MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2240, 7 June 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOHUBOH. Monday, June 6.

[Before J. Ollivier, J. E. Parker and B. Westenra, Esqs, J.P’s.] Illegally Practising. —Cecil Gurney was charged with preparing a certain deed of conveyance, not being at tho time a solicitor or barrisier of the Supreme Court. Mr Cowlishaw prosecuted on behalf of the Law Society ; defendant conducted his own case. John Foster, a contractor, deposed that having necessity for a certain deed he was advised to go to defendant, a commission agent, who would do it cheap. He went there and a deed was prepared, to which he affixed bis signature. Hamilton deposed to having instructed defendant to prepare a deed, which defendant did, charged, and was paid for. Defendant told him the deed would bo prepared by defendant’s solicitor. There were two deeds prepared. The first of them was, from some informality, invalid. On that he paid £ll4s fid. He also paid £1 Is to Scott, a solicitor’s clerk, for the second, the completed deed. In the deeds produced he could not recognise the handwriting of defendant. For the defence defendant called Mr Watt, his partner in a commission agency, who stated that the handwriting in the deeds produced was not that of the defendant. The second deed was signed in Mr Turnbull’s office, J. J. Turnhull, solicitor and barrister of the Supreme Court, deposed that the deed produced—the valid deed —was in the handwriting of Scott, once a clerk in bis office. The deed had not been prepared by the authority of witness. Cecil Gurney, defendant, swore that in this transaction, the preparation of the first and second deeds, he acted merely as agent for Hamilton and Foster, with Scott, for the making of the deed. The moneys he had received had been for stamps and for hie own as agent and Scott as solicitor's services. Mr Cowliehaw, in addressing the Bench, said that whatever evidence might have been produced respecting tho second deed, and all showed that that had been made in a most irregular manner, the prosecution rested their case on what had been done in the making of the first—the informal deed. Defendant had tried his hand, and from ignorance failed in drawing the instrument, and had afterwards called in tho aid of a solicitor’s clerk, who set him right as to form, and engrossed the second deed. The evidence showed, however, that defendant had received instructions about and had drawn the first deed, and had been paid for it. The Bench thoiif .t the case had been fully proved, ana fined defendant £lO, with expenses of three witnesses added.

Civil. —Jas. Cross, for assaulting Q-. A. Makeig, was fined 50i and expenses of one witness.—Jane Kinley, for breaking the windows of Theresa Maria Smith, was fined 3s and costs. —A case against J. Battley, for trespassing in the pursuit of game on the property of B. Amyes, of Upper Riccarton, was adjourned till June 13th.—Walter Hartnell, on the complaint of his wife from whom he is separated, was bound over to keep the peace to her, and to find sureties for the same, himself in £SO, and two others in £25 each.— Albert Ebert, a small boy, was charged with beating a smaller boy named Joseph Ivess, and John Ebert, father of Albert, was charged with aiding and abetting his son. The affair was a boys’ quarrel, in which the elder person had interfered. He was fined 20s. The boy Ebert was reprimanded.—John McCallum charged Malcolm McCallum, his brother, with having assaulted him. Mr MoConnel appeared for the prosecution; Mr Stringer for the defence. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate said the case would be dismissed. Plaintiff had apparently systematically waylaid and insulted his brother, and if an assault could at any time be right, the present might be considered justifiable. Plaintiff was cautioned as to hie future behaviour, and ordered to pay costs and expenses of witnesses, without solicitor’s fee.

Tuesday, June 7,

[Before J. Ollivier and B. Westenra, Eeqs., J.P.’s.]

Drunkenness.—For first offences two men were fined 5s each ; James Buns and Clara Dodeworth were fined ids each.

Vaobancy.—Adolphus Qloor, a stout, ablelooking young man, was charged with having solicited alms. The offence was fully proved by several witnesses, one of whom had offered work to prisoner, who said he would start on the next day, but did not turn up. The police quoted a number of previous convictions against him for similar offences. He received twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Rowdyism. Kelson MoLenaghan was brought up on remand charged with being drunk and disorderly, with having set dogs to fight, thereby creating a disturbance, and with resisting the police. The offences took place on Sunday last, at mid-day. The dog fight had been got up in Mr Q-oodger’s yard, Durham street ; the resistance to the police took place after the arrest on the way to the lockup. Mr McOonnel appeared for the prisoner. Sergeant Pratt and Constable Cullen deposed to having arrested prisoner after his leaving the Prince of Wales Hotel. They had followed him there, after getting information about the dog fight. Edwd. Hampton, a mate of the prisoner, and also in custody for the same offences, was called by Mr McOonnel. Ho stated that prisoner was perfectly quiet when arrested, and had been badly treated by the police. Mr McOonnel submitted that prisoner had been arrested without proper cause, and any resistance he had made was justifiable. Accused was fined 5s for being drunk and disorderly and 20s for resistance to the police. Edward Hampton, on similar evidence, was then convicted of resisting the police, and was fined 20a. The cases against both prisoners under the Cruelty to Animals Act, for making dogs fight, were then gone on with. Mr McOonnel objected that there had been no offence, and quoted the Act, which he said laid down that dog-baiting was only prohibited in a place kept specially for that purpose. The Bench thought the objection held good, and the cases against both were withdrawn.