CHRISTCHURCH,

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9843, 28 September 1897, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH,

Monday, September 27. (Before C. M. Gray, A. Ayers and J. Hamilton, Esqs., .LP's.) Dewkkbnkess. —Three first offenders were fined ss. Elizabeth Smith was convicted and handed over to tho Salvation Army. Theft.—Bertie Dacombe, a lad about 13 years of age, was charged with having stolen a canary and cage from Fanny Bridge. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. After hearing the evidence the Bench decided that the accused was guilty, but said they were reluctant to send him to gaol, and he was therefore convicted and discharged.

False Pretences. —E. McKenzie was charged with having on the 17th September obtained the sum of 7d from J. H. Whittaker by false pretences. J. H. Whittaker said he was the agent for the Wellington Biscuit Factory. Accused ctme to the office and said lie was tho accountant of the Company. Witness gave him the account to the Company, which accused checked off to see if the sums t_Uied with witness's report. Accused said he had lost £16 the previous evening, and asked for a loan. Witness would have given him some money, but he thought that there was something suspicious about the accused, who he thought should at least have produced some proof of his connection with the Company. He gave accused a shilliug to send a telegram to the Company. Accused went away and returned having given him the change. The accused was discharged with a caution, the Bench advising him that they were not at all satisfied and that the accused had better leave the place.

Creating a Disturbance. — Leonard Thomas, one of those arrested in Lichfield street on Sunday evening, was charged with this offence. Constable Cumming, who made the arrest, said the accused was one of those who were hooting and groaning outside the Oddfellows' Hall. Accused pleaded "Guilty." —McDowell and Alexander Milne were similarly charged, and pleaded "Not Guilty." After hearing the evidence of the police who made the arrests and the testimony as to good character by the accused's friends the Bench said that the action taken by the public of Christchurch in advertising the meetings at the Oddfellows' Hall by the demonstrations which had been going on during the last few Sunday evenings only aggravated matters. They did not think with the Inspector of Police that the.affair was of the importance which the presence ofall the police force of the city and suburbs would seem to show. The accused Thomas wa3 lined 5s and the two others were discharged. Charge Withdrawn.—A charge of attempted suicide laid against a man was withdrawn on the application of Inspector Broham.

Allegkd Misappropriation of Funds. —Edward Townsend was charged that, being one of the executors and trustees in the will of the late James Tod, of Lincoln, he did with intent to defraud convert and appropriate to his own use certain sums of money amounting to £324. Mr Wilding appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Bishop for the accused. Several Court records were put in by Mr A. Bloxam. J. J. M. Hamilton, District Agent for the Public Trustee, Christchurch, said he had acted as executor in the will of Poter Tod. A promissory note had been found for £324 in favour of tho family of the late James Tod signed by the accused. The accused said he knew very little of the matter as his co-executor had managed most of the business. In the course of conversation the accused admitted that he and Peter Tod had the moneys with the joint knowledge of each other. His reason for using'the money was that it would give the widow a better income. Mrs Tod, widow of the late Jas. Tod, said she always got money by cheque; the money she had received was all interest, and she had drawn no capital. The accused had never told her of any investments made. She knew there was something wrong four or five years ago. Alex. Millar, clerk in the Public Trustee's office, said he had seen accused in the latter part of 1895 with reference to tho promissory note and othor matters. Accused acknowledged that the note was given him for moneys he had appropriated from the trust. He also said that Peter Tod had received moneys for which he had given a promissory note. The accused was committed for trial, bail being allowed, accused in £100, and two sureties of £50 each. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil-Casks.—Scott v Munro, claim £30 7s 6d. Mr Bruges for the plaintiff, Mr Caygill for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that on June 21st one Howe owed him £50 on a dishonoured promissory note, and arranged to discharge the debt by selling to plaintiff a buggy—then in "plaintiff s possession—for £20, and a cheque for £30. Howe did not give the cheque, and on June 24th left the colony. On June 25th the defendant's agents, in plaintiff's absence, got possession of the buggy, which he alleged had been sold to him on June 24th by Howe. The present suit was to determine the ownership of the vehicle, the plaintiff also claiming £10 for its detention. The plaintiff and one witness proved the facts alleged by him. For the defence Mr Caygill submitted that the purchase of the buggy was conditional, and dependent on the payment of the cheque for £30 to clear the dishonoured promissory note: this not having been done, there was no sale to the plaintiff, and its sale to defendant most hold good. His Worship held that the sale to the plaintiff was regular, and ordered the buggy to be returned to him, or the defendant to pay £20, defendant to pay cost 3. Trade Auxiliary Company v Lock Bros., claim £1 Is subscription to the Mercantile and Bankruptcy Gazette. Mr Russell appeared for the plaintiffs, for whom judgment was given, with costs. In Lee v Hussey, a claim on account of a dishonoured promissory note, Mr Johnston for the plaintiff, Mr Kippenberger for the defendant, an agreement was arrived at, judgment being given for the plaintiff for £10, with costs. In Midgeley v Olliver, in which the plaintiff had obtained a judgment for £8 0s 2d, the defendant, by Mr Scott, applied for a rehearing. Mr Donnelly opposed, and the rehearing was not granted. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs in Gould Mid Lewis v Cole, £6; Harris vM. McNamara, £33 6s ; Official Assignee v Mrs Grant, £2; and Moir and Co. v Smith, £26 13s. In Moore v Ogden, £1 6s, on judgment summons, no order was made.