MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1684, 14 July 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTOHUEOH. Monday, July 14. [Before GK L. Mellish, E*q , R.M.; Sir J. Oracroft Wilson, and Q-. L. Lee, Esq., J.P.’sj Deitnk and Disobdbelt.—A first offender was fined ss, nnd another drunkard was fined 20 . UxiEBING COTTKTEEPEIT COIN. John Kearsey, on remand from July Ist, was charged with uttering counterfeit coin. Mr R. D. Thomas appeared for the accused and said ho had seen his employer, who could not really say whether the half sovereign he gave him was a good or bad one. The charge was then withdrawn by the police. Violent Assadxt. Wiliam Henry Strange, remanded from July 9th, was charged with violently assaulting Edward Norman Strange on the Bth of July. Messrs Holmes and Neck appeared for the accused, the former instructed by his friends and the latter by the accused himself. John Mason, a farmer residing at the Styx, said he was returning home on the evening of the Bth last. He heard a child crying, and in consequence of what a girl told him he went inside the defendant’s house and saw him holding a child with its head leaning on his arm. He took the child from him. A woman came in and abused the defendant, and told him he ought to have been hanged long ago. Witness kept the child in his arms four or five minutes, and then gave it to its mother. Witness peeped in before he entered the house and saw the accused holding the child, who was crying, in his arms. Witness saw no violence done to the child. John Thorne sworn, said ho was a butcher residing in the Papanui road. Defendant lived close by. He heard a noise in defendant’s house, and heard some one say he was kil'mg the child. Witness went in and saw defendant beating a woman named Mrs Price. He did not see the child sustain any injury. Witness afterwards went away. The accused had the appearance of a man who had been drinking, Elizabeth Price, sworn, said she lived in the next house to the defen lant. On the evening of the Bth she heard a noise like the thumping of wood on the floor. She went in and saw the defendant holding the child ; she interfered and the defendant threatened and struck her. Before going in she hoard defendant say “ You little wretch I’ll kill you.” She had the child taken into her house and examined it, and found it injured about the head, but she did not see the injury done. Dr. Doyle was sent for and had attended the infant ever since. "Witness saw the defendant strike the child while it was in Mr Mason’s arms. Dr. Doyle deposed that he was called in to examine the child on the day in question. Ho found the child bruised on the temples as if it had been struck. Ho told the inmates of the house at the time that he did not consider the child absolutely in danger, but it was severely hurt, and would require care and attention for its recovery. He had seen the child since, and it was now out of danger. The injuries to the child might have been occasioned by a drunken man tumbling about while holding it. Constable Q-lackin proved the arrest of the accused. Mr Inspector Hickson said the only person who could state the real facts of the case was the wife of the defendant, and she was not conpetent to give evidence. Mr Holmes addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and contended that there was no proof of an assault having been commited. The witness Mason was recalled, and stated that, while he was in the house he did not see the defendant strike the child Defendant and Mrs Price quarrelled and the latter was very excited. Dr. Brittan was called by Mr Holmes to prove that the defendant was subject to epileptic fits, the result of an injury he had received to his head. When those fits were on him he was not answerable for his actions. Similar evidence was given by Mr Eountaine, who, in addition, said that when not drinking he was a quiet, harmless man. Mr Holmes urged that there would be no use in sending his client to gaol, which could only have the effect of making him worse, and driving him again to drink when he came out from a sense of his degradation. He would undertake to take any pledge that his Worship might impose. At least, the justice of the case would bo met by the infliction of a fine, if the Court did not think fit altogether to dismiss the case, and bind the defendant over to keep the peace. Mr Neck followed Mr Holmes on behalf of the defendant. His Worship said there was no doubt an assault of a very grievous nature had been committed on the child, and which could not be passed over. After severely lecturing the defendant on the consequences of his long course of intemperance, which had brought him to his present pass, he was sentenced to one month a imprisonment with hard labor, and at the expiration of the term bo bound over to keep the peace for six months. False Pbetbnces. —John A. Craig was charged with obtaining goods to the value of £6 10a fid by false pretences, from Jno. O tber. Mr Izard appeared for the accused. John Cother deposed that he was a draper in Cashel street. On the 3rd inst. the prisoner came to his shop between six and eight p.m. He bought an overcoat, four shirts, a scarf, six silk handkerchiefs, and a hat. They came to a sum of £6 10s fid. He tendered a cheque on the Union Bank in payment. Witness gave him a blank cheque, which he (witness) filled in, and the prisoner signed it and returned it to witness. The cheque produced was the one in question. The following morning the witness took the cheque to the Bank. The prisoner put on the coat, but left three the shirts and the silk bandore lief

at the shop, and said he would call for them, in the morning, but he did not do so. The rest of the articles he took away. The cheque was on the Bank of Australasia, but at the request of the prisoner, witness altered it to the Union Bank. _ On presenting the cheque at the bank it was returned to him, marked “no account.” He delive ed the goods to the prisoner, giving him perfect control over them, before he received the cheque. Prisoner asked for them. Mr Inspector Hickson said that es it was clear from the evidence of the witness he had given the prisoner credit for them, it was no use proceeding further with the case. The prisoner was at once discharged. Mary Holiday was charged with obtaining, the sum of £3O from Peter Davis by means of a valueless cheque. Mr R. D. Thomas appeared for the accused. Mr P. Davis, corn merchant, of Manchester street, deposed that the defendant called on him on the 17th' March last. She said her husband sent her down to sell some oats. Asked her how many bushels he had for sale. She said 2000 bushels. Asked her for a sample [produced], and she gave him one. She said her husband wanted 3s a bushel. Told her the market price that day was 2s 10d, and she said if she sold the oats at that price her husband would want a little money in advance to pay some debts. She said her husband would require £3O or £lO. She said it would be less than a week before her husband could deliver the oats. Witness told her if the oats wore delivered in that lime he would advance her £3O. Witness wrote the cheque and agreement then and there. The cheque was then marked by the accused. It was the cheque produced. She said her husband would send a telegram in a day or two for the sacks for the grain. She then went away. She gave her husband’s name as John Ha'yday, a farmer residing at Kowai Pass. The oats were to be delivered at the Christchurch station not latter than four weeks. As no oils came witness sent a man up to enquire about them. The messenger brought back a letter written by her husband. Mr Thomas objected to the letter. Witness saw the defendant next at the later end of April and eaPed her into his office and asked when her husband was going to give him the oats cr the money. She said “Mr Davis, I obtained this money by false pretences. Idid not represent my husband when I called here.” “land my husband had a row, and I came away that day when I came to you, I could not get any other way to get money but this way. Witness then sent for a policeman, but ho would not take her then. She begged to be let off, as she was goirg home to see her husband. She said he would pay the money, as he would not let her go to prison for three times that amount. Witness told her to go home and try to male her arrangements v Ith her husband for the payment of the money. She said she would do so, and her husband would come in a week or so and pay the money. She went away, and came again on the 9tb May. She said her husband had sent him £5 on account of the £3O. Her husband would pay the balance on Thursday in the following week, or settle it some other way. Next saw the accuetd o i the Sth of the month. She was coming out of Mr Thomas’ office with her bust aid. Asked Mr Halyday if he wrs going to settle about the money, and she said, “ I’ll see you to-morrow at the Magistrate’s Court.” Had previously summoned the accused’s husband for tbe money. Had not received the amount, nor received any oats. The cheque has been paid at the Bank. By Mr Thomas—lt is only because the husband did not pay that I laid the information against the woman. I have taken these proceedings in the interest of justice. Joseph Oram Shepherd, licensee of the White Heart Hotel, deposed that on or about 17th March his barmaid handed him the cheque produced, the prisoner being present. Took the pilce of a bottle of liquor, and gave the change to the prisoner, at the same t ; Tia w.iting the prisoner’s name on the back o£ the cheque. In answer to a question put by the witness to his barmaid as to who was Mr Davis, tbe prisoner said the cheque was for cats that she had sold. George Robinsoi, engine-driver, living in Christchurch, deposed that be knew John Holyday, Kowai Pass, but not the prisoner. Last March threshed 297 bushels of oats for Halyday. Mr Thomas here objected to the information on the ground that it disclosed no offence. It merely stated that money had been obtained under a false pretence, but did not disclose the nature of it. The Bench overruled the objection, and Mr Inspector Hickson called John Julian All--in the employ of the prosecutor. He deposed that he first saw the prisoner on the 17th of March. She wanted to see Mr Davis; her husband had sent her to sell some oats, and inquired what price Mr Davis was giving. He told her the market price was 2s 10 Mr Davis then cams in, and the prisoner repeated to him what she had just sqid to witness. Finally it was settled at 2s lOd, Mr Davis’s price. Mr Davis agreed to lend the prisoner the £3O. Delivery was to be made in a few weeks’ time. The rest of this witness’s evidence was corroborative of the first. Mr Hickson applied for an adjournment to procure a witness from Kowai Pass to prove that the prisoner was the wife of John Halyday, and that e was not possessed of 2000 bushels of oat Mr Thomas admitted these facts, and Mr Hickson withdrew the application. The Court then adjourned until 2 p.m.