MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2173, 11 February 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, February 10. [Before G. L. Lee and R. Westenra, Btqs,

J.P.'s] Citil Oases. —Gray v Ivans. Claim, £l4 14s, for balance duo of cash lent. Mr Slater appeared for plaintiff, whose maiden name was Brooks. Before her marriage she be came acquainted with defendant, who had | formerly some connection with a Bank at Lyttelton. He paid his addresses and in fact engaged himself to be married to her. While the courtship was going on he borrowed from her on various pretences sums amounting in the whole to £34 14s. Miss Brooks then discovered that defendant was a married man, and afterwards he left for Dunedin, where be now resides, being accountant at Marshall and Copeland’s brewery in that city. Her applications for repayment being unavailing, aha placed the matter in the hands of her solicitor, to whom by several instalments defendant had remitted in all £2O, leaving a balance of the amount now claimed. A long time having elapsed since a remittance had been made, a summons was taken out in Christchurch, and defendant gave evidence before a magistrate at Dunedin ia answer to it. He swore that he was not indebted to plaintiff, except in the sum of £2 14s; all the rest, he said, ho had paid. He had further, by his lawyer, held out a threat to Mr Slater, of an action for extortion, and the letter containing it ended by saying, if a receipt in full weie sent him he would say no more about it. The evidence taken at Dunedin was read in Court, and in it defendant justified his plea in the following manner :—He produced certain receipts from Mr Slater, and he quoted the credits given him in the account attached to the summons, the dates on the receipts and in the account differed, and he declared they were for separate remittances, making together the sum he claimed to have paid. Mr Slater being sworn, explained the apparent discrepancy. The dates in the account attached to the summons were those of the payments to plaintiff by him of the. remittances by defendant, and though the receipts bore other dates they: were for the same amounts. Witness produced his letter-book, containing the copy of a letter written by him to defendant in December last, which gave particulars of the transaction, so that defendant could not have been misled by the summons, Defendant had, in fact, committed perjury, and witness had no doubt that a prosecution would lie against him for that offence. The expense would perhaps be too great for his client, but he submitted it was a case in which the Bench might fairly interfere. The Bench said they were satisfied of the untruthfulness of the evidence given by defendant, but were not inclined to direct a prosecution for perjury. It was however open to Mr Slater to take steps in that direction, if he thought fit. Judgment for full amount claimed, professional fee £2 2s and costs. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in Hen wood v Lunnon, £1 4s 61, and Day v same, 19s. Judgment wont for plaintiffs by default in—Taylor v Collier, £5 6s Id ; McDermott v Smith, £1 2s ; Brown v Martin, £3 5s Id ; Nioholls and Co. v Mosley, £1 ss.

Pbiday, Pbbbxtaey 11. G. L. Lea and B. Westenra, Esqs., J.P.’s.] Dbunkenness. James Smith, for this offence, was fined 40s and cab hire Is, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, Labobny prom a Shop. —Rebecca and Richard Harris, aged about thirteen and sixteen, pleaded guilty to stealing from the shop of J. T. Williams, Madras street north, pickles, candles, sauce, and sardines, to the value of 5s 83, on the Bth inst. The shop had been closed for some time. The prisoners were seen in it, and the goods afterwards found in their possession. The police stated that the boy had already served twelve months in Burnham, where he was sent after being convicted of theft. The boy was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. The girl was dismissed with a caution.