THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 5992, 26 May 1882, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—Thomas Bennett v. W. Grey, claim L2l 7b, for goods supplied; George O'Driscoll v. Richardson and Co., L 4 6s) James R. Scott v. Crawford Bros., LSB 6s lid, on a promissory note ; Thomas Bennett v. George Wood, L 25 17s 2d, for goods supplied ; James Harris v. W. Frith, L 5, for clothes supplied. Griff en and M'Carthy v. J. Wallace (Lawrence). —In this case, which had been previously decided, in defendant's absence, in favor of plaintiff, Mr Howorth now applied to have the judgment set aside, on the ground that there was an informality in the original summons, which called on defendant to appear on the 16th inst., whereas the case was disposed of on the 15th inst.—Mr Callan opposed the application, eaying that there was no evidence to prove that defendant came to town on the 16th inst. to defend the case.—His Worship said that the judgment could not stand, it having been given on the basis of a false or incorrect affidavit. A rehearing had better be applied for. M. Smith v. J. Gibb.—Claim, L 6 Is 2d, on a judgment summons.—Defendant agreed to pay the amount by three monthly instalments, in default seven days' imprisonment.

Stewart and Donniston v. W. Burnett.— Claim, Ll7 10s, on a judgment summons.— Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for the payment of the amount within seven days, in default fourteen days' imprisonment.

John Hyde Harris v. H. Smith.-Claim, Lll, for legal services rendered.—Defendant admitted the claim, and judgment was given accordingly. Same v. Emma Williamson.—Claim, L2 ss, for legal services rendered. —Defendant disputed part of the claim, on the ground that the charges were too high.—His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed. Same v. James Thomson.—Claim, L 24 8s lOd, for legal services rendered.—Defendant pleaded that plaintiff agreed to'do the work for Ll2, of which amount witness had paid Ls.—Plaintiff contradicted this statement, and said that defendant had agreed to pay the account if given time.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Same v. J. Jackson.—Claim, LI lis Gd, for legal services rendered.—Defendant pleaded that he had paid the amount to plaintiff's collector, one Dudfield.—John Carey Dudfield statid that he was authorised by John E. H. Harris, plaintiff's son, to collect several accounts due to the plaintiff, and he received the amount of this claim from defendant. Witness did not know what authority J. E. H, Harris had to get these accounts collected. To plaintiff: I never received any authority from you to collect the accounts. Your son had a list of seventy or eighty accounts, and authorised me to collect part of them. —Mr Macdonald remarked that there were several cases on the list in a similar position to this one. It appeared that J. E. H. Harris had received moneys from several of his father's debtors. Perhaps it would be well for the cases to be adjourned for a week, to enable young Harris to be called. —The caso was adjourned accordingly. Same v. Q. Williden.—Claim, L 3 Bs, for legal services rendered. —This was a similar cue, defendant having paid part of the claim to young Harris, and th« matter was also adjourned. Same v. W. Allan.—Claim, L 3 8s Bd, for legal services rendered. Mr Macdonald, who appeared for defendant, stated that this was a similar case to the preceding.—Case adjourned accordingly. Same v. W. Gawne.—Claim, L 4 13s 6d, for legal services rendered.—Defendant disputed the charges, as being higher than agreed on.— His Worship held that defendant had failed to prove the agreement, and gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Same v. J. Kussell.—Claim, L 4 2s Bd, for legal services rendered. Mr A. Bathgate appeared for defendant.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for L2, with half costs. Same v. J. Deuohrass. Claim, L 5 8s 4d, for legal tervices rendered. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

James Anderson v. W. Munn.—Claim for wages as seaman on board the brig Emily. This and the three other similar cases, which were adjourned from Friday last with a view of a settlement being arrived at, were resumed to-day. Mr W. D. Stewart appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr Solomon for defendant. —The plaintiff Anderson stated that when he signQd articles he was told they expired in the first week in May, but he found that they did not expire till the 31st in9t. The defendant had got the trestle-trees repaired, but not in the proper way. Witness had not got anyone to inspect the job.—Mr Solomon said that since the first hearing of the case the plaintiffs had left the ship with all their effects. The trestletrees had been thoroughly repaired and the vessel surveyed by Captain Kussell, Lloyd's Surveyor. Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs could not recover till their articles expired.—Defendant stated that he had taken steps to strengthen the trestle-trees, although the ship was perfectly seaworthy without.—His Worship said that the plaintiffs were seeking to recover before their term was up, and they must therefoie be nonsuited with costs. Ho could see no ground whatever for the statements made by plaintiffs' counsel that the case was one of hardship to the plaintiffs; on the other hand he thought it would be a very serious matter indeed if sailors could leave a ship whenever they pleased, B. Crossland v. W. Munn.—Claim. L 4 2s 6d, balance of wages duo. Mr W. D. Stewart appeared for plaintiff; Mr Solomon for defendant.—Plaintiff stated that he was engaged as cook and steward at Port Chalmers by defendant on the 10th met., by the month, at L 6 10? per month. On the 21st inst. defendant discharged him, saying he had thought witness was a temperate man. Defendant paid him up to. 20th inst. Cross-examined : Witness was not given to drinking, and he wa3 quite sober last Sunday He wa3 not taken on trial. On being discharged he asked the owner for the Sunday's wages, but did not claim the balance due for a month.—Two witnesses deposed to seeing plaintiff on the Sunday, and that he was sober them—Defendant stated that he did not engage plaintiff for any particular period, but said he would pay him at the rate of L 6 10s per month. About 1 a.m. on the 21st inst. defendant came on board in an intemperate state.—Plaintiff, re-called, stated that he could have got work elsewhere on leaving the ship.—His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for LI 10s, with costs. [Left sitting.] j

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. Logan, Esq., J.P., J. Hyman, Esq., J.P., and J. P. Jones, Esq., J.P.) Drunkenness.— The following offenders were dealt with: Margaret Thompson, William Riordan, and diaries Johnson. A House of 111-fame.— James O'Brien was charged with being the occupier of a house frequented by persons having no visible lawful means of support.—Accused pleaded not guilty. —Detective Bain stated that at ten o'clock last night a terrible scene was enacted in front of the accused's house in Miller's lane, off Hanover street. The house was full of prostitutes of the lowest grade, and these were quarrelling amongst themselves and with the accused. The row was a most disgraceful one and attraoted some 100 persons to the spot. When witness entered the house accused bolted out by the back door, but wa3 arrested before he got very far away. Witness had been compelled to visit the house day and night for the laßt month, and he had never

once entered it without having found some of the lowest characters in the town congregated there. The locality in which accused's house was situated was a perfect den, and the terror of the peaceful inhabitants surrounding it.— Evidence was given of the previous bad character borne by the accused, and records of numerous convictions were produced. The Bench inflicted a sentence of three months' imprisonment, with hard labor. Larceny from a Dwelling. Charles D'Oyley Cooper, a most disreputable looking object, pleaded guilty to having broken into an unoccupied house on the Peninsula on the 19th inst., and stolen therefrom a number of household articles of the value of L2 10s, the property of William Buskin.—Accused was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labor.

Forgery.— Samuel Henry Zees was_ charged with having forged a cheque on the Union Bank of Australia for L 8 10s 6d and uttered it to Frederick Thurgarland. Mr MacDermott appeared for the accused, and Detective "Walker conducted the case for the prosecution. —Frederick Thnrgadand, clothier, carrying on business in George street, deposed: The accused came to my place on Saturday afternoon, the 20th inst., and bought several articles amounting in value to 17s 6d. He presented a cheque (produced) on the Union Bank of Australia for L 8 10s 6d, and I handed him the change, L 7 13s. When I presented the cheque at the bank ou Monday it was returned to me marked "Signature ÜBlike —refer to drawer," To Mr MacDermott: I have no doubt now that the cheque is a good security for the amount, L 8 10s 6d, anil I would not be disposed to take less for it. To the Bench : I snowed the cheque subsequently to Lees, and then laid an information because I thought it was not a geod one. —William L. Lees, wool and grain buyer, Manse street, stated: The signature to the cheque produced is not mine nor is it like it. I always sign "W. L. Lees." I keep an account at the Unjon Bank. To Mr MacDermott : Accused has been in my employment for some time, and he had authority to sign my name to snipping and other documents in my absence. I believe ho signed that cheque, without any felonious intent. Detective Walker objected to such evidence and the Bench upheld tho objection. Witness continued: I believe that he signed that cheque as an order upon mo believing that I would pay it, and I admit my liability to pay. I don't wish to prosecute. To Detective Walker: In signing shipping orders he signed my name. Defective Walker: Has he ever signed your name to money orders or cheques before this ? He has drawn orders on me signing his own name.—Has he ever signed your name to cheques before? No; nor have I authorised him to sign cheques with my name. —How long has he been in your employ in connection with the present business ? About six weeks—The Bench : When you say "other documents," does that include cheques on the Bank? No.—William Alves, ledger-keeper in the Union Bank, stated that the last witness had an account at his Bank and he knew his signature. That on the cheque produced was not the last [witness's, but it had some resemblance. —Mr MacDermott: A family resem blance, I suppose. —Witness : There is no other W. D. Lees with an account at the Bank. The cheque was not cashed, and witness endorsed it '' Signature unlike—refer to drawer.'' This was the case for the prosecution.—Mr MacDermott then submitted that the case was one which should be dismissed for it was quite elear that there was nobody who wished to prosecute. The accused's father was a respectable man, and the family were also respectable. It would'be a grievous disgrace to them that the young man should be committed for trial on a charge of felony. If the Bench could see their way to deal reasonably and mercifully with the case, he was sure they would dismiss it. Nobody seemed to be defrauded, for the first witness now regarded the cheque as a valuable security, and very properly said that he would not part with it for a less amount than its actual value. The father could have paid the cheque if he had thought proper, and then there would have been an end of the affair ; but it seems when he was waited on he considered it necessary to make an investigation, and have an explanation from his son why he had exceeded the authority which he manifestly had to a certain extent. It was clear that if the father really felt that a serious charge of felony were likely to be preferred against his son he would have paid the cheque at once. The father did not even venture to say that the cheque was signed with the intention to defraud him. The thing was done openly, and might have been done on some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the authority given by the father to sign his name. He (the learned counsel) asked if it were not hard, under such circumstances, to say that a felony had been committed, and he asked the Bench to give the young man the benefit of tho doubt. No grand jury would find a true bill. The act was no doubt an imprudent one, and it would bo a lesson to the accused for ever after. The father was very much to be commended for having exposed his son to the ordeal, and the young man must feel acutely the wretched and humiliating position which his , indiscretion had placed him in. The young man had mistaken his powers, and he once more I asked the Bench to dismiss the case.—Mr Logan: Yom arguments are more suitable to the other Court, Mr MaoDermott.—Mr MacDermott : I don't want it to go to the other Court. — Mr Logan: We have very little power here.— Accused, after receiving tho usual caution, was committed to take his trial, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of LIOO and two sureties of LSO each,