MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1835, 9 January 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Fbiday, Januaby 9. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., 8.M.1 Deitne and Diboedebiy.—A first offender was fined ss. Indecency. Eobert Henry Bichardson and Mary Oonncin were charged with committing an act of indecency in the North Park. Both of the accused pleaded guilty and were fined £5 each. liAecbny.—Ellen Stokes, remanded from January 2nd, was charged with the larceny of a gold watch chain, and a pair of gold mounted eyeglasses, value £lO, the property of Annie Fair hurst. Mr A. Thompson appeared on behalf of the accused. Sergeant Morice, before going into the case said that the prosecutrix was in ill health, and unable to appear in Court, but he would ask evidence might be taken, and then the case might be further remanded until the prosecutrix was well enough to appear in Court. Eliza Bobinson, the wife of a shoemaker in Going’s road, deposed that she know the accused, who had been in the haoit of visiting at her house. On one occasion she was accompanied by her son, who said in her hearing that he had found a gold chain, and that there was a reward for it. Some time in October last witness was with tthe accused, and they were both looking into jMr Bandstein, the jeweller’s shop window. The prisoner called her attention to a gold .chain and tassals, and said it was the one she wanted her husband to buy her when he got the one that she had on, from Coates and Co.’s. Joseph Fairhurat, a law clerk residing in Gloucester street, said he identified the gold chain and eye-glass as the property of his mother. The last time he saw it was in her possession in January, 1879._ The loss of

the chain was advertised in the morning and evening papers. William Burgess, a shingler, living in Selwyn street, Addington, deposed that the accused lived in the next house to his. He remembered the advertisement produced, appearing in the Phkss in January, 1879. Witness could not swear to the chain produced, but it was like one he had observed on the person of the prisoner. Witness gave information to ' the police. Constable Briggs stated that he went to the prisoner’s house with a search warrant. When he told her his business she replied she had a chain and eyeglasses which he could have if they were those that he wanted. She said ’her son had found them, and at once gave them up. He then took her into custody for stealing them. They were identified by Joseph Fairhurst as the property of his mother. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence Mr Thompson called Edward Leonard Stokes, a son of the prisoner, who stated that he found the chain and eyeglasses in Armagh street East midway between Colombo street and the Belt. Had no idea to whom they belonged and took them home to his mother. Alfred Lennon was with him. Witness made no concealment of the circumstances of finding the chain. He did not try to find the owner. Told John French and the witness, Mrs Eobinson, of what he had found. Did not know that there had been an advertisement in the papers. Nobody ever told him of one. His mother had a watch and chain of her own. Mr Thompson addressed the

Bench on behalf of the accused, and submitted that there had been no felonious intention of appropriating the property, and the most his client had been guilty of was an inadvertence in not giving information at the Police Depot. His Worship said it really resolved itself into the question as to whether the prisoner had or had not a reasonable belief that the owner of the propeity could be found. He thought she had euch a reasonable belief, and at all events a prima facie case has been made out to justify him in sending the case to a jury. She would therefore be committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed, her husband in the sum of £SO, and one surety of the same amount.

Laecent.— Henry Bussell, alias Buchanan, alias Stewart was charged with stealing a cheque for £ls, the property of Frederick Redder, and John Walsh was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen. Mr Neck appeared for the prisoners. The prosecutor, Frederick Redder, deposed that he was a contractor at Cashmere. On the evening of Saturday, the 27th of last December, he was in Christchurch in company with Russell and a man named George Allen. They were all in the bar of the Royal Hotel together. Witness tried to get the cheque produced cashed, but the barman could not cashfit. The prisoner said he could get it cashed if witness went with him. They all left the hotel together, and went to the Clarendon Hotel. Failing to cash the cheque there they went to the Queen’s Hotel, where Russell called for drinks, and asked witness to give him the cheque, which he refused. They then went to Davis’s pawnshop with the same object, and then towards the Golden Age. Russell proposed to go in and have drinks, but Allen refused. Shortly after, witness, who had been previously cautioned, missed the cheque from his pocket. When he refused to drink with him, Russell told him to go to h , and left him. He had kept the cheque in his pocket book with some other papers. Witness had not known the prisoner before that evening. On the morning of the 29th he stopped payment of the cheque. Had had a previous acquaintance with the other man Allen. Geo. Allen, a laborer deposed that on the evening in question he was in the company of the last witness and the prisoner Russell. It was about seven o’clock. Outside the Royal Hotel prosecutor asked witness if he knew where he could get a cheque cashed. After trying several places Russell wanted witness and prosecutor to go into the Golden Age, and said if the former gave him the cheque he could get it cashed. Prosecutor said he should go to Addington, where he could get the cheque cashed by Mr Hansman, and Russell said he could not mess about with him any more, and left him. Prosecutor then went to the stables next door to Wagner’s for his horse, and in a minute or two returned and said he hud lost his cheque. By the advice of witness, prosecutor went to the Police Depot and gave information of his loss. T. A. W. Parsons, licensee of Scott’s Family Hotel, Durham street, said on the 29th of last December both prisoners were in his bar. It was past banking hours. The prisoner in hearing of Russell Walsh asked witness to cash the cheque produced. Witness gave Walsh £l, but declined to cash the cheque, of which he took possession, and told Walsh he would give him the balance in the morning. They then left the house. Next time witness saw Walsh he was in the custody of Detective Neil, to whom he handed the cheque. Detective Neil deposed that he arrested Russell at the Railway Hotel, on the 30th of December last, and charged him with stealing a cheque from a German named Redder two days previous, and cashing it in company of another man at the Family Hotel. He replied he had had no cheque, and knew nothing about it. On the night of the 6th inst., witness arrested the prisoner Walsh in Gloucester street, on a charge of receiving a stolen cheque from Russell, and of cashing it in his company. He denied any knowledge of it, and said he had never before been in the Family Hotel. This was the case for the prosecution, and both prisoners were committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. LYTTELTON. Fridat, Jakttabv 9. [Before Joseph Beawiok, Esq., R.M., and J. T. Rouse, Esq., J.P.] Away prom their Ships. —Henry Christy, cook on the barque Star of India, and Robert Williamson, seaman belonging to the same vessel—the former a deserter, and the latter away without leave, were ordered on board, the master not wishing to punish them. Obscene Lanoxtaob.— The case of Tredinniek v Treherne, on this charge, heard last Tuesday and postponed for further evidence, was taken. Mr Joyce for the complainant, Mr Haider for the accused; Mr Joyce put two letters in evidence relating to the case, and written by the two brothers of the parties involved, residing at Ashburton. He also called the husband of the complainant to prove their authenticity. Mr Nalder put in two other letters received by the accused soma time since from her friends in England. The case was then dismissed by the Bench.