MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1933, 5 May 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, May 5. [Before G. L Mellish, Esq., R,M.] Foegeey and Utibbinq.—Henry Hayes was charged with forging and uttering a cheque for £8 10s on the Bank nf New Zealand. Sophin Larsen sworn, stated that ho was a barman at the Royal Hotel. On the 27th April the accused called between seven and eight o’clock in the evening and ordered three drinks and tendered a cheque for £8 10s (produced) in payment. He said he owed witness 13s, and that Mr Collier, of the White Swan Hotel, had settled with him at last. Witness believed the cheque bore the genuine signature of Mr Collier. Witness then gave accused £7 7s, deducting the 13s owing ; witness took the cheque to be drawn for £8 on the Bank of New Zealand. Accused, at witness’s request, endorsed the cheque. Next day witness took tha cheque to the City Hotel, and gave it to Mr 0. Oram, but subsequently heard it was not paid. William Afred Colh'er, landlord of the White Swan Hotel, deposed that the accused had had been in his employ from December to March last. The signature on the cheque produced was not his, nor did he (witness) authorise any one to sign it for him. Had not kept an account in the Bank of New Zealand for twelve months. Witness was not owing any money to the accused when the cheque was drawn. Edwin Edwards, ledger keeper in the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, deposed that the cheque produced was presented to him on the 28th of April at the Bank, and there was provision for its payment. The memorandum on the hack to that effect was in the witness’s handwriting. Witness had no knowledge of the prisoner. There was a similarity in the writing in the body of the cheque and the endorsement on the back, but not with the signature. This wes the whole of the evidence, and the accused, who admitted the charge, was committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court.

LYTTELTON. Wednesday, May 5. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R-M.] Drunk and Disobdehly. —William Mo Naught Dickey was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 21et of April. The^ accused had been under medical treatment since that date in the goal, and was now reported to be convalescent. Upon the Bench asking him what he proposed doing when set at liberty, he said he did not know, but a man was alwajs following him about with a bad motive. He never left him, and he couldn’t shake him off. The accused further said ho was in receipt of £lO per month from home, and could get any money he might require beyond that sum. He was also willing to pay any expenses the authorities had been put to. The Magistrate further remanded the man for a week. CiTix Oases. —J. E. Cuitis v. Peter Johnson, claim £1 -Is; judgment by default. Same v. Wm. Niocls, claim £1 6i 6d ; judgment by default, with casts in each case. - ■ -