MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2543, 2 June 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Feiday, June 2, [Before C, Whitefoord, Esq., B.M.] Drunkenness —For first offences a woman was remanded for twenty-four hours; a man was fined ss, or in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Obstructing the Police. Thos. H. Piokford, the man who when brought up yesterday on this charge, accused Sergeant Wilson of having cruelly ill-used him, now appeared on remand. Mr Joyoe appeared for defendant. The circumstances of the arrest have been reported. Sergeant Wilson, in answer to Mr Joyce, said he gave prison.r when ho interfered in the arrest of a woman “ a clout iu the eir ” with a cane or stick which bad been taken from the woman. Ho only struck the prisoner once. Edward Riordaa stated that he saw the affair. The woman had run away with prisoner’s stick. After Sergeant Wilson took hold of her to arrest her, prisoner attempted to get the stick away from her. Sergeant Wilson on that struck prisoner throe times with his fist and afterwards with the stick. Prisoner repeated the statement made yesterday; it was substantially the earns as that of Eiordan. M. Sheppard said he had given the woman in charge. The prisoner ran up, and Borgt. Wilson shoved him away. Witness then went inside. He thought prisoner was taking the woman’s part. The information was dismissed. His Worship said he thought nothing could justify Sergeant Wilson in the manner he had acted. He would have male stronger remarks only that he knew what an excellent officer Sergeant Wilson had been. Accused was then discharged. Sergeant Mason said the observations on the case made by His Worship would bo reported in the proper quarters. Burglaries. William Anderson alias Price, and Kdwd, Longmore alias Adams, Elms, and E'.sdalo, on remand, charged with having committed several burglaries in High street, between the 21st and 22nd of April last, were further remanded till May 14th. Forgery and Uttbbing.—Thos. Coffey was charged with this offence. Mr Loughpan appeared for the defence. J. L. Fleming, ironmonger, of High street, deposed that, on April 24th, prisoner, in company with a man named Brown, went into his shop and asked witneos to change the cheque produced ; it was for £l2 15s, on the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch. The signature was “John Patterson.” Prisoner said ho had been to the Ba‘ k of New Zealand, Christchurch, but could not get it cashed there as Patterson’s account was at Bouthbridge. Accused then said that, by neglect, the name of that place had not been substituted. Witness, at the request of the accused, had

the word “ Christchurch” struck out and " tiouthbridge” put on the cheque. Witness then gave accused a cheque of his own for £lO, promising the balance when he received advices from Sonthbridge. Accused then left, but returned shortly with Brown and a man named Frahm. He said it witness would return him the cheque Frahm would either change it or get it changed. Witness did not know what wore Frahtn’a circumstances. He told witness that ho thought the cheque was good. The cheque tendered by accused had by this time been paid into the Colonial Bank. Witness sent to get it back, but could not get it. Witness then took back the cheque of hie own for £lO, which he had given to accused, and gave him inst one for £25. The party then wont aw.v, and, as witness found afterwards, accused went to the Bank and cashed that cheque. The cheque had been dishonored, and charged to the account of witness. He had about April 10th cashed a good cheque for £ll, drawn on the same Bank. In answer to Mr Loughnan witness said that Brown did not taka j art in the conversations, and from what Frahm said witness understood that ha had seen the cheque made, or knew of its having been made. Prisoner was quite sober when he presented the cheque. The name of the Bank had been altered on the cheque before witness rawit, and ha complained of its appearance. Accused said Patterson had borrowed a blank cheque of another Bank from one Sam Lemon in Christchurch, and had altered it to suit himself, but had forgotten to erase the word “ Christchurch.” John Patterson, farmer, of Lakeside, near Southbridge, stated that he knew Thomas Coffey, who is his brother-in-law, and had at one time been in his employment. Witness received a note by post about April 20th, the body of which was, “ Dr. Sir, excuse what I have done ; I will settle it. Thos. Coffey.” Witness could not write; ho could read writing, but could not say whether the writing in the note was by accused. Witness had not signed the cheque produced. At present he had no account at any Bank. W. W. J. McDonald, teller at the Bank of New Zealand at Southbridge, proved that the cheque produced had been there presented and dishonored. There was no account in the name of John Patterson at that Bank. There had baen twelve months before, but the account was then closed. Edward Ravenbill, licensee of the Oaversham Hotel, Christchurch, deposed that he supplied accused on April 15th with the blank of the cheque on the Union Bank produced, and at his request filled In the amount, and altered the name of the Bank. He did not ree the signature written, or the alteration made in the locality of the Bank. Accused said he had to pay some money to Mr Fleming. John Neill, detective, deposed to arresting prisoner on May 25th on the present charge. Accused said, “ I thought ho would settle it.” Witness was present at the B.M. Court on May 26th, when the prisoner pleaded guilty to the present charge. This was all the evidence. Mr Loughnan reserved the defence. Prisoner was then committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court to be held at Christchurch. Bail was allowed, prisoner in £2OO, and two sureties in £IOO each.

Embezzlement. —Frank Henry Williams, lately a clerk in the Goods department of the Christchurch railway station, was charged with embezzling moneys belonging to the department. Prisoner was not represented by counsel. Mr Joynt appeared for the prosecution, He stated that accused hod during some time made a series of defalcations, some of which he subsequently covered by other appropriations. Tbe present charges, however, were thr#?, viz., as to sums of £3O 17s, £6, 9s 3d, and £52 9s 83. E. M. Cole, cashier at Christchurch, deposed that accused had up till May 17th last bad been four years in the service as good clerk#. His duties were to collect cash daily for freight from Lyttelton, enter his receipts in a cash book, and pay over the procsedi every night to witness, who gave receipts for same. In the cash book kept by prisoner there is no entry on April 14th of a sum of £3O 17s as received by him from Messrs Heywood and Co. on that date. On April 21st there are no entries of receipts made by prisener of £6l 9* 3d, or of £52 9s 8d from the same firm. Prisoner gave credit to the department on April 16th tor a cheque for£63 11s7d, from Messrs Heywood and Co., which was not stated to be on account of their payments on that date. He applied out of it £27 15j 6d to payment of an account duo and paid by Heywood and Co. on March 17th, and £6 7s Id due by and paid by the same firm on same date. The balance did not seem to have been paid in, Prisoner received, on April 21ot, a sum of £126 19s 6d from Messrs Hqywood and Co., which ho applied to refund various sums amounting to £lls 16s 7d, which had been received from that firm on prior dates, but not accounted for at time of receipt. Besides these operations, the sums named in the information had not been paid in or accounted for in any way. W. S, Cook, accountant and manager of Cathedral square office of Messrs Heywood and Co., commission agents, deposed —His employers have daily dealings with the Railway Department. On April 14‘h witness paid to prisoner, in part of a cheque for a larger amount, an account for freight for £3O 17«. Similarly, on April 21it, he paid aecounts for £6l 9j 3d and £sl 9s Sd, for which be produced receipts signed by the prisoner. The sums of £27 15s 6d and £6 7s Id, wove paid on March 17tb. On March 30th he further paid various sums to the amount of £69 3s 6i. The chequ a paid on April 14th and 21st have been debited to the firm by the Bank. This concluded the evidence on the first information. Two others were then gone into in respect of the embezzlement of various cum#.'amounting to £SO 3s 2d and £39 Ss 7d. The evidence was similar to that given above, and prisoner, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court to be hold at Christchurch.

LYTTELTON. Fbiday, June 2, 1883. [Before J. Ollivier, Esq., B.M.] Breach or Licensing Act.—G. H. Pierce, licensee of the Saxon Hotel, wqb charged with soiling liquor to J. Durham, not being a hnna fide traveller, on Sunday, the 21st of May last, Mr Nalder appeared for the defendant T, Wyman, resistant at the Sunnyside Asylum, said he was in defendant’s house on Sunday, the 31st ult, with J. Durham, and they had a drink together. J. Durham gave similar evidence, but stated that he had his meals on the day in question at the hotel, and he slept it the ho e l , that night, Mrs Durham, the wife of the last witness, testified that her husband had his meals at homo on the Sunday in question, and aho that be slept at home thai night, and not at the hotel. It was her who laid the information against the hotel-keeper. Mr Nalder cross-examined the witness closely as to what nights her husband had been absent from home, and elicited answers to the effect that sho was not certain about the particular nights. G. H. Pierce, the defendant, swore that Durham had his dinner in the hotel on the 21st, and that he slept there that night in No. 15 room. W. G. Wolfe corroborated this this statement. The cook in the hotel swore that Durham called him early on the mornof the 22;>d to get up. A lodger staying in the hotel testified that Durham had lodged off and on at the hotel about the date in question. The Bench dismissed the case on the ground that the liquor was sold not to Durham, but to Wyman, andjthore’was saffl cicnt ground for believing that Durham was at the’time staying as a lodger in the hotel. Assault. —The chief officer of the barque Oloaoburn was charged with assaulting the watchman on board the vessel cn the night of the Slat of May. Complainant stated that defendant was drunk at the time. After hearing a considerable quantity of evidence the case was dismissed.