RESIDEST MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 19, 21 December 1863, Page 3

RESIDEST MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, 16tM December. (Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. — One person was charged ■with drunkenness, and fined ss. A Disorderly. — Charles Edward Price was charged by the police with creating a breach of the peace. The arresting constable informed the Bench, that on the previous day tho- prisoner was on the .Jetty. under the influence of liquor, and was assaulting a man. On the witness attempting to take him into custody, he laid down on the ground, sind it required the joint efforts of himself and the /sergeant before they could carry him to the lock-up. The prisoner, who had nothing to say in his defence, was fined 40s. UTT BRING A FOUGKD CIIFQUE. Mary Williams was charged with utrering n. forged cheque, for £900. and William Williams (her husband) and Elizabeth Adams with being accessories. Mr South appeared for the prisoners Williams, and Mr Button for the prisoner Adams. Frederick William Paul, clerk at the Bank of New South Wa es, gave the following evidence : — At about half-past 8 o'clock on the previous afternoon, the prisoner Mary Williams came to the bank door and asked if he knew on whom the cheque produced was drawn. He communicated with Mr Miller, the ledger-keeper, and showed him the cheque. Mr Miller to^d him to ask the prisoner to step inside, which he did. The cheque purported to be drawn by T. Wentworth. for the sum of £900, payable to John Purton. It was after banking hours when the prisoner called. Edward George Miller, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New South Wales, gave evidence that when the cheque was shown to him, lie saw that the signature was a forgery. He did not pay the amount, because the signature was so unlike Mr Wentworth's, which he knew. By Mr Button — He -was not asked by any one to pay the cheque. The witness Pnul recalled. By the Bench — The woman Williams asked him, when he answered the door to her, if he knew on whom the cheque was drawn. She did not present the cheque for payment. Detective Thomson stated that on the previous afternoon, in consequence of information he received from Mr Jamie-son, the Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, he went to the bank, where the female prisoner Williams wits. Before taking her into custody, he asked her bow she became possessed of the cheque. She stated that, it had been given to her on the previous SjJturdny by a young woman who had stopped at their camping ground, on the Dunediii Road. She said she did not know the young woman ; but that her husband could point out where she lived, and would take Kirn there. After leaving the woman Williams at the Police Station, he went out the Dunedin Road, and found the man Williams From information which lie received from Williams he took him to a house about four miles out the Bluff Ho.ul, nnd arrested the other wom.m Adams, who ■was living at her -step father's. When he confronted Williams with the woman Adams, lie asked Williams if that Avas the young woman, h» had referred to, when Adams said she had never seen Williams before. Witness then showed her the cheque, when she said she had never seen it before. lie .arrested her, and wi h Willi.ims, brought her to the Lock up. While in the Lockup, and previous to entering the charge against the prisoners, the woman Williams said that Adams was the woman whe hud given them fc'ie cheoque. Mr Commissioner Weldon (who was prosecuting) asked the Bench for a remand of a week for the prisoner Adams. He did nor intend to proceed against the two prisoners Williams, but would ask. for their discharge. He. wished to procure the evidence of Mr Wentworth, us to the forging of his signature, and generally to get up the necessary evidence in the case, as the prisoner hid bucn only .arrested the previous night. The Magistrate said therewas not sufficient .ugainst any of the prisoners, and lie wouid •discharge them. Mr Weldon said that would not prevent any future proceedings being taken against t'lem. The Bench said it would not. The prisoners were discharged. TuuitSDAY, Decembeu 17th. Drunkards. — One person was fined 5s for this offence. A Disokdrrly Fare. — James Lister was charged by Win. Wilson, the ferryman at the Oreti Ferry, with using abusive language to him, and threatening him. From the ■.evidence of the complainant, which was given in court with such demonstrative illustration that it elicited laughter from the audience, it appeared that late on the previous night the •defendant, after calling him out of bed to •" row him across the ferry,' 1 and when they got Across to the other side, instead of paying him the usual amount lor such conveyance, threatened him with much harder fare, and .abused him roundly. Defendant denied that he did so, and stated that the complainant, wlio was very ill tempered at being called oiu of bed, had abused him for coming so late, and had called him "a rascal.'' The Bench, believing the complainant's story, intlicted a fine of 40s and costs. Thb Eoboekv Case. — Elizabeth Adams, (who was discharged on the previous day for the alleged offence of being accessory to uttering a cheque,,/ was again placed in the dock on the charge of forging the said cheque. Mr Macdonald prosecuted ; Mr Button defended the prisoner. Almost the same preliminary evidence as in the former case was adduced. Mr Miller, the ledger keeper, gave evidence that a "Mr F. Wentworth" had an account at the bank, but not Mr T. Wentworth. He beleived that the signature on tb3 cheque produced was intended for Mr l f , Wentworth's. By Mr Button— The woman (Williams) who brought the cheque did not present it for payment. Alary Williams (who had been discharged in the previous case) gave the followidg evidence : — On Saturday last the prisoner, whom she had'never seen before, came to the place out on the Dunedin Road, where witnesses' husband was camped with his hoises. Afttr asking a drink of water, they entered into conversation, during which the prisoner mentioned Bhe was the wife of John Purton, and that he was at that time under the influence of drink. After mentioning tha'. he had been disposing of his property to Mr Wentworth prisoner asked her if 6he (witness) would accompany her to the Bank to get a cheque cashed. Shortly afterwards she accompanied the prisoner into town. They came into Tay-street, prisoner having previously given her the cheque to bring into town, alleging as a reason for not going to the Bank herself, that she was so •' deplorable and miserable." Witness would not go and get tiie cheque •cached until she had seen her husband. «j About three-quarters of an hour afterwards they met witness' husband, but he refused to take the cheque to the Bank, until prisoner could satisfy him as to who was her husband, •and on whom the cheque was drawn. The prisoner then left them, with the understanding that 6he (prisoner) was to return for ■either the cheque or tho money. On Tuesday, in consequence of the prisoner not coming for either, witness, by the direction of her husband, took the cheque to the Bank for the purpose of giving it up. She never saw the prisoner from Saturday until Tuesday night, when the prisoner was brought into -the lock-up by Detective Thomson. Priy -finer, sitting down beside her, said she had not got to blame her, (witness,) she had only got heiself to blame for what had happened, When they were locked up ? (in separate cells,) witness asked prisoner if she would tell her the young man's name who gave her i the fherj uc ; but she replied she would not. She

had previously told her that she got the cheque from her husband, John Purton. She said, at that time, she knew Mr Wentworth, who had signed the cheque in her house. She added, that "Mr Wentworth had signed it because her husband was drunk and could not sign it himself." Mr Button cross-examined the witness, but except some slight discrepancies in her statement, nothing materially altering the maiu fact 3of hor evidence was elicited. By the Benca— Prisoner told witness's husband she would reward him forgetting' the cheque cashed. Witness could not read ' or write. William Williams, the husband of the lastwitness, gave evidence which was in effect a corroboratf on of his wife's . Mr Macdonald said it would be necessary to have the evidence of Mr Wentworth, and for that purpose he would ask the Bench to grant a remand for a week. The Bench remanded the case to Thursday next. Civil Cases, bkassobovb v tralnor. ' For 19s 3d. Verdict by consent. MURRAY V SMITtt. Mr Harvey appeared for the defendant. Defendant was summoned for £5, damages alleged to be committed by the depredations of his goat in plaintiff's garden, The cause of the damage appeared to have emanated from the imperfect formation of the street, which was on a level witli the fence of plaintiff's garden, thus allowing the goat an easy access t j the place. HKANSGKOVK V IMIRVUIn. Action for £1 5. Verdict by default. Friday. 18th Decembkr. . Drunkknness — One person was charged with drunkenness, and paid the usual fine. Civil Cises. dkp.mmosd v la.m°xt. An action brought to recover for wages alleged to be due. The question at issue between the plaintiff and defendent, was a disagreement as to the rate of wages to be paid ; only a verbal agicemcnt having been entered into between them. The result was a verdict for the plaintiff ; each having to pay his own costs. M IWNOCIIIK V DAVIKS. A summons for the recovory in tho difference of value of some work performed by the plaintiff in the cutting of drains on the railway line. After the work wns completed the defendant objected to it, as not being performed properly. The Bench gave a verdict, reducing the amount claimed to Ll4 7s. There was no business of any importance before the ' 'ourt on Saturday.