MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9159, 17 July 1895, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, Jult 16. (Before N. K. Bowden, J. R. Brunt, and M. Bovvron, Esqrs., J.P.'a.) Drunkenness.—Kate Moore, for this offence, was fined 10s, or ninety-six hours' imprisonment. Counterfeit Coin. — Geo. Rugstead, seventeen years of age, was charged with having, on July 15th, ab Chriatchurch, uttered a counterfeit half-sovereign, knowing the same to be counterfeit. Accused admitted the offence, and said he got ib from a gentleman. Detective Henderson said that Geo. Tibbs, a fishmonger, with defective sight, asked the lad to ouy some ciayfi.h, which he did, and tendered a sixpence, badly coloured, to represent a halfsovereign. Tibbs gave the lad 9s in change. The fish was a 3d one. Tibba was going to get change for the half-sovereign, when the boy said, "Oh, it's all right," and went away. When arrested aroused admitted to the constable that ib was passed on him, aud he tried to get rid of it. Geo. Tibbs explained the circumstances, and Btated that the lad, when he afterwards caught him, gave up the _3. Prosecutor did nob wish - to press the charge. Detective Henderson said the boy was respectable. The Bench decided to take a lenient view of bhe case, and dismissed the accused. Alleged Laroenv. — Geo. Campbell, fourteen years of age, was charged with having on the 13th July stolen from the Press office, four £1 notes aud 14s in silver, the property of H. D. Pine. (Mr J. R. Brunt, J.P., retired duriug the hearing oi this case.) The accused admitted the offence, and elected, through Mr R. Manhire, who represented his mother, to have the case summarily dealt with. Chief Deteotive Hendersou said the boy was an errand boy at the Press office. On the day in question the lad took tbe money from Mr Pine's drawer, which was unlocked. When questioned by Detective Benjamin he ad- j mitted taking money, said he had spent part of the money and had planted the rest. They went to accused's mother's house at Ad-1 dioglon, where he dug up the ground near j the closet, but no mouey appeared, aud the boy said the plant must have beeu found and someone taken what was left. "Mr Pino stated bhe duties of the boy in the oflice. Mr Guthrie, manager of the Press Company,! said that they did nob want to press the cose. Their position was this : the money belonged to Mr Pine, and they were disposed, if the boy had confessed at once and had shown a disposition to restore the money he confessed to having hidden, to have given him another trial. Bub they were not disposed to do so in the face of the fact that the money had disappeared again. Otherwise they would have been prep, red to take him on again and give him another trial. However, they did not want to be severe on the boy, whose mother was in poor circumstances and bad health, and whose father was away in the North Island at work. Accused, in answer to the Bench, repeated his statement about having planted the money he had not spent, and on lifting the plant finding the money had gone. Mr Manhire said that he had known the boy for a long time. He was respectable and the main support of his mother, who was ill and whose husband was away at the unemployed works. The money would be guaranteed to Mr Pine. Mr Guthrie said they wished the money taken returned, and not have the amount borrowed from the lad's mother. After a consultation Mr Bowden said the Bench was not satisfied with the lad's statement as to where be planted the money. The fact was the accused would probably have to go to gaol if he could not tell where the money was planted. Tbe case would be remanded until Thursday, and between now and that time accused would have to tell where the money was. Mr Manhire applied for bail, which was allowed, accused in his own recognisance or £25 and one surety of £25. — Michael Ford was charged with having on the 15th July stolen an overcoat, value £1 7<s 6d, belonging to Thos. Armstrong. Accused pleaded not guilty. The coat was identified as belonging to the prosecutor, from whose shop ib aad been stolen on the evening of tbe 15th inst. Detective Maddren deposed to noticing the accused leave a secondhand shop with a macintosh overcoat on nun, whioh was evidently brand new as tbe creases were not out of it. The detective to-k charge of the man, who said he purchased tbe coat two years ago at Timaru. Witness inquired at the different shops, and fonnd the coat belonged to Mr Armstrong. Accused, in answer to the Bench, said he got the coat some time back at Timaru. He admitted having done terms for larceny and forgery. The Court said it it bad no doubt about the accused stealing the coat, and he wonld be sentenced to three months' hard labour.— Frederick Lane, an elderly man, was charged with having, on the 15th of July, stolen 4 tiles, value 10., the property of H. B. Kirk. Accused admitted taking the tiles but said he did not intend to steal them. The son of the prosecutor deposed to seeing Lane take a tile. When questioned Lane said Mr Kirk had given him authority to do so. An employee of the prosecutor corroborated this evidence, and added that accused

had three other tiles planted under a mt«,' Accused repeated his assertion that he wu nob stealing the tiles, and admitted havittg done three years for the larceny of coppg boilers. Iv answer to the Bench Deteoliti Henderson said tha ir an was partly unds. the influence of liquor at the time. As it was a long.time since he had been before tiw Court the Bench said it would deal leniently with him and sentenced him to a week'i imprisonment.

Alleobd Assault and Ro-.behy.--jj Edward Driver, alias John Lowe, si|! charged with having, on the 16th of July, v tbe South Town belt, assaulted Mary Brown and robbod her of a purse and 10s worth M silver. Detective Henderson asked thattht case should be treated as one of simple larceny. Accused pleaded " Nob guilty," and asked that all witnesses should bs ordered oub of Court. After evidenoaha. been heard accused pointed out that there was no proof of where or when pr.B-C_tr_. losb bor purse. The Benoh sentenced accused to one month's imprisonment.

(Before H. W. Bishop, Esq., S.M.)

Civil Oa9ES.—Hornsby v Lytteiton Tim Company, claim £23 9s. Mr Cassidy for the plaintiff, Mr Wilding for the dofeadaot, The plaintiff alleged that in June lost year he took up the position of editor of the Star ac a salary of £225 per annum. Before he commenced work, and afterwards, he wti } again aud again assured by the manager, | Mr Wilk>n, and Mr Saunders, the editor of 1 bhe Lytteiton Times, thab he should have I opportunities of doing remunerative exeft work for the establishment. From June to December he wrote a number of article* which were accepted and printed in tht Lytteiton Times. He considered the.', acceptance and ihe previous promise that __T should have opportunities to do extra remunerative work as a contract to pay for I the articles, for the value of which his action was now brought. In cross-exami-nation he said that ib had boen part of the agreement ou his engagement that he should submit all the principal matter before priming in the Star to _lr Saunders, aud this system, wibh slight' iatori'upt.on, had beeu carried out. Oa February 2 .lh lust he published borne bogoi cablegrams, and oa the next day his cua< nection wi.h the Star was severed. Ml Saunders knew he was going to publish the supposed cablegram., aud did not. objeot t_ their publication. Plaintiff gave parucuUn of the Articles claimed for, they were all written or compiled from published foreign matter by himself; the charges were rather under the customary charges. J. <?« Collins gave unimportant evidence as to the subject matter of one of the articles claimed for. This was the cose for tbe plaintiff. Mr Wilding said that the defence was that the articles had been voluntarily supplied by plaintiff without any promise of remuneration implied or expressed by any of the Compauj's servants, who, even if they had made such a promise, could not have pledged bhe credib of their employers. And on the ground of custom the defen* i dants said tbat plaintiff had no claim. He called J. S. Guthrie, formerly editor and now manager of the I"ress, who said his Company, like the Time 3 Company, pub* lis lied three papers which had separata editors. Whether an editor of one of tbe other papers would be paid for articleoutside his own proper work and in* serted in the Press would depend en* Sirely upon circumstances. If they were offered voluntarily he (witness) would no! . pay tor them. If, however, he invited con* tributtons he wonld expect to have to pay for them; thab bad been their custom. Cross-examined—He knew nothing of the custom elsewhere. Payment for extra work wonld be the result of agreement beforehand. W_ H. Triggs, associate editor of the Press, said his experience was that, in the absence of an express contract, work of the kind in question was not paid foi> Volunteers were not paid. S. Saunders, . editor of the Lytteiton Timet, stated that some of the articles now claimed for had been written or compil _d by himsel i, many of them came from the "Loudon letter" of their correspondent in England, some from published matter, and he WM able to name sis. as being original by the plaintiff. All were volunteered, and wis* ness had never directly told plaintiff, or led him to understand thab paymoub would ha given for them. Of tbe bogus cablegran* ha knew nothing beforehand ; they b»A not been submitted to him, and in this the plaintiff had nob followed the instruction" under which he was hfel'd by the Company* Plaint ff bad never made a* claim or oieationed his expectation of being paid while the articles were being published. C 1" examined—-Witness had used words to tM plaintiff to the effect that while in tha service of the Company he would have oppor* tunities of greater benefits. By that bo meant that he would have a chaaoe °* promotion or increase of salary. The charges in the claim were, as a whole, high, for one item a charge was made equal to £3 10- per column. C. Hull, a former editor of the Star, and at' present in the same position, stated that while ad*-j_| the evening paper be had contribnted to the Lytteiton Times. Ib was not within his knowledge that such work had been paid for. J. C. Wilkin, manage? of the Lytteiton Times Company _ stated that all the employees were under his coniroL The editor ot the Timet was no. authorised to promise payment for contributions. Witness had never promised to pay the plaintiff for extra work, or held oub a hope that he might earn money in the service of the Company outside of his proper duties. This was the case for the defence. Mr Bishop said that plaintiff had completely failed to show any liability on the part of the Company, and gave judgment for defendants with costs- Judgments went for plaintiffs by default, ! with costs, in—Lukey v Rogers, £4 16s 6d; Appleby and Gray v C-tton, £58 6s 3d; Public Trustee v Robinson* £14 Oa sd;' Walter A. Wood Company v .£lO 5s ; Mason, Struthers and Co. v Kissel, £14 2s ; same v Lilly. £1 3s 91; DummUl v Trelawney, £8 16s"4d ; and Berry and Coi; v Trelawney, £34 16s lid. Mason* Struthers and Co. v O'Keilly was adjourned till July 23rd. .