RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4573, 16 November 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, November 15. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) John Jameson was charged with having been drunk and incapable, and was fined 20s. ; in default of payment, to be imprisoned for forty-eight hours. Mary Aim Drundall, charged with a similar offence, was remanded till Monday. Joseph Gurney was fined ss. and costs, with the usual alternative, for a like offence. James Peterson was charged with having been drunk and resisting the police. Prisoner was in a miserable plight, having a hideous bruise on his eye, and bearing a “yanked" appearance generally. He was remanded till Monday. VIOLENT ASSAULT. John Jones was charged with having violently assaulted one Kollo. After hearing the evidence, the Bench inflicted a penalty of •10s.; in default of payment, defendant to be imprisoned for seven days, with hard labor. BREACH OP DESTITUTE PERSONS RELIEF ORDINANCE. Thomas Wilkes was charged as above. Mrs. Wilkes complained that her husband had taken her to a damp house, and had done everything he could do to annoy her because she had the misfortune to be an ungodly woman. In fact, it had seemed that he had come upon earth to do God’s will instead of doing her will. He had been converted. Chief amongst the truths taught him at the time of his conversion was the principle of muscular Christianity. When he came home he blacked her eyes and then prayed for her, and, taking Mrs. Wilkes’ account to be correct, the injury done to her face by the blows was not at all compensated for by the prayers which succeeded the blows. She had but one child left, and for this she desired maintenance. Mr. Crawford suggested that she might leave the child with her husband. But the ungodly complainant said she was afraid of the evil influence of the father’s ways. He went ranting hero and preaching there, and whilst administering spiritual solace and comfort to the ninety and nine wayfarers the lamb at home would starve for want of more substantial food. The defendant denied all the statements of complainant. He said he had always treated her most affectionately, although she had on three occasions ran away from him. Mr. Crawford suggested that she might go back. Complainant said she could not go back to a damp house. Mr. Crawford : If you opened the windows and set to work, could you not make the house dry ? Complainant; Oh, no ; the windows would not open. Mr. Crawford said the case was a most ridiculous affair, and he should adjourn it for a week, in order that the parties might come to some arrangement. MALICIOUS INJURY. Charles Mclntyre was charged with having wilfully damaged the fence of Charles James Roberts. Mr. Travers appeared for complainant; Mr. Buckley for defendant. It appeared that complainant’s fence encroached on a right-of-way, but so also did the fences of his neighbors, of whom Mclntyre was one. It also appeared from evidence

brought forward for the defence that the complainant’s piece of land had been the subject of a good deal of dispute as to ownership. His Worship ruled that defendant was not justified in chopping down complainant’s fence, however much it encroached on the road. He would, however, impose a light fine, as defendant may have thought he was establishing a right. Fined 10s., and to pay cost of damage, £2. FORGING AND UTTERING. Benjamin H. Soloman was charged on the following information :—That he did, on the 30th day of October, 1875, at Wanganui, in the colony of New Zealand, feloniously, with intent to defraud, forge a certain cheque or order for the payment of ninety pounds ten sliillings and three pence, and did then and there feloniously and with intent to defraud, offer, utter, dispose of, and put off the said cheque or order, he, the said Benjamin H. Solomon, then well knowing the same to be forged, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, being an indictable offence. Mr. Quick appeared to conduct the prosecution. George Maurice McKeown, sworn, deposed ; I recognise prisoner. Saw him on the 13th of October last at Wanganui. I am clerk at the Bank of New South Wales at Wanganui. X saw the accused at the Bank. He presented a cheque purporting to be drawn by Andrew Tod in favor of Nathan and Co., the amount being £9O 10s. 3d. Mr. Tod keeps an account at the Bank of New Zealand. On receiving the cheque, I showed it, I think, to the ledgerkeeper, for the purpose of seeing whether it was generally correct. The check was returned as correct, and I cashed it, giving prisoner nine £lO notes, one half sovereign, and 3d. in silver. I recognise the cheque marked E produced. The amount was charged to Mr, Tod’s account. I had seen defendant at the bank once before. I think it was the day before when he presented a cheque in favor of Matheson Bros, for a small amount. This latter cheque was cashed, and charged to Mr. Tod’s account. The signatures on the two cheques were very much alike. In the smaller cheque the signature was genuine. We discovered that the cheque produced (namely, for £9O odd shillings), was a forgery. I identified the prisoner in Wellington yesterday at the Empire Hotel. ' There were from eight to a dozen persons present, and I picked prisoner out from among them. I saw Sergt. Price and gave him in charge. By Prisoner : I recognised you by your face. I cashed other cheques besides the one for £9O on that day. The cheque was not initialed by the ledger-keeper prior to payment. Such is not usually done in this branch of the bank. I am not confusing a cheque of Hurly’s for £8 "with the one for £9O. I found out the cheque was a forgery ten days after it was presented. I was asked by the manager if I recollected who presented the cheque. I did not know your name, but I remembered your face, and described you. I have had a conversation with Mr. Tod since. He is prepared to swear that he did not sign the cheque. I must say that if it is not his signature, it is a splendid imitation of it. The cheque for £lO 17s, 9d. was cashed by you, and you handed me 2s. 3d. in silver, so that yon might have it all in notes.

Prisoner asked for his pocket-book, and on referring to it, stated that the cheque which the witness alleged was £lO 17s. 9cL, was in reality £lO 17s. 3d. He made this remark in order to show that the witness’s memory was not reliable. By Mr. Quick : Prisoner being a stranger in. the place, I was more likely to remember his features ; and the cheque being of so large an amount, was calculated to impress my memory. At this stage a remand was asked for on behalf of prisoner, whose counsel, Mr. Stout, was engaged in the Supreme Court. The remand was granted till that day week. Bail being allowed—prisoner in £SOO, and two sureties of £250 each. Bail was found immediately.