MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1688, 18 July 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, July 16. [[Before Q-. L. Melliab, Esq,, R.M., and J, Hall, Esq., J.P.] Drunk and Disorderly.—A solitary inebriate was fined ss. Failing to Provide.—C. Walkden Wood, on remand from Wellington, was brought up charged with neglecting to provide his wife with adequate means of support. M.r R. JJ. Thomas appoared for tho accused. The wife of the accused said she had an order for maintenance at Timaru. A remand was granted to Timaru, the JJench pointing out to the complainant that she could apply there for the defendant to find security for the fulfilment of the order. Absconding. Charles Walkden Wood was charged under the Debtors and Creditors Act and Creditors Amendment Act, 1878, with being about to leave tbc colony with a view oE defeating proceedings under the said Act. Mr B. D. Thomas appeared for the accused. On the application of tho police tt« accused was remanded to Timaru, where the warrant was issued.

Wife Desertion. —Andrew Horne, remanded from the 15th July, was charged with deserting his wife and six children. Margaret Horne stated that fora considerable time she and her family had boon tho victims

of the defendant’s ill mage. She and her family were in very poor circumstances, and dependent for existence on the charity of another man. The defendant had threatened suicide. A witness named Neale, in whose house the complainant had been staying for the last nine weeks, said she and her family had been left in a most horrible state, and that she had been neglected for the past twelve months. The woman had not a proper house to live in, and neither she nor her family had sufficient food or clothing. The defendant called in his behalf a Mrs Greer, who stated the defendant had always been “ good to his missus,” as far as she knew. The complainant had left her husband of her own accord, as she said her husband had beaten her, and knocked her down. The defendant had asked her to come back to her home, but she refused to do so. The defendant had not return od home since. The defendant denied the charge of deseiJion, and told a long incoherent story of his fanrly troubles, the gist of which was that she and the defendant had a quarrel, and that she with her children had cleared out and refused to return. Another witness, a Mrs Begg, stated that the complainant deft her home of her own accord, and further she was of opinion that if the complainant had acted differently with the means her hnsband supplied her with, her children would not be in their present condition. The defendant was a good deal away at his work as a contract ploughman, but he left the house properly provided. A witness named Neeshaw gave evidence that supported the statement of the defendant, but he thought the complainant was scarcely responsible for her actions, and her sister had not been a good adviser to her. The Bench were of opinion that the charge had not been sustained, and that there were no grounds for granting an order. Mischief-makers had evidently been at work fomenting discord between them. After advising the complainant to return home to her husband, the information was dismissed.

Labcenv. —William McDonald was charged with stealing a purse and knife, value 3s, the property of S. D. Nathan. The accused, an urchin nine years of age, pleaded guilty. The prosecutor said he had no wish to press the charge, only petty thefts by boys wore multiplying at his place. Mr Inspector Hickson said this was the second time the prisoner had been before the Court. He was convicted o£ stealing grapes on 3rd of last March, and had had four hours' imprisonment and twelve lashes. As he had been previously convicted, the boy could not be sent to the training ship at Auckland, and there was no other refuge of a reformatory nature open to him. H : a Worship said he would, were it in his power, send the prisoner to the industrial school or the training ship, but he could not do so. He would, therefore, be sent to prison for ninety-six hours, and receive fifteen lashes with a cat o' nine tails. „ Mr Mellish here left the Bench.

Peejoey. William Hall, senior, was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr Neck appeared for the accused. David Girdler, sworn, said: lam a bricklayer, residing in Tuam street. Some time in May last I made an agreement with the accused to build an addition to a cottage, for the sum of £3O, It was a wooden building, and the additions were to be of wood. The agreement was a written one between the prisoner and a man named Gilthrow, for whom I was acting. I was unable to take the contract, because I was a bankrupt and had not received my discharge. I wrote the agreement, and the prisoner signed it. I put the date on it at the time. The work wrs done for the prisoner, and I was paid in part, but had to summons the prisoner in this court for the recovery of the balance due, £8 7s. The prisoner gave evidence in that case. He contradicted the statements made. He swore the signature on the agreement produced was not his, and that he could not write. To Mr Neck—l have known the prisoner drink both intoxicating and non-intoxicating beverages. Robt. McKnight sworn deposed— I am bailiff of the Resident Magistrate Court, Christchurch. I produce the records of the Court, showing that a case between Gilthrow and the prisoner was heard on the Bth inst. The case was heard before Mr G. L. Mellish, R.M., for the Christchurch district. The p.Isoner was defendant in that case. He was examined ss a witness. I administered the oath to him, being the officer appointed to do that duty in civil cases. I heard the evidence he gave. The document produced was put in by the plaintiff in that case. Prisoner swore he could not write, and did not sign his name to that agreement. He did not in his after evidence in any way qualify that statement. That was the only agreement produced in the case. The prisoner saw the agreement at the time that he swore he bad never seen it and could not write. _ To Mr Neck—l think you cautioned the prisoner at the time in the Court as to what he said. I know you cautioned him outside the Court. O. L. Mellish, sworn, said —I am Resident Magistrate of the Christchurch district. I presided in this Court on the Bth inst. The prisoner was the defendant in a civl action brought against him on that day by one James Gilthrow. The prisoner was examined after being duly sworn by-the witness McKuight, the officer who is appointed to swear the witnesses in civil cases. A certain agreement was produced, and his is the agreement marked A in support of the plaintiff's claim. The agreement was material to the issue of the cass. The defendant was shown tho agreement. The signature was pointed out to him, his attention being specially called to it. He denied that he signed the agreement; stated that he could not write, and called a witness to prove it. The witness he called was his wife. ByMr Neck I remember you cautioned the prisoner, and I cautioned him myself as to his statement respecting tho signature. In the course of my judicial duties I have a great deal of conflicting testimony to hear. So much so, that I am at a loss sometimes as to which party to believe. Occasionally through such causes I am compelled to take steps to vidicate justice. Re-examined by Mr Inspector Hickson—The evidence given by the prisoner was material to tho issue of tho ease. [The witness identified tho plaint book and tho summer b] I asked the prisoner at the time to sign his name, and he again said ho could not write. HonryfAllieon, sworn, deposed—l am a clerk in the office of Messrs Harman and Stevens, Hereford street. I know the prisoner. By the Bench—l have seen tho prisoner sign his name. His signature resembles the one produced. The signature to the agreement I produce is tho prisoner’s. I saw him sign it on tho 2nd July, 1877. There is a stamp on it, which is initialed by him. George Reston deposed - I am gaoler at Addington. I know the prisoner. I have seen him write. I have seen him write his signature in the prisoner's property book, which I now produce Register 3172, page 25. I saw him attach his signature on the 26th February, 1876, in the book to a receipt for bis property. Detective Walter deposed I arrested the prisoner on a warrant on the 15th inst. I told him tho charge. I was in tho watch-house when the watch-house keeper took an inventory of his property. Tho watch-house keeper asked him to sign the usurl property sheet, and he said ho could not write. He could not write his name if you gave him a thousand pounds. By Mr Neck —He did not sign; he put his mark. This was tho case for the prosecution. Mr Neck having addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner, he was committed to take his trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court for wilful and corrupt perjury. On the application of Mr Neck hail was allowed the,prisoner in one sum of £IOO, and two sureties of £3O each.