RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 86, 25 October 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thuesday, October 2.3, 1579. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M., and Messrs. M'Neil and Warburton. Js.P.) FORGERY AND UTTEBINO. John Burke, a laboring man, was placed m the clock, charged that he did 1 on the 21st day of October, feloniously, with intent to defraud, utter, wellknowing the same to be forged, a certain request or order for the delivery of, goods, the said request purporting to be from Biehter, Nannestad & Co., sawmillers, to Edward Marsh, storekeeper. George Theak sworn, deposed : lam a book-keeper, m the employ of Mr. Edward Marsh. The accused came to Mr. Marsh's store on last Tuesday, when he brought back some gopds which he had had on thp previous. night, saying that he iiad received them op an order from Bichter, Nannestad & Co.. but that since getting them he had declined working for them, and had left their employ. I took the goods back, and erased the memorandum from, the book. I gave the accused an acknowledgment of the return of the articles. He left the store directly afterwards. About one o'clock on the same day he returned to. tlie' store, and stated that he had made fresh arrange, Bents,, with* Bichter. & Co „ that they were going to. give him an increased salary, and "said*! that he would require all the goPdJJ

which he had bought the previous night, along with some other articles which he mentioned. He brought me a fresh order which he presented to me. I took th* order to Mr. Marsh and showed it to him, as I was somewhat suspicious of its bona, fides. Mr. Marsh could not recognise the writing, but thought, it was all right. I then wrote the prisoner's name and the date upon it when I was delivering the goods, which were given upon the strength of the order. Before delivering the articles I questioned the prisener as to from whence he received the order, when he. told me that one of the men m the office had given it to him. I inferred lie referred to the mill. From his description of the person I thought he had received it from Mr. Jenssen. There is no other office m the neighborhood. I was somewhat doubtful of the genuineness of the order, still I gaS© him the goods.About an hour afterwards I saw Mr. Nannestad, and asked him if he had given him a fresh order to obtain goods, and he- said ''No." I theh^vent-to Mr. Jehssen and c he also denied having done so, when I went straight to the Clerk of the Court,. and laid an information.: !. To the Bench : Prisoner was under the influence of drink at the time, but appeared to know what he was doing. Fritz Jensseivdeposed: I am one of the firm of Riehter, Nannestad & Co., sawmiU pwner^ ;Pal mers tony know the accused, who has been m our employ. He left the mill on Tuesday morning, the 21st. I gave him an order on the 20th to get some goods from Mr. Marsh. On Tuesday he came to the office, and said, he had, given up the work, as it did not agree with him, and produced a receipt for the return of the goods to Marsh, asking me at the-same time to pay him for his day's work. I did so, and he left. I> gave him no further order, nor did any of the firm to my knowledge. The order produced does not bear the signature of our firm. Lf any of the firm had given an order 1 would identify the handwriting. There are none hilt members of the firm m Palmerston authorised to gi*e rydvjrs. " A.N.& Co.;" on the order would 'hot represent any firm that I knowln Palmerston. To the Prisoner \ I should say that the last witness must have seen scores of orders in.my handwriting. \. '•.....-...". Amelia Thompson deposed: I am" housekeeper for Mr. -Deards, at the .Princess Hotel. - 1 haveiseen the accused m the hotel qn Tuesday^gt,:J&e,!2lßt. Accused came to -the bar and mci yeiy r hard to give him- a drink without the money* I refused to do so ; i and he went as far as the doorandturned I back, asking me for a sheet dipapdr. I gave him one of the hotel bilLhead!., tearing the print off;. I recognise the order produced, as being written upon the paper which I gave him", aslidehtii,' it by its jagged appearapee. He left, and returned m about half an hour with a sw^g-and again asked for : a pint of J beer. He did not get it, and left immediately. He was pot quite sober when j he first came m. * .. i Th'e prisoner having been duly cautioned,, stated that he wopld reserve his defence, apd was then", committed tp take his i ; trial .at the next sitting of the Supreme Court to be holden ati.Wan--ganui on Monday, next. BREACH" OF TBE PUBLICANa' HOUSE JXA--r kageme^t act,; 1874; C' ; : " ' Archibald Dykes.; was- complained a gainst by Constable Gillespi j, that he did, on the"* 11th day, of October, 1879, at Palmerston North, unlawfully commit a breach, o.f .*"' The/Publicans' Hou'e Management Act, 1874," by permitting a game of chance to be played by certain persons upon the -premises, with respect to which the said Archil a^r! ■ Dykes was the- holder of a license. Defendant denied the charge, alleging that there were no. drinks played for, and the game was amongst the. hpardei s. Henry Burndrett gave evidence that, life* iad^seeh cards played upon th\ evening m. question, and believed th# game to ;he " euchre." , He also believed the gamp wa,s played for drinks, but did not see. the. landlord , m the room during the time. .-'. . Edward Ch'errit admitted.th ( a \ he. had been m the Palmerston Hotel upon the night m question, and had been playing cards for drinks, but knocked off at ten o'clock. "!. Emma Hudson was. called by • defendant, arid proved that thp persons who had* beep playing had not - , been playing for drinks. As it was the first conviction, the minimum penalty of £1 and costs was inflicted. Tjhe Chairman m cautioning the defendapt. read the section of the Act, stating that upon a secopd conviction, the offender was liable to have his license cancelled for. six months. , ' ' ANOTHER qiI AEGE.. The same defendant was next charged with a breach of the same' Ordinance, by supplying beer to. th.e' value bf three shillings to one Rudolph after • ten p*m'.. on the; 1 1th of -October, the said Rudolph Mauritson hot being a traveller or lodger. Defendant pleaded- " Guilty," stating that some strangers had moved into a house m.: the heigh harhopd, and had ! asked fctr same refreshment, aiid . he had given the three shillings* worth pf beer. " . . ' ■'. ■ . The Court inflicted the lowest penalty allowed by the Ordinance— J62, and costs, amounting to 14s. BREACH OP THE SIiAUGHTERIIJ'GiirOIJSES. , . .. acp, 1877. ■■.■'"• Robert Mackie was informed- against by Constable Gillespje, that he did, on the 17tb| day. of October, 1879, unlawfully' ' commit a "breach yof «' Xhe Slaughtering-house Act, 1877," '.by causing' tp be. slaughtered one large cattle (the same being intended for sale) m a place not being a slaughter-house duly licensed under the. provi'sipnj^ of the, aforesaid Apt. _ The defendant said that m order tohave the case beard, he had determined ; to plead '■*■ Not guilty;"- He-had previously held a license from, tup Borough j CounciLto slaughter, but a^t the end.pf last year its renewal was refused, and hb he had lately brought Mr. Moff jttt.'s business, he was oompeiled to slaughter, or shut up his shop. The Cliairman asked why the defendant could not kid upon the premises used by nid predecessor. Mr. "Mackie replied that it was utterly impo'-sihle. The pla-ce was .' totally unfit, and could not be .usee*" unless by the outlay of a large sum. .' '; ! The Gliaii-iMan said that m that case ie^dil hot see how "the Court- could Wss\ him^ seeing that it was merely a^.

matter of moneys particularly as the 22nd 'Clause of Ihe Act. left them no option m the matter. Mr. M'Neil stated that he hid paid a visit to Mr. Mackie's slaughter-yard, and he was bound to confess that as far as regarded cleanliness, it was all that could be desired ; ; but much as they could sympathise with him, tho lav left them, powerless, m the matter, and they were bound to administer it m^ stood. ! - The Chairman informed the defendant that he left himself liable to a fine of £10 for every' beast slaughtered, .and . that although the mitigated .penalty pf five shillings and posts would be in* flicted, he 'was tj remember that the offence was not to be repeated, other, wise the full punishment would have ta be enforced, ". y7 ciyii OASES. J. . Pedersen! v. A. Jonsbn.— Claim, £11 Is. 7d. Mr. Staite. appeared for* plaintiff; defendant was notrepreseptet*j. Judgment for amount claimea, lew £3 Bs. -the .amount of set-off. , Anders Jonson v. Jorgen Pedertei, and J. Rasmuchen.— Claim, £25, being . amount due for a purchase of share m, the Kairaka tramway contract.: Mr> Staite defended, and judgment war given for defendant, with: costs. ;.- King Brothers v. William Lynds;-^ jDlaim, £!!&.,; for goods ohtained; 'No appearance of defendant, and judgment was given m default for amount claimed, with costs, .