MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1889, 13 March 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTOHTJBOH. Saturday, Maech 13. [Before G-. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Dbttkk and Dibobsbrxy.—A first offender was fined ss. Faimkg- to Pbovtde.—William and Alfred Hall were charged with failing to provide their mother with adequate means ef support. Mary Hall said that she had no means of support, and all she wanted from her sons was a Utile assistance while her husband was away. The elder defendant was a married mail, but had no family, and the younger one was a single man. The defendants said they had been employed in the Landing Service at Timaru, but had no constant employment. The case was adjourned until Mondaj for the police to make inquiries into the circumstances of the defendants.

3Tai.sk Pbbtsnsbs.—Walter B. Terry was charged with obtaining goods under false pretences. Mr Izard appeared for the accused. The prosecutor, Michael Keilly, said he was a plumber in High street On the 16th ult. the accused came to his shop, and asked credit for three closet pans to complete a jab he had in the country. Witness said he could not let him have them as he did not know him. Accused said his name was Carter, and his father lived in the Heathcole "Valley, and that if witness would let him bave the things he would pay for them on Saturday when the Bank opened. On the strength of these statements witness let accused have the pans. The price of the pans was to be £1 Si Sd if paid for on Saturday, but the full price of 10s 6d was to be charged if the account wae allowed to run on. Nobody came on Satur- , day to pay for the pans, and they were still unpaid for. The goods were entered in witness's book to Mr Carter. Witness subsequently applied to Mr Carter's son for payment of the account, but he refused to pay it. Witness after this saw the accused, and told him he had got the goods under a false name, and had better pay for them. Accused promised to pay for them the next day, but did not do so. Subsequently witness received a notice of the accused's bankruptcy, dated March 3rd. Witness never had his account paid, and laid an information and took a warrant out against the accused. John William Carter said the accused was his brother-in-law; he had had no business transactions with him, nor did he think his father had. Had never authorised the accused to make use of his name. To Mr Izard— After the accused was arrested he (witness) took a message from the prosecutor to the accused, to the effect that he should be glad if the matter could be arranged. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence Mr Izard called a carrier named Howard, who stated he took three closet pans from the prosecutor's to the railway station, at the request of the accused. The accused consigned them in the name of Terry, and wrote the name "W. Terry, Ashburton," on a piece of paper. This occurred within the hearing of the prosecutor. Accused did not tell witness his name was Terry. The goods were simply consigned from " Terry" to "Terry." Mr Izard addressed the Bench, and Mr Mellish said the accused must have the benefit of the doubt that he had told the prosecutor he was Carter's son-in-law instead of his son. It was not likely any jury would convict the accused, and the information would be dismissed.