MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1676, 4 July 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Fuidav, July 4,

[Before G. L. Mellisb, Esq., R.M.] Assaulting the Police. Gilbert McClymont was fined 60s for being drunk, using profane language, and assaulting the police. Laecent. —Francis Wm. Fordor, on remand, was charged with stealing a vest of the value of 11s, the property of H. E. May. George Edward Triggs, a young man in the employ of the prosecutor, deposed that on the 2nd instant ho hung the vest produced outside the door of the shop for exposure for sale. It was in the same place at 4 p.m., but an hour after it was missing. He reported the loss at the police depot. Richard Painter au assistant in the employ of Mr S. Stewart Pawnbroker, deposed that on the day in question the prisoner came to his employer's chop and wanted to pawn it for 4s. Witness lent him a shilling upon it. ■ On the following day ho saw Detective Benjamin with the accused, and he identified the latter as the man who had pawned the waistcoat. The accused admitted that ho had pawned the vest, but said it belonged to him. The accused had three convictions recorded against him, and was now sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labour.

Peatoitlknt Peeiences.— Edward Dillon was charged.-with unlawfully and knowingly obtained from.Mesers Eoyse, Stead and Co. a certain order for payment, and of the value of £75, by a false pretence. There was a second charge of obtaining from the same firm an orderfor payment of the value of £4O and a threshing machine. Mr Deacon appeared for the prosecutor and Mr Joynt for the defendant. E. O. Stead, of the firm of Royse, Steed and Co., being sworn, said—l know the prisoner. I had some transactions with him on the 2nd November last. He applied to me for an advance of £75. I asked him particularly as to itu means and position. He told me tbk¥ he owned a farm of 110 acres, situs. ted near Amberley, and that it was well worth £ls per acre. I asked him if he had any incumbrance on it of any nature. He told me it was mortgaged to Hanmcr and Harper for £360. I asked him particularly the total amount of incumbrance on it, and as to its value. He said ho had no incumbrance on it other than £360. I asked him if he had any other assets, and he said he owned a valuable pure-bred draught entire Black Douglas,? and that he had sixty acres of oats in crop. He gave me the number of section in crop. I advanced him the sum asked for—£7s—that dsy. The cheque produced is the one I gave him, and it has been paid. He gave me a lien over the sixty acres of oats which he asserted he had. [Document produced. J I advanced the money because he represented himself to be a substantial man, owning a valuable farm, encumbered to a slight extent, and also that he owned a valuable horse, which was unencumbered. On the 4th of November he got £23 more. On the 7th December he interviewed mo again, and ho asked me for another advance of £4O, and, in addition to that he wanted to buy a reaping machine I asked him what ho wanted it for, and he said he wanted to pay for the service of some mares at Oamaru. I again asked him a* to his position, and he again assured mo that hi» farm of 110 acres was well worth £ls per acre, and that it was only encumbered to the extent of £360, and that his draught stallion was earning him a lot of money for covering fee*. I cross-questioned him as to the value of this horse, and he satisfied me that it was a very Talutiblc animal, and worth a great deal of money to him. He told me ho had three or four hacks, but I depended entirely upon his position os a landowner when I sold him the machine. His statement asfto the horse also influenced me. I advanced him the £4O he asked for, and the reaping machine in consequence of these statements. The cheque produced is the one I gave him. £75, £33, £4O and the reaping machine wore advanced to the accused, and I have received £SO, leaving a balance of £l5O 10a still duo. To Mr Joynt—After I advanced the £75 I took steps to verify the statement of the accused by inquiring from other persons. The result was that at the time I was satisfied his statements were correct. His liabilities to me matured on the Ist February, and on his solicitation I renewed them to the Ist April. The day after he filed I met accused in the street, and he promised to come to my office and pay mo. Dennis Dillon, being sworn, said: 1 am a farmer, residing at Kowai Forks. I recollect, in May, 1878, making a purchase of land from the accused. The document produced is the conveyance of the land I speak of. The accused, a short time ago, filed his schedule. I toot the deed because ho wanted to borrow more money on the land, and I would not allow him to do so. I authorised my brother to raise £2OO on the land, wherever he could get it, not exceeding 10 per cent. I believe the money was borrowed. I did not authorise my brother to represent to any one that he was the owner of the land. In October, 1878, I bought a stallion, a three-year old colt, Black Douglas, fromt my brother. I bought some grain from my brother between two and three months. The quantity was between 116 and 120 bushels of oats. My brother had no interest in the land after he sold it to me, but lie was to pay the interest as long as he stopped, and ho had the privelege of raising £2OO or £250, if I could not advance it to him. My brother owed £3OO on the land when I bought it of him in May, 1878. I believe there was about £550 owing on the land when I took the conveyance in May last. When my brother signed the conveyance in May, 1870, I did not pay any money. My brother raised by mortgages in May and November, 1978, the sums of £l5O and £IOO respectively. These sums made up the £250 I authorised my brother to raise. Beyond that my brother had no interest in the land. John Brough Stansell sworn said—l produce copy of agricultural lien given by Edward Dillon to Royse, Stead, and Co., filed on the 4th of November, 1878, numbered 1071. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Joynt addressed the Court on behalf of (he accused, contending that when the money was raised the accused had a legal right to do so, being the owner at the time, consequently there was no fraudulent pretence. His Worship said there appeared to be a 2Jriwa fdcio case in the transaction of the horse which justified him in sending the case to the Supremo Court. The accused was then committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court, bail bring allowed, tho accused in £2OO, and two sureties of £IOO each.