CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7214, 27 November 1888, Page 6

CHRISTCHURCH.

Monday, November 28. [Before the Hon. J. T. Peacock and R. Westenra aad C. P. Cox, Eaqs.] Drunkenness. —Two first offenders weie each fined ss. . Attempting to Commit Suicide. — Richard Savage was. charged with attempting to commit suicide by throwing himself into the Halswell. Inspector Pender said the accused had been before the Court previously and remanded. He had been suffering from the effects of drink, but was now better. Mrs Savage bad made an application for a prohibition order to be tak. n out against her husband, but on coming into Court desired to withdraw it, and said she thought he would keep away from drink withont it. Savage stated to the Bench that it was family troubles and not drink that had caused him to attempt suicide. Mrs Savage said her husband took a little drink sometimes. A neighbor of the Savages said that the accused occasionally gave way to drink and at times he was in a state bordering on insanity. The accused said he was a bricklayer, but had had very little work recently. The Bench convicted him on the charge, and ordered him to pay lls Od cost of maintenance, while undergoing medical treatment, and also gave instructions that the prohibition order be issued, against him for a period of twelve months. Alleged Forgery.—William Bentley was charged on remand wiDh forging the name of M. Hanna to a certain letter' addressed to one — Pratt, Esq., and uttering the same with intent to defraud on November Bth. Frederick Pratt, solicitor, deposed that he lived in Hewitt s road, S . Aloans, and was agent for his father. Knew the Norfolk Boarding-house, which was at the corner of Montreal and Tuam streets, and which was let about the 2nd iaat. to one Mary Hanna. The prisoner came to witness on the nth inst. bringing the letter produced. (The letter purported to be signed by Mrs Hanna, and was a request for certain repairs to be done to the water service in the Norfolk boardingbouse, and stating that the bearer would do the work reasonably.) Witness believed the letter to be genuine, and told the accused to do the work. On the following Wednesday the accused brought the bill produced, for 15s, for work done at the house, including the cost of a brass tap. Witness asked the accused if he had bought the tap, and he said he had, and paid 5s for it, and also that he had had to get some cement to line the inside of a sink. Hβ said he had worked the best part of three days at the job. Witness paid him the 15s. Had never seen him before, but had employed him on the strength of the letter. About half an hour afterwards Mrs Hacna called on witneea. Mary Hanna, wife of Robert Hanna, deposed that she lived in the Norfolk board-ing-house. She first noticed the accused at the house on the Bth. He said Mr Pratt had sent him to do the well in the scullery. Witness remarked that it was very good of Mr Pratt to send him without her asking to have the work done. Witness then showed the accused a pipe leading from upstaire to the scullery and told him to ask Mr Pratt if he might repair that, but not to touch it till he had received permission. On the following Monday morning the accused came back and said he had seen Mr Pratt, who told him he was to do the pipe. He then went on with the work, taking out the tap and cutting down the pipe. He went upstairs, and soon afterwards returned and said he had fixed the down pipe but, that it would not be " fit to use for several days. He was backwards and forwards on the- next day. Witness told him not to do any mare work till her husband had seen Mr Pratt. He came again on Wednesday morning and put on the tap. He had done no gooa to the down pipe, but had merely stopped it up. Had never written the letter produced to Mr Pratt, nor crave it to the accused. To the prisoner—Witness employed the accused to put in some new fas burners on the Saturday and paid im 4s. The accused merely took out and replaced the old ones. The accused went upstairs to look at the pipe from the slop basin. Did not go upstairs with him or take pen, ink, and paper into the front room to write a letter. Did not give the accused a letter. • Jesse Coombs, well-sinker, living in Tuam street, stated he had known the accused, who was also a wellsinker, for about fourteen years. Had examined the work at the Norfolk boarding house. The tap produced was not a new one, and was of little value. The work done at the house, for which the accused charged 103, was in an unfinished state, and was at present valueless. To the accused—To cut the pipe, break the sink and repair it, put on a new elbow and screw in the tap, witness would have charged 6s or 7s. Detective R. Neill deposed that when arrested the accused said he had taken the letter and bill to Mr Pratt, in Hereford street. He afterwards said Mrs Hanna had written the letter, and that he had done the work and trot the money. The tap produced was brought from the house by witness. It was an old one. The prisoner was cauiioned.and, in reply, said he was "Not euilty." He was committed for tnal at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. [Before C. Whitefoord, R.M., H. J. Hall, J.P., Esqs.] Civil Cases.—Turner v Stonyer, claim £20, for damages alleged to have resulted from the burning of a fence dividing che properties, at Horse Shoe Lake, of the parties. Mr Bruges for the plaintifl; Mr Leatham for the defendant. The case had been Rone into at great length on Thursday, when the facts were reported. Evidence was now heard for the defence, and judgment was given for plaintiff for £3, without costs. Mr Whitefoord made some strong remarks about the management of the case, for which, though it only referred to a trumpery matter, gentlemen had brought six witnesses on one side and nine on the other, detaining the Court for many hours. Keogh vMonen, £10 7s 6d; Mr Wildina; for plaintiff, Mr Holmes for ! the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that in 11883 he purchased five sections of land at

St. Martin's, Opawa, for £170, and paid £100 cash. The balance stood over, at bank interest, which was paid. In October last, wishing to complete the purchase, he tendered£7ofor that purpose, but defendant required £78, the difference being the value of a fence standing on the ground. After some demur the £78 was paid under protest, and the present action was brought for the recovery of £8 with interest since the date of purchase. Plaintiffs wife, who was his agent in the matter, swore that she agreed to pay only £170. At no time, from the purchase until plaintiff wished to complete, had the amount of the purchase money been stated either in the deposit or interest receipts, or in any other way. For the defence, a witness stated that plaintiff had told him, shortly after the payment of the deposit, that he would have to pay £8 10s more than he expected. Defendant swore that the purchase money agreed on was £178, and the payment for interest had been all along on £73, without dispute by the plaintiff, who thus adopted the larger amount as correct. Judgment was for defendant with costs. Irwin v Saxon, claim 17s 6d, for goods supplied; judgment for plaintiff for 10s 9d. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in Hyslop and Co. v Rowe, £22 Is 2d; and Taylor v Barrett, £14s 3d. Hall v Grainger was adjourned till December 7th. In Horsley v Gibbs, a claim of £3 8s under judgment summons, Mr Wilding appeared for the creditor, and the debtor, who did not appear, was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, or go to gaol for fourteen days. Smith v Grange, claim £3 2s 6d, under judgment summons. Mr Byrne appeared for the creditor. The debtor's ability to pay was not proved, and the case was adjourned till December 27. Illegal Impounding.—Erasmus Williams, for illegally impounding a horee at Sutnner, on November 13tb, was fined £1, with costs. ifr Holmes appeared for — Hines the complainant.