MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2386, 25 November 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Fbiday, November 25. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq , R.M.] Drunkenness.—For first offences three men were fined 5s each. In Rb Nathan t Hooper.—la this case a prosecution initiated against defendant, charging him with having obtained goods on false pretences, Mr Raphael for tne prosecution, applied for leave to withdraw. He eaid he was advised that the information laid was bad, and that the evidence to be adduced was also bad. The Magistrate said he thought from the first there had been an error somewhere, and as no one woe alleged to bs damaged but the prosecutor, who made this application, he had no difficulty in consenting to the withdrawal. Case withdrawn. Larcenies. —Sarah Jane MoHalleny was charged witn stealing 14§ in cash, one pair of earrings and a cape, together valued at £1 12s Gd, the property of Win. Steven*. She pleaded guilty. The Magistrate said he had been informed by the prosecutor that this offence had been committed previous to a case for which she had served a term of imprisonment. The prosecutor had applied for leave to withdraw the case, and looking at all the circumstances he would allow this, in the hope that leniency would have more effect than sending her to gaol. Ho therefore did not accept her plea of guilty, and the charge was struck out,—A case against Thos. J. Lacy, for stealing a meat chopper, value 3j, the property of B. Searle, At the request of the police he was remanded till the following day, bail being allowed in one surety of £2O, or two in £lO each. Forgery and Uttering.—W. W. Charters, who has been committed for trial on several charges of embezzlement, was brought up in custody, charged with the forgery and uttering of a bill ;of exchange for £147 12s. Mr Duncan, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution ; Mr Joyce appeared for the pri- 1 sonor. Margaret Chapman, wife of John Chapman, farmer, Heathoote Valley, deposed that at one time accused acted as her agent. Witness has freehold property of her own. Accused had charge of it. He received the rents. She had never given him authority to draw upon her, nor accepted any bill made by him. Had never soon the bill of exchange produced until it was brought to her by Mr Tippings on the Thursday after prisoner had left for England. Cross-examined—Witness hod known prisoner five or six years. Had ten shares in the Christchurch and Suburban Building Society. She had signed an accquittance for moneys received from prisoner; he wrote her name in pencil and she inked it over. [A series of questions ensued as to money transactions between witness and prisoner that witness said were recorded in an account book which she had not with her. Mr Joyce wished witness to bring it, but the Magistrate said he could not ask her to go to Heathcote Valley for it at her own expenco.] Cross-examina-tion continued —Had never given any bills to Mr W. Wilson, who at one time collected her rents ; had not signed her her name to any paper for him. After the death of Mr Draper, she owed money to the firm of Draper, Ohorters and Co. She drew money out of the Savings Bank, and settled up an account prepared by prisoner. Prisoner was with her when she drew the money. He wrote her name to a receipt for it, and she touched the pen. She could nob say whether the pen made a cross or not. The settlement with prisoner on that day was in full. Reexamined—Witness is the only Margaret Chapman in the Heathcote Volley. John Chapman deposed—Knew that prisoner was agent for his wife. Ho did not sign or authorise anyone to sign the acceptance on the bill of exchange produced. His wife cannot write. Cross-examined — Only knew that prisoner was bis wife’s agent by her own words. She could not write, or, at least, witness had never seen her write, except when tracing over pencil marks. Had once seen her do that at her own suggestion for Mr Papprill. Edmund Tipping, of St. Martin’s, stated that in March last he was a partner of prisoner. Dissolved that partnership on April Ist, The bill of exchange produced was debited to the firm of Tipjiag, Charters and Co., and on the dissolution spoken of, it was arranged that witness should have the acceptance. It was also arranged thatpr ■ mer and witness should visit Mrs Chapman. Prisoner gave witness the acceptance. Witness got it out of the Bank of New Zealand. Prisoner represented it as unpaid. It was over due three or four months. Prisoner told him the reason it had been allowed to remain so long over due was because Mrs Chopman was an old and valued friend of his, and he was disinclined to press her, though be could get the money from her at any time by asking for it. Prisoner did not go with him to Mrs Chapman according to promise. Ho was asked several times, bub on those occasions had always something else to do. Witness presented the bill personally to Mrs Chapman, who denied having written her name on it or that she owed the amount it represented. That was on April 17th, about the time prisoner left the country. Cross-examined —The banker had not seen Mrs Chapman. Witness was aikcd to bring about an interview between them. The bill was taken out some days before prisoner absconded. W. J. Twinning, teller at the Bank of NewZsaland, stated he had occupied the same situation for nine years. Knew accused’s handwriting, and the writing in the body of the bill of exchange produced was his. As to the signature on the back, speaking as an expert, some of the letters in it resembled some of those on the other side. Ho had compared the signature with that on a receipt given by Mrs Chapman to accused, and found a general resemblance between the two. This was the case for the prosecution. Prisoner reserved his defence, and was committed for trial on this charge at the next sessions of the Supremo Court to be held at Christchurch. Mr Joyce applied for bail. Ho had rrfrained from doing bo in the previous cases until the present hearing. He said there were persons in Christchurch prepared to offer substantial security, the amount to be provided being a secondary consideration. His Worship said in the face of the fact of prisoner having once loft the colony clandestinely, and the largo amounts involved, he did not see how ha could allow it. Mr Duncan strenuously opposed the application. In further reply to Mr Joyce, Mr Mellish agreed to hold the matter over until Monday next, but he did not think any representations Mr Joyce could make would alter his present intention.

LYTTELTON. Feiday, Novbmbee 25. [Before J. Beswick, Esq , R.M.] Unwilling Seamen. —Two seamen belonging to the barque Chattanooga, and who refused to go on board, wore ordered to be taken on board the vessel in custody.

An Impendent Boaeding-Housbkeepeb. —Edward Charles was charged with conniving witn conniving with one of the seamen belonging to the barque Chattanooga for the purpose of securing his desertion from the vessel. The defendant was a boarding-house-keeper, and it was shown that he had told one of the seamen he might leave his clothes at his house, and that he and his mate should clear away into the country. The Bench said such men were a great source of trouble to masters of ships coming to the port in inducing their crows to desert, and a fine of £5 was imposed and promptly paid. Civil Case. —Qucrce v Captain Howes, of the barque Chattanooga, claim £1 15s ; judgment for plaintiff. An Interesting Election Case.—Willcox v M'Beth. This was an application on the part of Mr Willcsx, who appeared ns the objector to Mr M'Beth’s name being retained on the electoral roll of Lyttelton. His objection was that defendant was not a resident of the district as r< quired by the Registration Act of 1879. At tho outset the Bench would like to hoar how tho 25th clause of the Regulation of Electors Act was to be goijjovor. Mr Naldar, who appeared for the defendant, said it could not be got over. Tho names could not be struck off the roll during tho election. The clause referred to stated that “ no name shall be removed from the roll of any district after the issue of a writ for the election of a member for tho raid district until the completion of the said election.” W. Mcßeth, called, said ho had rooms engaged at the Mitre Hotel for the last two years as a place of residence. In answer to Mr Willcox, the witness said ho had not resided in Christchurch during tho past six months. Mr Willcox applied for an adjournment at this stage of the proceedings, to obtain witnesses to disprove Mr Mcßoth’s statements. Counsel for defendant thought that would be unfair ; that the objector should have come prepared to prove his case. Counsel quoted authorities, showing it was not necessary that defendant should continuously live in hia rooms or room to establish a residential qualification, Tho Act merely

stated that the elector must have “resided” ia the district for six months, and as Mr Mcßoth was renting rooms at a hotel as a place of residence that was sufficient. The Bench was also of that opinion, and declined to grant an adjournment. Mr Nalder then called J. B. Hill, proprietor of the Mitre Hotel, who corroborated the defendant’s evidence, and stated that defendant’s clothes were hanging in the rot a. rented at his hotel by Mr Moßeth. The '.ofondant, in answer to the Bench said hie name was not registered in any other district. The Bench dismissed the case, and allowed counsel’s fee one guinea. The same o' j?otcrw»i next heard with reference to an application to have Mr George Talbot’s name removed from the roll on the ground that defendant had not been the owner of the piece of land for which ho had qualified on the roll for six months before the date of his registration as required by the Act. Mr Nalder also appeared as counsel for (ho defence, and proved by a receipt for £4O, also a cancelled cheque for £4G, and by the defendant’s testimony on oath that the piece of land was purchased by him in August, 1880, from Captain H. McLellan, The objector, in face of that, had no evidence in rebuttal, and the case was dismissed, with counsel’s fee as in the previous one.