RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5443, 6 September 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, September 5. (Before T. A. Hansford, Esq., E.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Thomas Oakley, the new chum who thought himself a policeman, was charged with drunkenness, and fined us., with the alternative of 24 hours’ imprisonment. LUNACY. John Livingstone was charged on warrant by his wife with being of unsound mind. The police stated that the prisoner armed himself with a pistol, aud it was with great difficulty that bis wife managed to take it away from him. His Worship said that the prisoner was evidently suffering from tho effects of drink, and he would remand him for seven days. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgments were given for tho plaintiffs J. Smith v. 11. Davis, £l9 ss. 3d, ; J. Perry v, Thomas Frost, £l2 ; E. W. Mill v. T. Evans, £ll 16s. 6d. ; Waddell v. McLeod, £9 13s. 3d. ; Weir v. Campin, £9 13-. 3d. ; J, Eiddler v. J. Hudson, £44 lls. fid.; H. Bennett V. D’Elmaino, £3 Iff*. ; B. Barber v. W. H. Parnell, A 1 15s. 6. ; Same v. A. Scott, £3 5.x. XOd. ; Same v. F. Friend, 19s. fid. Judgment summonses.—J. Iteid v. H. T. Doverton ; claim £S 10s, 3d. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount on or before tho 3rd October, or go to gaol for four weeks* imprisonment. Webber Bros, v. Ward and Page ; claim £3 3s. 4d. Defendant was ordered to pay 30x. a month, or ■undergo six weeks imprisonment. William Cameron and Co. v. W. Wilbraat. This was a claim for £26 lls. Bd. Defendant was ordered to pay on or before the 12th inst., or suffer three weeks’ imprisonment. THE ALLEGED FOHOERY CASE, The case against Alfred Henry McLean was a"aia- proceeded with. Mr. Nicholson, the prosecutor, was further examined by Mr. ■Ollivier. Witness stated that he had boon xabasi--nesa in Halifax. He had never in his life failed in business, hut had once made an assignment. Ho inserted an advertisement in the newspapers with regard to McLean being no longer in his employment. Ho knew Chessman and Lambert, aud had made an arrangement with them concerning buying the business. This, 'however, bad not been completed. Mol,can was to have bad no share with them. This took place in December, 1877. Witness allowed tlxein to work the business under this arrange-

ment until the end of March or April. Ihe business was to have been carried on m Nicholson and Co. McLean managed the business, kept the books, and draw the cheques for the firm. The firm were to take a lease of the premises and pay £5 a week ; for the stock they were to pay about £2400. There was no dispute between Clieesnxan and withers. It was understood that the arrangement witli the firm should be conditional on their good management. Lambert agreed to go out of the firm, but did not forfeit liis £3OO. McLean was put in the business by witness to look after his interest. McLean wasa frequent visitor at witness’house at this time. Mrs. Nicholson, witness’ wife was present when the documents were signed. She only left the room for a few minutes. Witness generally asked McLean to to take refreshments when he visited the house. Did not remember McLean bringing up some promisor? notes to have signed about 29th April. McLean called on the 3rd May and said that there was no occasion for him (witness) to go into town, as it would only create a growl at tbo shop. Did not think the documents were signed at tbo time. On McLean's visit on the 3rd May be mentioned Barlow’s name as the intending purchaser of the business. Gould not swear to the signature on tbo document produced. It vox*y uxuclx resemblc;! his own. On examining the contents of the document witness said that he was puzzled to tellwhetherit was in his (witness') handwriting or not, as McLean could imitate his writing so well. At this stage the case was further adjourned until Monday next at 2 o’clock.