MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2210, 17 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAIIU—THIS DAY. (Before 11. Beethaui Esq., 11. M.) hj.vacv from itni.vK. A young man, brought up as above, was remanded till mouthy. YOUNGSTERS IN TROUBLE. Three von* small boys were brought up charged with stealing fruit from Capt. Sutter’s garden. The parents of the children were in attendance. His Worship remarked that when youugchildren like these were guilty of theft it showed that there must have been gross neglect on the part of their parents or guardians. He would dismiss the present charges on the parents undertaking to correct, their children themselves before leaving the Court. Parents and children then retired. CIVIL CASE. -I. M. E. Baird v. U. Orton. Claim—£26, on dishonored order. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff. Mr llaniersley for defendant. The case was partly heard yesterday, and the hearing was pesumed this morning. J. M. E. Baird stated that J, Ackerman of Pleasant Point owed him some money in February last, ami on the 2dth of the same mouth offered him an order fordi2o on B. Orton. The order having been written and signed, Orton was called in to testify to the fact of his owing money to Ackerman, and admitted that he did. He then wrote “ correct” 011 the order and signed it. He told plaintiff that he would be in Christchurch in about a fortnight, and would call and pay the mono3*. The money hud not been paid, although demanded.

Defendant refused payment on the ground that Ackerman owed him moirwMr Tosswill called Charles 11. Parker, who stated that he saw the order written out by Baird, but did not see it sign id. Presented the order to Orton for payment in March. Hie money was not paid. R. Orton was then examined and stated that he never accepted the order produced, and denied that it was an order. Never wrote his name in ink on any such document, but remembered writing it in pencil on a paper like the one produced. Baird was looking over Akcrman’s accounts one day, and inquired of witness whether his account with Ackerman was £25. Witness replied he thought it was right hut he had a contra account. Thought when he signed the document produced that he was merely signing a memo as to the correctness of the account, but not as an order. Never affixed a stamp to any document of the kind. By Mr Tosswill —Could not swear that the signature was not his, except that ho did not sign his name in ink hut had nsed pencil. Thought there was some roguery in it when it was produced as an order. After some argument between the learned counsel, His Worship said he would reserve judgment until Tuesday next. The Court then adjourned.