MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1868, 18 February 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Fbbhuaby 18. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq ~B.MJ Dbunk and Disobdebiy.—A first offender was fined ss. _ Bbeach of Public House Obdinancb.— Matthew Henry Oram was charged with selling liquor in his licensed house, i the City Hotel, on Sunday, the 15th nrtmfclo Georee Craw, the said George Craw not being TZflfide "Traveller or lodger.. There was a second information for selling liquor to George Craw, he being at the same time in a state of intoxication. Mr Garrick for the defendant. The serving was admitted, but it was pleaded that the boy who served the drink did so in contravention of his (witness ) orders and on the second information the lad would swear that tho man was not drunk at the time he waß served with liquor. Mrs Craw, Ibeing sworn, said her husband was served on Sunday night with a glass of brandy in tho private bar of the City Hotel. He was not sober at the time. The witness followed her husband into tho for the purpose of preventing him from getting drunk Benjamin, a boarding-house keeper in Hereford street, stated that Mr and Mrs Craw had been staying in his house for a week. Mr Craw was in an intoxicated state about nine o'clock on Sunday night. He had been drunk all the day and the previous week. To Mr Garrick—A stranger could see that Craw was not sober. Mrs Craw, recalled, said her husband had two drinks served him, and she cautioned the barman not to give him the second. The barman, being sworn, said he only gave the man one drink then. The Bench held that there was a doubt as to the man being in a state of intoxication when served, and he would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the case. As regards the other information, for serving the drink on Sunday, he would be fined £5 and costs.

RANGIORA-. Tuesday, Fsbbuaby 17. [Before C. Whicefoord, Esq., R.M., and A. H. Cunningham, Esq.] Fubious Dbiying.—J. Bush, for driving a pair of horses at a fast rate along Victoria street on 11th instant, was fined 40s and costs. Labceny op a Cheque.—William Buckley, on remand on bail, was charged with the larceny of a cheque for £5. Mr Gresson for accused. W. Home, manager of Cheviot Hills station, deDOsed he paid E. lnwood the cheque produced, and subsequently hearing it was lost, stopped payment. E. lnwood deposed to receiving the cheque for £5 from last witness, which he enclosed in a letter addressed to a Bister in Christchurch, and gave it to a butcher boy, Peter Jack, to deliver. Next saw it in the hands of the police. Peter Jack deposed—He received a fetter from last witness, which he was told contained a cheque. Laßt had the letter on December 23rd, with three others, in the breast pocket of his coat, four miles before reaching the Hurunui, and missed them between Waipara and Amberley, on the way from Cheviot Hills to Christchurch. From Amberley telegraphed to lnwood that he had lost the letter. Had not seen them since. It. Ridley, boarding house keeper, Rangiora, deposed—He knew accused very intimately. On December 24th, during the evening, accused was in his house, and paid him 2a, tendering the cheque in question. Witness gave him change £4 18s. The cheque was sent to the Bank, and some days after returned marked " payment stopped." By Mr Gresson —There were a great many people in the house at the time Buckley was in. He only came ia a few minutes. When witness laid the information he described the person who gave the cheque as a man wearing a dark suit and a black wide-awake hat. Did not remember conversing with a saddler named McFall, and saying he gave him the cheque. Had always thought Buokley gave it him. W. Good, teller at Bank of New Zealand, Rangiora, deposed the cheque waß cashed by Mrs Ridley, and returned as endorsed. J. S. Feild, clerk at Union Bank of Australia, Christchurch, deposed that payment of the cheque in question was stopped by Mr Home by telegram. W. Sayer, barman Junction Hotel, deposed he had seen accused once in the bar at the hotel. Accused was alone. He had a half pint, and tendered the cheque in court, which witness declined to cash. This was probably about 5 p.m. on December 24th. He wore a dark coat, and hard black hat. For the defence, H. Miller deposed on December 24th he came from Glenmark station with accused. He did not piok Hp anything on the road. Was with him all day till 7 p.m. Went into the Junction with him and two otherß. Accused paid 2s for four drinks. Did not see him tender a cheque. Accused was wearing a blue coat and white straw hat. They were only once in the hotel, between 4 and 5 p.m. James Miles deposed that accused and about a dozen others were at a party in his house on December 24th, from 7.30 till 12 p.m., and was present all the time. J. E. Knight deposed he was at Ridley's on the evening in question in the public room, and did not see accused there. Accused left his house at 7.15. J. McFall deposed that he lodged with Ridley, who one day said to him " I think it was you gave me that £5 cheque on Cheviot Hills." Witness used to get his cheques cashed at Ridley's, but had not seen this one till it was shown him by witness Ridley. R. Myers deposed he was in accused's company and one who went into the J auction Hotel with him on the evening in question. Accused was wearing a white straw hat at the time. Another witness gave similar evidence in support of the alibi. Accused in defence stated he knew nothing of the cheque till arrested by the police at Lake Coleridge. He had never been in Ridley's on the evening in question, and had not wore a black hat for two years. The Bench said the identity of the accused rested on the evidence of Ridley and Sayre; both were clear in their statements, but from the other evidence given it appeared they had been mistaken, as the movements of the accused had been well accounted for. The barman might be mistaken, as he had only seen accused once, and from the evidence of McFall, Ridley seemed to have had a doubt as to whom he had taken the cheque from, the Bench had therefore decided to give accused the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the case. ClTlli Cases. —J. Manning v C. Geddes, £1 103, judgment for plaintiff; M. Thompkins vO. Ivens, £l9 8s 4d; Mr Gresson for defendant; judgment for defendant; J. Stalker v P. Spanger, £3O; Mr Clark for plaintiff, Mr Gresson for defendant; judgment for plaintiff.

RAKAIA. Thubsday, Fbbbtjaey 12. [Before Mr F. Guinness, R.M.] Malicious Injuby to Pbopebty.—ln the case Hartnell v Barnard, Mr Purnell for defendant, defendant pleaded " Not guilty " to a charge of malicious injury to property at Chertsey. Benjamin White, manager for Mr Hartnell, at Chertsey, deposed that he saw defendant throw stones through the window of Mr Hartnell's bakehouse. He followed defendant to his own door, and charged him with throwing the stones. Defendant turned and struck him. After hearing a good deal of evidence, his Worship dismissed the case as it stood, and instructed the police to lay an information againßt defendant, as it appeared that a great) deal of disorderly conduct had been going on at Chertsey lately. Railway Regulations. Police vR. Lake. Accused pleaded "Not guilty "_ to a charge of driving horses across the railway line at Rakaia. After hearing the evidence, the case was dismissed. Assault. —Ready v O'Keefe—Mr Ireland for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. This was a case of alleged assault. It appeared that plaintiff's hen had laid an egg in the nest of one of defendant's hens. Both parties claimed the egg, and in tho struggle for its possession plaintiff seized defendant by the hair, and defendant bit plaintiff on the hand, each party making use of bad language to the other. Both parties were bound over to keep the peace towards each other for six months, and to find sureties to tho amount of £2O each.

Citii Cases.—W. Doherty v J. Andrews, claim £7 14i 4i; judgment for amount claimed and costs. W. Hartnell v Johnson, claim £23 6i lid; judgment for amount claimed and costs. Stephens v Welsh ; case adjourned on application of defendant's solicitor. Wauohop and Cameron v A. Mason ; plaintiffs nonsuited with costs. W. Doherty T A. Withal, claim £3 2s 3d; judgment for Slaintiff with costs. P. Laurie v W. Byrne ; Ir Ireland for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. In this case P. Laurie, timber merchant, Eakaia, sued defendant, who iB a contractor in the same place, for the value of some timber and wire used by defendant in repairing the fences of the South Bakaia school in 1878. Defendant's case was that he bad tendered in writing for the fencing and

repairs; that his tender for labor only was accepted, and that he was instructed by the then secretary of the school committee to obtain the goods from Mr Laurie on account of the school committee. He had never received a bill for the amount till he got tho summons, the bill having been sent hitherto to the school committee, who would_ not acknowledge the liability. After hearing a great deal of evidence on both sides, his "Worship gave judgment for defendant with costs.