RANGIORA.

Press, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4540, 18 February 1880, Page 3

RANGIORA.

TtJBSDAT, FKBEtTABT 17. [Before C. Whitefoord, E»q., BJf., and A. H. Cunningham, Esq.j Foaioxre Dsrvrse.— J. Bush, for driving a zmt of horses at a fast rate along Victoria street on 11th instant, was fined 40s and coste. liABCHSX o? A Chbqttb.—William Buckley, on remand on bail, was charged with ttie larceny of a cheque for £5. Mr €rw*son for accused. "W. Home, manager of Cheviot Hills station, derjosed he p»id B. inwood the cheque produced, and subsequently bearing it j was Tort, stopped pam*- \ poeed to receiving the cheque for £5 from | Set witnete, wfawn he enclosed in a letter addressed to a sister in Chrietchurch, and a butcher boy, Peter Jack, to Kext saw it in the hands of the rjoEee. Peter Jade deposedy-Heiweerved a from last witness, which he was told contained a cheque. Last had the letter on December 23rd, with three other*, in the breast pocket of his coat, four miles before ZaSg&e Hurunui, and missed them befmwnWaipara and Amberley, on the way Hills to Christchurch. From i teleeraphed to Inwood that he had

lest the letter. Had not seen them nnce. L. Eidley, boarding home keeper, Rangiora, deposed—He knew accused very intimately. On December 24th, during the evening, accused was in his house, and paid nini tendering the cheque in quettion. Witness gave him change £4 18*. The cheque was sent to the Bank, and some days after returned marked " payment stopped. By Mr Greseon—There were a great many peopJe ra the house at the time Buckley was in. He only came in a few minutes. When witnes* laid the information he described the person who gave the cheque as a man wearing a dark suit and a black wideawake hat. Did not remember conversing with a saddler named McFall, and saying he gave him the cheque. Had always thought Buckley gave it him. W. Good, teller at Bank of New Zealand, Rangiora, deposed the cheque was cashed by Mrs Ridley, and returned as endorsed. J. S. Feild, clerk at Union Bank of Australia, Ohrietchurcb, deposed that payment of the cheque in question was stopped by Mr Home by telegram. W. Sayer, barman Junction Hotel, deposed he had seen accused once in the bar at the hotel. Accused was alone. He had a half pint, and tendered the cheque in court, which witness declined to cash. This was probably about 5 p.m. on December 24th. He wore a dark coat, and hard black hat. For the defence, H. Miller deposed on December 24th he came from Glenmark station with accused. He did not pick up anything on the road. Wae with him all day till 7 p.m. Went into the Junction with him and two othew. Accused paid 2s for four drinks. Did not see him tender a cheque. Accused was wearing a blue coat and white straw hat. They were only once in the hotel, between 4 and 5 p.m. James Miles deposed that accused and about a dozen others were at a party in his house on December 24th, from 7.30 till 12 p.m., and was present all the time. J. E. Knight deposed he was at Ridley's on the evening in question in the public room, and did not see accused there. Accused left his honee at 7.15. J. McFall deposed that be lodged with Ridley, who one day said to him " I tnink it was you gave mc that £5 cheque on Cheviot Hills." Witness used to get his cheques cashed at Ridley's, but had not seen this one till it was shown him by witness Ridley. R. Myers deposed he was in accused's company and one who went into the Junction Hotel with him on the evening in question. Accused was wearing a white straw hat at the time. Another witness gave similar evidence in support of the alibi. Accused in defence stated he knew nothing of the cheque till arrested by the police at Lake Coleridge. He had never been in Ridley's on the evening in question, and had not wore a black hat for two years. The Beech said tbe identity of the accused rested on the eridenca of Ridley and 6ayre; both were clear in their statements, but from the other evidence given it appeared they had been mistaken, as the movements of the accused had been well accounted for. The barman might be mistaken, as he had only seen accused once, and from the evidence of MoFall, Ridley seemed to have had a donbt as to whom he had taken the cheque from, the Bench had therefore decided to give accused the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the case. Giro Cases.— J. Manning v C. Geddes, £1 10s, judgment for plaintiff; M. Thompkins vC. Irene, £19 8s 4d; Mr Gresson for defendant; judgment for defendant; J. Stalker v P. Spanger, £30; Mr Clark for plaintiff, Mr Gresson for defendant; judgment for plaintiff.