ASHBURTON.

Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 3893, 14 January 1878, Page 3

ASHBURTON.

Fbiday, J__-"abt 11. [Before A. L. G-. Campbell, Esq., R.M- and Joseph Beswick, Esq., J.P.] Disobeying a Summons.—Jas. Campbell was summoned to show cause why his bail should not be estreated, on account of his not appearing at the Court on the 4th instant. Accused, who had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly, said he came to the Court on the 4th, but was too late.fFined 20s.

Pobg-By' and Ut_bbtn&.—John Jackson, alias Ellis, was brought up on remand, charge- as above.—Richard Minnis, storeman in Messrs Friedlander Brothers' store, deposed—l saw prisoner on the Bth at the store. He came in to cash a oheque (cheque produced). I told him we had not sufficient cash at the time to change it. He said he required it to pay a man outside, and if we gave him 50s it would do for the present. I gave him 50s, and told him if lie would wait Mr Friedlander would probably give him a cheque for the balance. When Mr Friedlander came in he said at once the signature was not that of James Scott. He refused to advance the balance, and took book the 50s. He then sent mc to give information to the police. Prisoner endorsed the cheque "James JUlis." — Rude lph Friedlander said : I am a merchant residing at Ashburton. Prisoner came to mc on the 7th instant, and asked for a blank cheque on the Bonk of New Zealand.- I gave him one. On the Bth I saw' Jtfm ""In the store. Having occasion to go' to the cash - box, I saw in it a cheque signed "Ja*. Scott." I asked who had paid it in. Prisoner was pointed out to mc as the person. I asked him what Scott this was. He replied Mr Scott of lelesworth. I told him I thonght it was not Mr Scott's signature. He then said he had received the cheque from another man to get cashed. I sent for the police. I identify the cheque handed to mc at the one I gave prisoner by its number corresponding to the number of a block in my cheque book.—Mr W. Johnston, here, at prisoner's request, undertook his defence.—James Scott, manager Islesworth station: Ido not know the prisoner. The signature to the cheque produced is not my signature. I have no account at the Bank of New Zealand.—Richard William Westenra, clerk in the Bank of New Zealand,' stated that the cheque produced, was presented at the Bank on Wednesday, 9th inst., by Constable Stanley. Payment was refused. There is no account of that name at the Bank. —Constable Stanley : On the Bth inst. I arrested prisoner at Messrs Friedlander Brothers' store. Mr Friedlander gave mc the cheque produced, believing it to be forged. I then charged prisoner with forging and uttering the same, and cautioned him. He said, " I did forge it." This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Prisoner, by advice of his solicitor, reserved his defence, and was fully committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, Christchnrch.

Civil Casks.—Bosenberg v Johnston, claim £12 2s; judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. Prunty v Johnston, for amount of dishonored acceptance; Mr Crisp appeared for the plaintiff ; case adjourned for one week. Bull v McCameron, claim £15 3s 9d; judgment for plaintiff with costs. Jameson v Johnston, claim £8 lis 8d j Mr Crisp for plaintiff. It appeared that a set off had been put in, of which neither Mr Crisp nor the plaintiff had any notice. Mr Buchanan, sworn, said he had served notice of set off. R. Jameson, sworn, said he did not receive any notice from Mr Buchanan of a set off. I have had several transactions with defendant. The present action is for amount due for painting a stable. Judgment for plaintiff for 18s 2d and solicitor's fee. Gavin v Leask, claim £10, amount of a cheque, payment of which hod been stopped; Mr Crisp for defendant. — Gavin, examined, said on 17th November a man come into my store, and selected goods to the value of 30s. he tendered the cheque produced in payment. I asked if he knew the drawer. He said he did, also that it was his name in the body of the cheque, and that he was in Mr Leask's employ. I went to the Bank of New Zealand, and presented the cheque, and was informed that payment was stopped. I enquired the reason, and was told that on the Bth Mr Stalker had lost a cheque, and that Mr Leask had called and requsted that payment might be stopped. On leaving the Bank I went to the police, and stated my case to the sergeant I come with him to the Court. Subsequently the sergeant told mc he could not take up the case. I saw Mr Stalker. He said he had loßt that cheque. Mr Leask gave Mr Stalker a second cheque for the same amount, and did not advertise it. To Mr Crisp: I am not prepared to swear that Mr Stalker is the man who gave mc the cheque. I went to the police because I wanted to get my money back. To the Bench: The new cheque was issued on the Bth, only twenty-four hours after the first. John Stalker, examined by Mr Crisps—l lost the cheque produced. I did not present it, nor did I write my name on the back of the cheque. At the request of the Bench, Mr Stalker wrote his name on a slip of paper, which, when compared with that on the back of the cheque, was found to be totally different, both in the character of the writing and in the spelling of the name. Mr Crisp said it was evident that this was a case of forgery, and the Bench had no power to adjudicate on it till it hod been brought before a criminal tribunal. The Bench entered a nonsuit, with costs, and solicitor's fee,£l Is.— Bradford v. Smith, claim £11; Mr Johnston for plaintiff, Mr Crisp for defendant This was on action brought by plaintiff, for payment for work done in laying the concrete foundations of the new Wesleyan church, Ashburton. The defence was that the work was not done is a good and workmanlike manner. Mr Crisp also took exception to the manner in which the summons woo filled up, and colled the attention of the Bench to the Act. which stated that a full description of defendant's occupation and address must be on it. Mr Johnston contended that defendant hod virtually admitted and waived the objection

by accepting the summons and attending Court. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. —Wilcox v. Quin: This action was brought to recover possession of a watch, left by plaintiff with defendant to repair. It appeased that plaintiff wished to have a written guarantee with the watch (which was not a very first-class one), but Mr Quin refused to give it. It was proved that defendant had executed more repairs to the watch than were charged for. Plaintiff non-suited, solicitor's fee, £1 Is, allowed.—Pike v. T. Turton; claim £11 14s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs.