RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 954, 9 May 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

* THIS DAY. (Before T. W. Parkkr, Esq., R.M.) FAI.SE pretences, James I', David M'Nally was charged with having obtained money from Samuel Levy by means of false pretences. Samuel Levy, a hawker, deposed that he had monetary transactions .with the prisoner, who owed him L 3 12s. He met accused at the Swan Hotel yesterday, when prisoner asked him how much he owed him. Prisoner gave witness a cheque for LB, and witness gave him L 4 Bs. in cash. Accused said he had LIOO in the Bank of New Zealand, Oamaru. Witness presented at the bank, and it was returned marked " account closed." J. A. S. Wait, ledger-keeper at> the Bank of New Zealaud, Oarnarn, gave evidence to the effect that accused had previously had aji account at the bank, but that it had been closed about a month. The cheque produced had been presented to him, but, the account being closed, it had hot been cashed. Prisoner stated the reason he gave the cheque was that he expected some money yesterday, and would be able to meet it. Prisoner was remanded for sentence till to-morrow. REFUSING ADMISSION TO THE POLICE. Neil Docherty, landlord of the Melbourne Boarding-house, was charged with refusing to give admission to the police to his licensed house 011 the morning of the 22nd ult. Inspector Thompson prosecuted. Mr. O'Jvleaglier, for defendant, pleaded not guilty. Constable Cleary deposed that at about 2 o'clock on the morning of the 22nd ult. he had occasion to call at defendant's house. On arriving there he observed lights burning. Witness knocked at the door, and was asked who was there. He answered " police." The lights were then put out, and witness was detained outside for half-an-hour. When the lights were put out witness heg,rd footsteps inside and the rattling of bottles and glasses. Defendant came to the door, and said that the reason he had not admitted witness was because he had been asleep. Witness saw some person running from the back of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher : [Constable Cameron and Mary Sullivan was with witness. "When the door was opened he was not refused admission. He could not state positively that the man who ran had been in the house. Constable Cameron deposed that he went to the back door of the house, which was open. After knocking he attempted to,get in, but the door was .slammed in his face and bolted. To the best of his recollection defendant had his coat and

trousers on when he came to the door. Witness hard a noise as if someone was getting over the fence. The defendant was then placed in the box and deposed that, to the best of his belief, it was four minutes after he heard the knocking that he admitted the police. Richard Beatty, a lodger in defendant's house, deposed that he had put out the lights on the night in question, and had seen defendant take off his boots and go to his bedroom at about 11 o'clock. His Worship reserved his decision. BREACH OF THE EDUCATION ACT. David Farquharson was charged, on remand, with having committed a breach of | the Education Act, 1877, by not having sent his son to the Livingstone School. Mr. Hislop appeared on behalf of the School Committee and Mr. O'Meagher for the defendant. Charles F. Roberts, Secretary to the School Committee, deposed that he had received no communication from the defendant in reference to the notice served upon him, calling upon him to send his son to school. Mr. O'Meagher said he waS instructed that Mr. Botting was not a householder., j and as he could not, therefore, sit on the -1 Committee, the whole proceedings must fall to the ground. The Act says that the committee should consist of seven householders. Robert Botting, a member of the School Committee, deposed that he occupied a house belonging to his son-in-law. He had never paid any rates, nor had lie ever been a ratepayer for the house. He did not vote at the last County election. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher: Mr. Sutherland told witness that he had paid his rates, but he did not vote for him because he did not like Mr. Sutherland. His Worship said the main obstacle in this case was the politics existing between the two parties. The school was well spoken of by tiie Inspector, and the Act had been made compulsory to parents for the purpose of benefiting their children. He would therefore make an order for defendant to send his son to school on Monday next.