MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2766, 3 February 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

WAIMATE—YESTERDAY. (Before J'. Beswick, Esq., R.M.) LUNACY. " . : ■ i A - man named -William Gossip, who is not known to have any relatives or friends in the district, was committed to Sunnyside, on the certificates of Drs Stacpoole and Chilton. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in the -following cases Kett r. White claim £6; Manchester&Oo v Smith.claim £8 6s 4d ; Adams r. Heir claim £3 Is 3d ; Same v. Evans, claim £3 11s sd; and Same v. Flatman, claim £ll4s 6d, Adams v. Frew, claim £3 8s 9d, for goods supplied. Defendant denied having received or ordered the goods. Plain tiff said the goods were supplied to defendant’s children. t ; Judgment was given for the suin claimed-and costs 75., Several other civil oases were ; settled out of Court.

His Worship gave. notice that in future the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Waimate would be held fortnigtly instead of weekly as heretofore.

’ TIHAEU-THIS DAY. ' [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A man nariwd McCormick was fined 10s for having been drunk in a public street. He pleaded guilty* but advanced as an excuse that he had been working 18 hours at a stretch in the harvest field. -Peter Smith was charged under section 167 of the new Act with unlaw. fully wasting his means by excessive drinking. Richard Sullivan, watch-house keeper at Timaru, proved that Smith' had been convicted a dozen times since 1879 of drunkenness and vagrancy. He was a a carpenter and a respectable man except for his drunkenness, but he was wasting his time and means and injuring his health by excessive drinking. His Worship made an order forbidding any licensed or other person in Timaru supplying Smith with intoxicating liquor for the space of one year, and warned him that if he did: not give np his bad habits he would get others into trouble as well as himself. ~

Smith said he would try to do better. He had had enough of “ the drink ” now. FALSE PRETENCES. Catherine Scott, a girl sixteen years of age, pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining by means of false pretences, some yards of lustre, a cape, and a pair of shoes of the value of £l T2s 4d, from Messrs Davis and Murphy. His Worship deciding to hear the evidence, Percy Freeman, draper at‘ Messrs Davis and Murphy’s stated that the accused obtained the goods in question on the 24th, representing that they were for Mrs Hathaway. Jane Hathaway, stated that accused was her sister, but she was not living with her. She never authorised the girl to get the goods. Constable Willoughby stated that he arrested the girl at Geraldine, and found the goods in her possession. She was wearing the boots. His Worship sentenced the girl to two months’ imprisonment, directing the gaoler to keep her separate from other' female prisoners should any be sent to gaol daring the tarn of her sentence. (There is none in at present.)

stealing from the pee son. , Thomas Reid was charged with stealing a silver watch from the person of Morris Feely. Accused admitted that he took the watch.

Mr Pender said it appeared the accused and prosecutor, with a third man, left Saltwater Creek on the evening of Jan. 81 in a dray, all three being intoxicated. They commenced showing watches to each other. Ultimately Feely missed his watch, and there was no doubt Reid took it. He believed it was a mere drunken freak, and that Reid had no intention to steal the watch. He doubted if there .was any chance;of a conviction if accused., were committed for trial.’ ’ ,

The prosecutor said he did'hot wish to press the charge. ; His Worship then disihissed the case, cautioning Reid to avoid drink in future. FOEQING AND UTTERING. John Thomas Healey was charged with forging, on Oct. 22 last, the name of JohmPriest to a promissory note for £27 10s. , v. , ; Mr Jameson appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. - * Mr Inspector Pender called the following evidence. • Josiah Ralph, clerk to Messrs Wildie, Allan, and Stumbles, stated that accused brough.t|tbe.hin to their, office on Oct. 24 to get it discounted, and one of the partners agreed to do it. Witness wrote out a cheque, as instructed, for £26 2s, being the amount of the bill less discount.

G. H. Wildie, a member of the firm of Wildie, Allan, and Stumbles, stated that the first time he saw the bill, that he could recollect, was when it , was shown to him by Mr Withey, of the Bank, on its due date, but he must have seen it before that, as it bore his endorsement, and that would be made on the 25th, the day after it was received at the office. The signature “XT- Healy ” was on the bill when witness endorsed it. He had never spoken to the accused about the bill.-

joiin iPriest, farther at Pareora, had known accused seven or eight years, and had been on friendly terms with him, : The signature “ J. Priest ” at the foot of the bill produced was not in his handwriting, and he had never authorised anyone to sign such a bill. Accused hud never spoken to him about it. Did not know anyone else of the name of John Priest in the district.

To Mr Jameson : There are, or were, some Priests about Kaiapoi, but I know nothing about them.

I Detective Kirby, who arrested ac cused, stated that the latter made no reply to the charge. He had made inquiries for other John Priests, in South Canterbury and Christchurch, but could hear of hone besides last witness.

Mr Pender now asked to have the words “ and uttering ” added to tbe information, and this was done. A charge of forging the name of John Priest on a promissory note for £l2 10s was then proceeded with. D. M. Boss, of the firm of Boss and Sims,commission agents, Timaru,stated that accused brought the bill produced to his office, and asked witness to discount it. ■ He looked at the bill and asked which John Priest it was whose signature it bore. Accused replied, “ It’s old John Priest—the old man ; you know him.” Witness understood him to mean John Priest, a farmer at Pareora. He knew no other John Priest. Pie believed accused endorsed the bill,in his presence. The signature at the back was his. Witness’s partner was present and he gave accused a cheque for £ll 15s (cheque produced) in exchange for the bill. The cheque was cashed and charged to this firm. : J. Priest gave similar evidence in this as in the last case. Accused was then charged' with forging the name of “Jas. Prouse and Co a cheque for £4O drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Waimate, and with uttering the cheque knowing it to be forged, The following evidence was taken Michael Spillane, licensee of the Royal Hotel, Timaru,. recognised-, the cheque produced. It was given to him at his house,, on or about Jan. 10, to change. Not having sufficient change witness gave him ten pounds then, and accused endorsed the cheque, and next day he gave accused the balance of the £4O. The cheque was on the Bank of New Zealand at Waimate, and accused said witness could pass it through his account at the bank. He said nothing about the signature. : B. McOwen had been manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Wqimate, during the last five years. Recollected the cheque produced being presented at the Bank. It was not paid, because there was ho account under the name on the cheque, “Jas Prouse and C 0.,” There never was an account at the Bank under that name. There was no firm of that name in the Waimate district so far as witness was aware. ■ Accused reserved his defence and was committed on each charge for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court at Timaru, Bail was fixed at two sureties of £250 each, and accused in £SOO. This concluded'the business.