MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1863, 12 February 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. W KDNESDAY. FbBETJABY 11. [Before Q-. L. Hellish, Esq., B.M.J The foil jv ing is the conclusion of Murphy’s case, neard yesterday, and thf hearing of a charge of violent assault brought against two constable.' : H. E. Alport, auctioneer, sworn, sail

Dio kaew the defendant. Remembered t! e month of last October, and did not ma’e any valuation Jor the defendant. Was not acquainted "with the prosecutor Letttord, and nevsr at any time made a valuation for the defendant. Never received £2 2s for making a valuation for him. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr MoConnel offered two objections. The first, a legal one, was that no date of the information proved, and secondly, that there was no evidence to show that the defendant had been guilty of anything more than falsehood. He did not obtain the money under his false representation, as he already had the money in his possession, and simply deducted the sum of £2 2s. It was simply a misunderstanding of accounts, and the prosecutor could recover by civil action. Mr Deacon submitted that a very nice point in law was involved, which his Worship was scarcely competent to decide. In fact, it would rather puzzle the judges in the higher Court. His Worship considered a prima facie case had been made out, and if the facts were proved as stated, a grosser case of fraud he could scarcely imagine. Mr McOonnel then asked that the case might be remanded, as he had only been instructed that day. The Bench could not see their way to this. Mr MoConnel, for the [defer ce, called William Lake, a clerk in his office, who'identified two deeds produced, bearing the date of Oct. 29th, 1879, Witness saw the prosecutor Lettford sign both of those deeds. The business connected with the mortgage to which the deed referred was settled in witness’ room. A cheque was given to Lettford when the deed was executed. The cheque was for £27 3s. At that time witness was clerk to McOonnel and Douglas. The cheque was signed by Mr McConnel for McOonnel and Douglas. The mortgage was for £6O. Mr McConnel signed another cheque in the same way for £l2 10s. Mr McConnel took the latter cheque to Mr Dixon in satisfaction of his interest. Witness heard a conversation between Mr McConnel and Lettford about Dixon’s interest. The subject of it was, to the best of his recollection, that Mr McOonnel would go and try and obtain a reduction of the interest from Dixon. He went out, and after some time returned and told Lettford he had obtained a reduction from Dixon. At the suggestion of the Bench William Lettford was again put in the witness box, and swore that Mr McOonnel’s clerk had never paid him a cheque for £27. The witness Lake recalled, said he could not remember that McConnel and Douglas had any monies in hand on account of Murphy connected with Lettford’s case when the cheque for £27 was paid. At that time he was partially acting as book-keeper for McConnel and Douglas. Had recently made out an account of monies received and paid away on behalf of Lettford. A calculation was made out and shown to Lettford showing that £4712s had been received from Murphy on Lettford’s account. James Swindell, recalled by the Bench, said he heard Murphy remark in the Holden Age, when ha paid the £27 to Lettford, that he did nob give him the cheque because it was Mr MoOonnel’s, and it would be handier for Lettford if he paid him in money. William Lettford, recalled by the Bench, swore that to the best of his belief Mr Lake never gave him a cheque. Mr McConnel put in the cheque in question, which he said he had that morning received from the Bank of New Zealand, on which it was drawn. The witness Lettford swore that to the best of his belief the cheque in Court had never been in his possession, and he had never handed it to Murphy. Further evidence being given of the cashing of the cheque, counsel addressed the Bench upon either side. The Bench held that a prima facie case had been made out to go to a jury, and his Worshipjsaid that if the facts, as stated, were proved, there was no doubt a gross fraud had been committed. The evidence was then read over, and the accused was committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court. On the application of Mr McConnel, bail was allowed in two sureties of £IOO each, and the accused in £2OO. Violent Assault. —Thomas Oaraher and Michael Maoarthy, police constables, were charged with violently assaulting one Henry Blewett. Mr Stringer appeared for the defendants, and Mr Neck for the complainant. Mr Stringer called the attention of the Court to a grossly garbled account of the affair which had appeared in the “ Star” of the previous evening ia the shape of a leading article. Tn it a constable named Gay was mentioned, who had no existence; Mr Mellish was reported as being on the Bench, when Messrs Lee and Parker had heard the case, and the Bench were reported as having expressed opinions the very opposite to what they actually said. The whole tenor of the article was mest unjust to his clients, and was a tissue of prejudgment and falsehoods. The complainant, being sworn, said he came out as storekeeper of the Lady Jocelyn. Ho had been living at Thomas’s boarding-house, in Tuam street. On the night of the Bth of February he was returning homo up Manchester street, when Constable Oaraher asked him to go home. Witness said he was doing so, when the constable pushed him into the gutter. On asking what that was for, the constable kicked him, knocked him down, and kicked him while on the ground. Constable Macarthy came up and knelt on his chest, and they handcuffed him. Some people came up, and amongst them three witnesses, named Mallard, lies, and Finley. Mallard was taken into custody by one of the constables for interfering by asking for his number. When handcuffed the constable put him into the cab, where he sat in the bottom with his legs on the seat. Macarthy sat on his legs, and jumped, sitting down on them violently. He asked him to desist, for fear he should break his legs. He was quite sober. In cross-examination the witness said he never went to Evans’ boarding house the night he was arrested, and never asked if any women were there. He was perfectly sober and quiet. Wm. Mallard sworn, stated on Saturday night last he saw the complainant in the hands of the defendants, one of whom was kicking him. It was Oaraher who was kicking him. Macarthy he only saw holding the complainant. The kicks seemed to indicate that tho operator was practised at it. Saw the handcuffs put on in Manchester street. The kicking was in Tuam street. When he first saw the affair the constables wore dragging the complainant along the s reet, and Caraher was kicking him. Ho remonstrated with the policeman. The man was struggling on the ground. Macarthy used no violence, only held tho complainant. Walter Ilea, sworn, said on the night in question ho heard a man cry out in Manchester street. Ho saw two constables taking a man to the loot-up. The man was struggling. The dark constable (Caraher) kicked the man, who was lying on the ground It was a deliberate, intentional kick. The man was on his back, and he shrieked out. Tho man was dragged into Tuam street, and witness believed constable McCarthy put the handcuffs on him. By Mr Stringer —Witness could not say whether the man was drunk or sober. His shirt came off. One constable had hold of each arm. Everything came off the man but his trousers and boots. Another gentleman (Mallard) was arrested for what the constable called “inciting the prisoner.” All the witness saw the prisoner do was to ask the policeman’s number. Charles Finlay, sworn, said he saw the prosecutor and Constable Oaraher at Evans’ door, near Eagle’s Boarding House. Oaraher told him (the prosecutor) to move on. He then took him into custody. The witness corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses. Mallard was taken into custody for interference. The witness swore '.he saw Caraher strike and kick the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s struggles arose from the constab’e’s ill usage of him. Macarthy knelt on th» prosecutor and caught him by the throat. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Stringer took the technical objection that, according to the Armed Constabulary Act of 1867, due notice had not been given to the constables of the present proceedings as required by law. Nevertheless, before dismis.-ing the case, as he had no doubt tho Be ch would do, it was the wish of the constables that the case might be gone through in their own justiScation as the prosecutor had told a tissue of falsehoods, and his conduct and language had justified his arrest. Constable Caraher, aworn, repeated the evidence already reported as to the circumstances under which he arrested the p-oaocutor. The prosecutor wns using very bad language, and creating a disturbance in front of Evans’ boarding-

uo use. He told him to go away, but he refused, and his conduct was violent, kickint and attempting to bite. He threw himself on his back and tried to kick the witness. Witness and Constable Macarthy arrestee him, but used no more violence than win needful to arrest him. In answer to Mr Neck, the witness swore he did not kick the prisoner, but might have tripped him to put >-im down. William Evans, a boarding-house keeper in Manchester street, swore positively that the prosecutor Blewett came to his house and wanted accommodation, under the impression that the house was of questionable character. Ho was told to go away, and did so, but returned and repeated his application. He used very bad language, and witness sent for a constable, who tried to persuade the prosecutor to go home. The constable acted very properly to the man, who swore and made use of bad language. He did not see the disturbance. The wife of the last witness gave corroborative evidence as to the prosecutor corning twice to the house, and of his behaviour there. Peter Carl, eating-house keeper, sworn, said he witnessed the arrest of the prosecutor. The latter was dreadfully violent. The policeman and the man scuffled, and the latter fell down. The policeman tried to get the man along tho street, who shouted and cursed, and said he would not be locked up. The tall policeman (Caraher) gave the handcuffs to Macarthy, who put them on the prosecutor. When the prosecutor was on the ground he kicked violently. The constables used no more violence thaa was necessary to arrest him. He saw neither of the constables kick the prosecutor. Witness advised the prosecutor to go quietly with the police, hut he said they should not take him, and he used a foul expression. Walter Cole, the cabman who took the prosecutor to tho lock-up, repeated his evidence previously given, and said the prosecutor was not ill-used in the cat. Constable Michael Leahy, sworn, remembered the prosecutor being brought to the lock-up. He was excited and apparently under the influence of liquor, but not drunk Sergeant Morice, sworn, said the day after the prosecutor was arrested he made a complaint of the ill usage of the constables who had arrested him. He showed him a small bruise at the bottom of his ribs, which he said was caused by their violence. There were no other bruises upon him. He complained of his throat, which he said pained him, where Constable Macarthy had choked him. Mr Stringer having addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendants, the Bench held there was no evidence of violence against Constable Macarthy, the information against whom would be dismissed. As to the other constable, Caraher, it was evident that he had lost his temper, and perhaps used some unnecessary violence, caused probably by the rowdineas of the prisoner, who must certainly have been intoxicated, or he would not otherwise have acted as ho did. There was no proof of excessive violence against the constable, or the marks would remain on the prosecutor’s body as evidence of the fact. The expenses mounting up to 20s, tho constable would be fined Is and costs.

Thursday, February 12. [Before G. L. Melliah, Esq., E.M.]

Fraudulently Obtaining Goods. — Edward Emil Dransfield was charged with obtaining goods and money by means of a valueless cheque for £6 16i 9i. There was a second charge of obtaining £1 from Alfred Tom Carter by means of a valueless cheque. Tho accused pleaded guilty to each charge, and said in extenuation that he thought he was really not properly responsible for his actions. He had suffered from brain foyer in Queensland. He was altogether quite blameworthy, but at times he scarcely knew what he was doing. Sergeant Morice said there were no previous convictions against the prisoner, and the police knew nothing of his antecedents. Under the circumstances, his Worship said he felt disposed to take a lenient view of the ease and pass a light sentence upon him. Sergeant Morice pointed out that tho prisoner bad passed a number of other valueless cheques on various persons, and it was probable that the publicity given to this case would have •he effect of bringing other persons forward to prosecute who had been victimised in a similar manner. His Worship said that that altered the case, and it might be premature to deal with the matter in a summary manner. The prisoner was remanded until the following day.

Housebreaking. —Nicholas Columbus was charged with breaking into the house of John Franco at Southbridge, with intent to commit a felony. Mr McConnell appeared for the accused. On the application of Sergeant Morice, the prisoner was remanded to Southbridge, where the warrant for tho prisoner had been issued.

Selling on Sunday. —Henry Marks was, summoned for exposing and selling fruit in Manchester street upon the Lord’s Day contrary to the statute. There was a second information charging the defendant with another breach of the statute on the following Sunday. The information was laid at the instance of the police, and Mr Stringer appeared for the defendant. Mr Stringer said he was prepared to admit that certain fruit, to wit, a pound of apples and a pound of plums, were exposed for sale on the Ist and Bth instants, but there was no pecuniarypenalty for that; It only involved the forfeiture of tho fruit. He read an extract bearing upon the point from the Act for the Better Observation of the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday. He submitted that the statute which was passed in 1676 was not in force in the colony. The whole question turned upon the appli cability of the English statute law to the circumstances of the colony, which was not the case in the present instance. He quoted Judge Johnston’s “Justice of the Peace” and “ Blackstone’s Commentaries ” to show what portion of the English statute law could be considered as applicable to the circumstances of the colony, and pointed out that this was a penal act. Mr Stringer quoted Barton v. Howe, 3 NZ. Appeal cases, and Dawes y. Painter, “Freeman,” 175, to show that in no case did a penal act such as this was apply to the circumstances of the colony. Further, he submitted that no statute could be considered in force where there were no means of carrying out its provisions. This was so in the present informations where the person charged with the offence was not only liable to the forfeiture of the goods but failing that, the only alternative punishment was “ placing the accused in the public stocks,” which it wus obvious could not be done. To put a man in the stocks it would be first necessary to make and set them up, and this could not be done except by the authority of a “ Court Leote,” an obsolete iustitution. The fact clearly showed that the Act wus not in force in the colony. In support of tho contention Mr Stringer quoted Wicker v Hume, which decided that the statute 9, Geo. 11., cap. 36 wus not in force in the colony of New South Wales because there were no moans of enrolling a deed as provided by the Act. Lastly, he submitted that the passing of the “ Lord’s Day Act ” arose out of local circumstances, and was only of local application. It was framed to meet the requirements of an exceptionally licentious age, being passed in the reign of Charles 11., and was quite inapplicable to the colony, and to Christchurch in particular, which his Worship was well aware was renowned far and near for its piety and morality ; indeed, some people said its sanctimoniousness. His Worship said ho could not agree with Mr Stringer on his last objection, but with regard to the other points he would adjourn the case for their consideration, and reserve his judgment.