying he owed no money for dry goods obtained previously, and put the coin down, saying, “ There, take it out of that.” Witness suggested that the lest witness should try and get some of the coins, in case they might want them. Constable Francis Cullen deposed that he received the three spurious coins from the witness Griffith on the 21st inst. This was the case for the police. Mr Neck addressed the Bench for his client, assuming that the whole affair was a joke, and that no fraud had ever been contemplated. He then called Mr Clarke for the defence, who deposed that he sold tokens like the one produced attached to watch chains for 2s 6.1 each. Young men occasionally purchased these tokens and detached them from the chains. The Court held there was a doubt, and gave the accused the benefit of it, discharging him with u caution to be more careful for the future.

Bheach oe Hackney Cabbiaqe By law. - J ihu Rickerby was fined 10s for carrying three persons in his cab. C. Collins and S Grirnglade were each fined 10s for leaving horses and traps with nobody in charge, H. Fuhrmann was fined |2o< for allowing! his horse to remain on Cambridge terrace on the 7th January. A number of persons were fined 5s each for allowing a number of cattle to remain at largo. J. Templeton was cautioned and fined 10s and 8s costs for driving a horse suffering badly from girthgall. Illegal Bathing.—Five lads pleaded guilty to bathing at the old College bathing place'. They were under the impression that, they could bathe after 6 p.m., and this was about ten minutes after that time. They were dismissed with a caution. The Magistrate stated that a warning board would bo put up, and after that the law would be strictly enforced.

TRKBPAB9INQ ON THE EAILWAT. —AIfred Osborne was fined 40s for tliis offence. John Judge admitted allowingtwo horses to wander at large on the railway line at Lincoln on the 16th inst. was fined 10s.