CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10262, 3 February 1899, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Wednesday, February 1. (Before W. C. Pendall and T. Gapes, Esqs., J.P.'s.) Drunkenness. —For this offence a man and a woman, not convicted within the past six months, were each fined ss, or in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Affiliation Cask.—Joseph Ayres was charged with failing to make provision for an unborn illegitimate child, and, on the application of tne police, was remanded till February 7th, bail being allowed, two sureties *in £25 each. Bictclk on Footpath.—Arthur Joll, for riding a bicycle on a footpath, in Sydenham, was timed Eβ, with costs 7s. Alleged Assault. — A woman . was charged with assaulting another woman. The parties were in the lock-up for being found drunk, when, the prosecutor alleged, the accused struck her several times in the i face. The accused denied it, and there being no corroborative evidence, the case was dismissed. Thursday, February 2. (Before W. H. Hargreaves, C. M. Gray, and J. Hamilton, Esqs., J.P.'s.) Alleged Assault and Robbery.—Wm. Burns, alias James Munro, was charged with having, on February Ist, assaulted and robbed P. Hansun of a watch and chain, value £2. At the request of Chief Detective Chrystal, the ease was remanded till Wednesday, as the property had not been recovered, and there were circumstances connected witii the case wltich required time for investigation. The same accused pleaded ! guilty to having broken the window of a cab, value £2 2s. He was ordered to pay the damage, and was lined 20s, or in default to. be imprisoned for one month. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Cases.—Hickmott Bros. v. Vincent, claim £40 for money paid on behalf of the defendant, and for money alleged to have been rceived by the delendant. Mr Beswick appeared lor the plaintiffs, Mr Cressweii for the defendant. 'A he evidence had beeo taken at a previous sitting, and his Worship now, after naving argument, gave judgment for the defendant as to the money—£lo— had and received. On the other part ot tho claim he reserved judgment, mullock v Capon, claim £4 5s 6d as wages for ac.countant's work. Mr Widdowson for the plaintiff, Mr Byrne for the defendant. Judgment was for the plaintiff, for £2, without costs. Han-is v Cecily McDowell, wife of W. M. McDowell, claim £40 15s 5d on a dishonoured promissory note. Mr Cresswell for the plaintiff, Mr Maude for the defendant. Cecily McDowell stated that the note,, , was made by her husband in favour ot-i&xt* " J. M. McDowell, or order; she is hilTaunt, ■ and the mother of witness. On the',back it bore the name of her mother as endorser, that of witness as witness to that signature, and aJso as a second endorser. 'JLiie purporting to be that of her mother was not genuine; it was written by her husband. She did not see him write it, but he admitted to her that he had done so. V. Harrii, stated that he was the holder of the note. W. M. McDowell applied to him for a loan of £40, offering as security his aunt's endorsement. Three or four years ago witness had discounted a bill for McDowell, which purported to be endorsed by his aunt, and the signature proved to be a forgery, but the note was paid by Mrs J. M. McDowell On account of that incident, witness said if he; got Mrs McDowell's endorsement there must be a witness to the signature. Finally, W.M. McDowelj. and Cecily McDowell came to his office with the endorsement on the note. Witness asked the defendant if she had seen her mother write her name. She said she had. Witness wrote words to that effect on the back of the note, and she sighed it, and witness gave McDowell a cheque for £37. The note was dishonoured. Before that witness heard that McDowell had been arrested for forgery, and he was now in gaoL Mrs J. . M. McDowell stated that the endorsement was not in her writiftg. Some years ago there was a similar occurrenoS, but that.time she,, had.paid the discounter. The defence was that the note being mode payable to* Mrs J; M. McDowell, or order, should bear her endorsement. ' The fictitious signature was not hex endooFßcmeat, there was no delivery, therefore the note was inchoate and incomplete, and could not form the cause of action. In reply Mr Cresswell submitted that the defendant was estopped from objecting that the endorsement was not made by her mother, represented to the plaintiff that it* was so signed, and she could not take advantage of her misrepresentation. His Wor- • ship concurred in this view, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs £4 3s against the separate estate of the defendant. Judgment went for plain-tiffs-by-default with costs in Berry and Co. v. Sutherland, 12s 6d; same v. Saulbury, £2 9s 4d; same v. Smith, and Ready, £3 10s 3d; same v. J. J. Casaidy, £30 6s 9d; same v. Erskine.(costs), 6s; Lyttelton Times Company v. Sorton, £9 6s lid; and Preeco y. Hcrivenor, £5 7s 6d. Bridgman v. Hornsby, claim £1 3s on. judgment summons; the debtor did not appear, and was ordered to pay forthwith or, in default, seven days'im- ,- prisonment. ' Berry and Co. v. Maston, and same v. King were adjourned till February 9th, Paget v. McAuley till March 2nd.