MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2092, 5 December 1879, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

timaeu—this day. [Before E. Beetham, Esq., 11.M.] ASSAULT. John Gibson was charged with assaulting John King in a public thoroughfare, viz., the Main South Road, at 10 a.m. this morning. Mr Hamersley pleaded not guilty on behalf of the defendant.

The evidence of the complainant and the arresting constable, the assault having been committed in view of an officer of the peace, showed that the defendant met King in the Main South Hoad this morning, and there existing a slight grievance between them owing to business transactions, he went behind him and kicked him, following this up with a blow on the side of the head.

In defence Mr Hamerslcy admitted the kicking of the complainant, and stated although not a legal excuse for the breach of the peace, he should like the defendant’s statement as to the origin of the affray to be heard. The defendant, on being sworn stated that his reason for kicking complainant was that some months since he gave him some grain (oats) to dispose of, at the same time receiving an accommodation bill from King for £4OO, the value of the oats. King disposed of a portion receiving £2OO for this, and on the bill becoming due, liled a declaration of insolvency, which necessitated his (deponent) losing both the oats and the value of the bill.

His Worship said the offence was not so much against the complainant as the public, it being commit ted in a public thoroughfare. Defendant would be fined 20s, and costs 7s, and should he offend a second time the line would not be so light. Mr King submitted to the Court that ho wished the defendant bound over to keep the peace, but his Worship said he could take no action in the matter unless another information were laid. CIVIL CASKS. Spence v Brown —Mr Ormsby for plaintiff. Adjourned till December It) on application of plaintiff's solicitor. Costs of adjournment to be paid by applicant. Same v. 11. Hamilton —Claim £7 3s. Mr Ormsby for the plaintiff. William Ecdfcrn, bookkeeper to the plaintiff, stated the amount of the account against the defendant was £7 3s. Judgment for claim, with costs. £1 Bs. _ J. Kelson v. A. Eaton —Claim £4 Us. Mr Ormsby for the plaintiff. Judgment by default, with costs, £1 Bs. Spence v. Forbes —-Claim £2 2s (kl. Mr Ormsby for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed, and costs £1 ss.

WAIMATE.—DEC. 4

(Before 11. Bccfcham, Esq., 8.M., and His "Worship the Mayor.) XIIKSPABS. Three owners of wandering cattle and horses were lined os each, with 7s 6d costs. LIBEL. J. A. Connell appeared on remand to answer the charge of libel preferred against him by Samuel Green. Mr White appeared for the prosecution. Alfred Fisher was examined in reference to the letter alleged to have been written by the defendant, and published in the local newspaper. He stated that he had written to Iris solicitor, Mr Hamcrslcy, for it, but bad not received it. He had not seen the letter, and he did not know who was the writer.

On the application of Mr White the case was adjourned for a fortnight, the accused be admitted to bail in his own recognisance of £SO, and two sureties of £25 each. FALSE PBETEXCES. Frederick JMcibcr was charged with obtaining the sum of £ls from Elert Abcrstwith by false representations. Inspector Thomson and Mr Clement appeared to prosecute, aud Messrs Hamersley and Hawkins for the accused.

Elcrt Abcrstwith deposed: I am a labourer, residing at ‘Waimate, and I know the accused. I had a conversation with him in August last, wheu he told me that he was the possessor of property to the value of £SOOO or £OOOO in Sydney. He asked me for the loan of some money. I said I had none, but upon the strength of the assertion I backed a bill to Mr Major for £3O. The bill was for two months. He said, “ I want the money to pay my way to Sydney to look after my property.” I don’t know whether he ever went to Sydney. He was away about eleven days. When he returned he said that when he lauded in Sydney he was offered £SOOO or £6OOO for the property, but would not take it. He said, “ I have put it into Mr Stout’s hands to get the money for me in about two months.” He came to me again on the Ith September for more money. I said “I have none.” He said, “ I know very well you have.” I said, “How do you know I have?” He went away and returned again, and told me that lie had got £5 from Mind, and that £ls more would do him. I said, “All right; get me a blank cheque, and I will sign it.” He brought me the cheque, and I signed it. He took it to the Bank, but came back again, and told me the banker said he wanted to see me before he could get the money. I went with him to the bank. On the way he told me he would pay me back next Monda3 r . The manager asked him if he would pay the money bade on Monday. He said “ Yes !” and got it. My reasons for giving him the money was because he told me he would get his money soon, and that he expected to get some from his lawyer, Mr Stout, on Si on day. I knew nothing of his going away when I lent him the £ls. To Mr Hammersley: I signed the bill for £3O, due in two months from date ; he has not paid it. About a week before it became due, he asked me to back it again, and I did so. When he returned from Sydney he said he had onty stopped there for one day. Eobert McOweu, Manager of the Bank of Hew South Wales at Waimate, corroborated the evidence. Eobert Stout said : I am a solicitor, practising in Dunedin. I don’t recollect ever having seen accused before to-day. I have no recollection of ever having received any communication from any person of the name of Neiber. I have never been engaged in any transaction in Sydney sor such a person. To Mr Hamcrsley: He might have been in my ofliee Avithout my knowing it, but there is no entry in my books. I am entirely in the common law, the other branches of my business being managed by others. To his Worship: I think had he given instructions I should have heard of it. I looked over my books for an entry and there was none, cither in the names of Neiber or Krull. I have the name of Hunt on my books. This closed the case for the prosecution.

A second charge was preferred for receiving the sum of £2O from Mr J. Manchester, by false pretences. Mr Stout repeated his evidence.

John Manchester, storekeeper, gave evidence to the effect that iSTcibcr

induced him to advance £2O by representing that he wanted the money to make up the sum required by Mr Stout to proceed with proving an alleged will and obtaining some property. The accused, who had nothing to say, was committed to take his trial at the Supreme Court, Timaru, on both charges. Bail was allowed, himself in £IOO, and two sureties of £IOO each, in each case. A number of civil cases were dis' posed of and the Court adjourned.