MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2019, 13 August 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Fred at. Arena r 13. [Before O. L. Hellish, E-q., R.M.] Wife Maintenance. —Williana A. White was summoned by Mary Ann White for failing to contribute towards the support of hi. wife. Complainant said her husband had left her in destitute circumstances, and she had no means of support. Defendant, addressing the Court, said he married complaintant in January last, at Coromandel, being at that time ignorant of her real character. The same day they left in a steamer, and be was informed by a gentleman that she was drunk in the cabin, end he had to caution the steward not to supply her with any more drink. He left her in Auckland and went to Napier, where she caused him to be arrested on a charge of desertion, alleging he was leaving her to go to England, Ho took her back, but she proved incorrigible, frequently getting drunk, mixing with bad characters and taking his things to pawn. Sergeant Hughes said complainant was a drunkard and an associate of bad characters. Mr Hellish refused to make an order, on account of complainant’s bad character, and dismissed the ease.

Alleged Embezzlement. Archibald Wilson, contractor, waa charged on remand with larceny of two cheques, one for £llß and one for £129 Bs, the property of the Government of New Zealand. Mr Deacon appeared for accused. Arthur D. Austen, engineer in the Public Works Department, knew accused, who was an overseer of the West Coast roads. About the end of last month accused was instructed to coma to Christchurch, and witness had a conversation with him about repairs. Accused had been employed about two years by the Public Works Department ever since the West Coast roads were taken over. Ha came down to receive monies for payment of wages, and cheques were made out on the 31st of July (one for £llß and one for £129 8a) and handed to prisoner. They were drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, and made payable to Wilson. The cheques produced were the ones referred to. Accused was aware they were handed to him for payment of the West Coast laborers and his own salary. Only some of the monies were paid, and accused was arrested. Prisoner had been recemmended to witness as a trustworthy man. Seymour R. Bolton, clerk in the Public Works department. He knew accused, who had been employed on public works at Bcaley up to the 31st of July last, on which day he came to the office in Christchurch for the purpose of receiving money for the payment of wages. Two cheques (produced) were given to him, one for £llß and one for £129 Bs, and he had written instructions as to how he should pay the money. Accused told witness when he came to the office that he wanted the money to pay the men, and asked for it as soon as ho could let him have it. Witness told him he could let him have for May and July, but he could not for June, because he had not got the necessary vouchers. He then handed accused the cheques, and he signed receipts for them. He received a pay-sheet for each month. These pay-sheets contained the names of claimants included in the amounts of the cheques. He said he would return the vouchers within two or three days, but had not done so up to the present time. It was his duty to account for disbursement of the amounts received within three or four days. By the Bench—Witness did not know of his own knowledge whether accused was acquainted with the mode of procedure for the payment of men, but he believed him to be. Cross-examined by Mr Deacon— Accused had abundance of time to return vouchers. Winsley Woodward, teller in the Bank of New Zealand, paid cheques produced on the 29th July to, he believed, accused. The £129 8s was paid in twelve tens, one four, and four ones, the balance in silver; and the £llß in eleven tons, one five, and three ones. Elizabeth Delacor, a widow, residing in Lichfield street, saw accused last Saturday week. He was at witness’s house on the Stanmore road, where he remained up to Thursday without once leaving. He was drinking, but he knew what he wag about. On the Thursday he went to the theatre with Mrs Ray and witness. I gave Mrs Ray some money. Witness did not know what purpose the money was given for, but accused said he had known Sirs Ray on the West Coast, and had given her a £lO note after her husband's death. Witness advised him not to give her the money until he came from the theatre, and Mrs Ray handed him the money back. He did not go back to witness’ house that night, and she saw him next at four o’clock on Friday afternoon at the Addington Hotel. Sirs Ray asked him if he was willing to give her the money, and he said “ Yes ; but there was something wrong.” He threw some notes to Mrs Ray, and Bill MeLiskey, of the Hotel, snatched them out of her hand, and witness asked what the he was doing with the money, and he thereupon gave Sirs Ray a £lO note. Witness could not say whether she returned accused the money or not. Accused was suffering from the effects of drink at the time. Witness and accused went to her daughter’s where they stopped from Saturday until the Monday. During this time witness received £3O from him, in three £lO notes. She gave the money to Detective O’Connor, on his asking her for it. Accused handed her the

[ money as a gift. Detective O’Connor arrested 5 accused at 12 5 a.m. of the 11th, and having , explained the charge to him, he said “ That is right; I admit the charge and abide by it. I know I have done wrong. That is the only charge against me.” On the way to the • watch-house he said, “ I have about £6O on me. I have property, and I am willing to make up the balance.” Witness searched the prisoner, and found four £lO notes on him, one £5 note, some silver, and vouchers. Witness then went to the house of last witness ; told her that prisoner had lost some money, and she was suspected of stealing it. She said, “ What money I have he gave mo.” She handed him the purse produced, containing £3l 3s 9d. Edwin Adolphus Lock, inspector of works under the Public Woika Department, knew accused, who was employed under him. He had been in the habit of paying men employed on West Coast roads. He was always supplied with the usual pay-sheet to obtain their signature, and was fully aware of the duty he had to perform. Crossexamined—Prisoner had always paid the monies faithfully, and witness knew him to be honest, straightforward and diligent in his duty. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Deacon submitted the offence had not been proved, as the prosecution had failed to prove the essential point, that these monies had not been paid as they should have been. The evidence of Mr Austin as to non-payment was only hearsay, and not admissable. Part of the money wti due_ to himself, and £23 had been receipted as having been properly paid away by him. Ho asked the Court to dismiss the case, as the money would be paid. Accused, who had hitherto borne a good character as a man, had ibeen led away in a weak moment by disreputable women and drugged. Hie Worship said the duty of the magistrate was to decide whether there was a prima facie case made out, and if so he had no alternative but to commit. _ Evidence as to character as to extenuating circumstances was only for a jury to consider. Mr Deacon said the man’s admission was made to the police whilst under the influence of liquor, and he un Jerstood the Government did not wish to press the case. Mr MelHsh did not cate what the Government wished. A prima facie case had been made out, and ho must commit accused for trial. Prisoner, who had nothing to say in answer to tho formal caution, was committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed in two sureties of £l5O each and himself in £3OO.

LYTTELTON. Eeidat, August 13. [Before Joseph Bcswick, Esq., S.M.] Lahcij>y. —Henry Belmont, on remand for larceny of money from the schooner Dido was charged. Mr Spackman appeared for the accused. Sergeant-Major Mason asked for a further remand, the prosecuting witness having only arrived at Oamaru with his vessel. Mr Spackman asked to see a copy of the information, but was informed that none had been laid. He contended then that the accused should not be again remanded, there being nothing before the Court, and requested His

Worship to take ft note of the objection, in the event of a second remand bemg granted. Xhe Bench took a note of it, and remanded the prisoner to custody until next Tuesday. A Collablsss Pup.—James Paton, against whom there was a charge of keeping an unregistered dog, and who had pleaded non* ownership at a former hearing, was now ordered to pay 20s, the evidence called failing to show that the vagrant “ pup " was not in his following and possession.