MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3022, 4 December 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TEMUKA—THIS DAY. ,

(Before S. D. Barker and J. Mendelsou, Ei-qs.) BREACHES OF THE EDUCATION ACT. W. A. Murray, as Chairman of the Winchester School Committee, appeared to prosecute certain householders for a breach of the compulsory clauses of the Education Act by neglecting to send their children to school. The first case called was that against John Jackson Griffin.

An adjournment was asked for and granted for 14 days, defendant being ordered to pay the costs, 7s. Same against William Bli-wtt,

This case was heard and dismissed on payment of costs 7s, on the understanding that the child should be seat to school at once. Same v. Widiam Webster. Xu answer to the charge, the defendant said he hud taken his Caild away from school on account of ill usage, aud ha had lodged a complaint iu writing

io that effect with the Chairman of the Committee. • • ' The evidence of the Chairman and the master having been heard the case was adjourned for 14 days, without costs. CIVIL CASES. Job Brown v. Jus. Conway, claim 12s Gd. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Boyd Thomson v. Charles Lucas, claim £8 Is Td, judgment debt. The sum of £1 had been paid since the summons was issued, and the Bench made an order for the payment of tho balance at the rate of £1 per week, in default two months’ imprisonment. TIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before F. LeCren and E. G. Stericker Esq«.) ASSAULT. Job Hopkins was charged, on the information of Henry Whittaker, with assaulting (renrge Thomas Whittaker. Henry Whittaker, prosecutor, said defendant hud assaulted his son, the alleged reason being that his (prosecutor’s) boy had ridden over defendant’s boy. . The witness was loudly interrupted by defendant, who was exceedingly deaf, and who,, when the points of the evidence were repeated to him, angrily denied the truth of all tho statements. George T. Whittaker, prosecutor’s son, deposed to having been beaten by defendant with a supplejack. At this stage the Bench, regarding the affair us trivial, dismissed the case. The prosecutor protested against this course, pleading that if the Bench heard the evidence he had yet to produce, they would regard the affair as more serious. LEAVING A VEHICLE. UNATTENDED. Thomas Newton was , charged with leaving his express unattended, in the* Main South Nov. 18, and fined 5s and costs. HOKSK AT LARGE.. Robert Storm, charged with allowing* a horse to wander at largo within the Borough was fined 5-i and costs, ( LARCENY., Henry Manning was charged with stealing 10s from the Club Hotel till. Accused pleaded “ not guilty.” •The following evidence-wan taken Alfred J. Parsons, licensee of the Cllub Hotel, deposed that on. the occasion of the robbery, he was; silting in a paulor and heard the till opened. On going out he found accused Meaning over the bar with his hand less than an inch from the till, which was open'. He had * four half-crowns in Lis hand, and there had been four half-crowns ji ast before placed in the till by witness. . Accused asked whether witness could swear he saw his hand in th e till, and stated that ho was an innocent man. Constable Satchwell deposed to,arresting accused on the, infora lation of ■ Mr Parsqns. It appeared that another witness had been summoned to appear but had nob come forward. ' The Bench remanded the case' to the 7th inst, and a warrant was issued for the arrest of. The defaulting witnuss. . Accused (hereupon stated th it’ he could bring witnesses to prove th at he had money in his pockets. Mr Parsons slated that he had only tbit morning turned accused ou t for getting drinks without paying for t hem. FALSE PRETENCES. John Johnston was charged, out remand, with obtaining from Archibald Graham on October?,a promissory note for £250, under false pretences. Mr Hamersley appeared for the prosecution, and Mr 0. Perry for the . diefenco. ,

Mr Hamersley asked leave to make an alteration in the information,. from i , £2 50 to £lB6. There were twoinformatio ns for these respective sums, a'nd he wh shed to take the latter, ab andoninj > the former. i f Vlr Perry objected -to this sudden alteration. Ho had prepared, his de- 7 fer ice for the former. r . Che Bench allowed the. wif thdrawal of the £250 information, and ordered ~ thad a fresh one should be made fori iho £lB6, remanding the ca.se.. < forgery. i ■ •John Johnstone was chairgdd with ‘ tlv>. forgery of a promissory note for £1.87 10s, on I 'August ‘27th, The infdfmatio'n was laid by William parsons/’ Mv Hamersley appeared for the prosecution and Mr 0. Perry! for, the dfjfpnce. Mr:Ha merfi^e y v^)< ’ circumstances, were as. follows W. Ehibods; bad h owed £52 to the firm of Johnston and Green, and had promised to give < a bill at three months for the amount of his indebtedness. He actually gave a bill form unfilled bearing Ids signature, to Johnston, trusting to him to fill it in. The debt was £52 for butchers’ meat, dm t Johnston filled in the form for £lB7 10s', and discounted it at the Dank of New Zealand. He quoted authorities at great length and called ‘ / R. A. Chisholm, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, who said he recognised', the promissory note for £lB7 10si (produced) which had been brought to l his Bank by John Johnston. He asked ac used what was the consideration for 1 which Parsons gave him the. bill. He replied it was partly for bis butchers” account, and partly for horses sold. At the conclusion,,of,his .evidence, witness requested that the promissory note might be given up to him, it bomg: a bank security, and the Subject of an action now pending. The Bench, having marked it, banded the note to 1 witness on his undertaking to produce it when requested. W. Parsons, Hotelkeeiper, Washdyke, said accused, on a date he could not quite recall, had asked him for accommodation. Witness said’ “ All right, old man,what do you want Accused said he had not made up the accounts just yet, and took a blank bills , out of his pocket. Witness signed thebill form and accused said he would make up the account and fill in for thei amount. There was nothing on th© form when he signed it. trusted to accused to fill iu the bill for the amount of his account, and send hima receipt. Accused, on witness handing, him back the form, put it his pocket,unfilled up. No. special amount was (Derationed between accused and witness; the former relied on the latter filling in . the ai'Honnt of the account between them. He ha'd never given Johnston bills for amount s not owing : nor had he ever bought horses from him. He did not find out about the bill till a fortnight tiiro, whe-n he enquired at the firm’s shop, the amount and when it became dub,’ He was informed £52, and at the Bu.nl: he I'm rad the amount of the note Wn s £lB7 10s", He had never authorised anphnil v to fill in a note for that amount. To Mr Perry—l might have signed otlner promissory notes about that time. There was no stainp on the promissory not e when I signed it; ihere is an adhec ive stamp on the one prodm-ed. I Inn e knowd Johnston about 14 years, W- h o have never had .any disagreement. I if ave been about 12 months at Washilylto. When 1 -.purchased the hotel . fro in Mcß sth, Johnston did not personally ms hcoommo lafion. 1 me an by ’ that; that he might have bao ked some bills for me.

I bad asked Johnston to endorse my bills when I entered the hotel ; and 1 might have said, when he endorsed Ihe bills, that if ever ho wanted similar help I would give it him. 1 believe I would have given him accommodation if be bad wanted it. I do not know, of my own knowledge, whether Johnston endorsed the renewal of one of my bills. I before paid Johnston’s account by a bill. My butcher’s accounts are rendered monthly. Two or three months meat was owing for when I gave the bill (produced). I did not know the amount Of my meat bill. Before the interview we had in the Old Bank Hotel, when he asked me for accoimnodati m he might have a->ked me tbs same thing at the Washdyke, but I don’t know (raising bis voice) anything about it. Cross-examination continued —Johnston did not ask me for an accommodation bill at the Washdyke to make up an amount. I have a pretty good memory I bud not seen Johnson before on the same day that we met at the O'd Bank Hotel, I got the money for the note at the Bank. I had called at the shop previously to ask for the amount of the bill. I was informed at the shop that I owed £52 to the firm. To make sure of the date and the amount I went to the bank. I have never had a receipt for my account. I know Mr Alfred J. Parsons, of the Club Hotel. Last Tuesday or so I believe I saw Mr Parsons, of the Club, about this bill. I believe I did, I will not be sure. I told him I had given Johnston a blank bill, signed. I said I had given a bill for the amount of my account, on his asking me. I wight have told Mr A. Parsons that Johnston had asked me for an accommodation bill.” I cannot swear to having said this, I might have said it. I will not swear to it, I believe it Was said. Mr Parsons of the Club might have asked me why I had given a bill; I cannot say positively. Ido not remember telling Green that Johnston had asked me tor the last meat account, and some accommodation. I am quite sure I never said so. I did inform one Braoefield of the circumstances of the case. I did not tell Bracefield that I had given Johnston leave to draw out a bill for more than the amount of the account. This concluded the evidence, and the accused being cautioned in the usual way, reserved his defence ; he was then fully committed for trial at the ensuing session of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed, accused in £2OO, and two sureties of £IOO each.