MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 76, 28 August 1874, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

i Friday, August 28. .pßofoirelC. C. BowenvEsq., R.M.] j DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Charles Webster, arrested by constable Hughes, for being drunk and creating a disturbance at the Theatre, was fined 20s, or , £orty?ejgbt hours. j ■■'■■' •' D6nald Kellis, for being drunk' and committing an act of exposure in Cathedral square, -was also fined 20s. OBTAINING MONEY BY MEANS OF VALUELESS CHEQUES.

James McGill was charged on remand; with obtaining money and goods by means of ■ valueless ohequee. . J. W.'Srhith 1 , licensee of the White Horse Hotel, stated that on the 26th July he was in possession of some cheques on the Bank of New Zealand, Ashburton, drawn by the •prisoner. Paid them into the Bank to his (witness') account. They were returned N.S.F. Received a notice from the Bank afterwards. Saw the prisoner on the 127th July, : and on the 29th July showed him the notice he (witness) had received from the Bank. Had two of prisoner's cheques for £5 each."- 1 '■■:'. _ By Prisoner—You told me you'd make it all right when you went up to the Ashburton.

Wm Gavin stated that, on the: 11th August, the prisoner went into his shop in Cashel street, looked out some goods, and offered to pay for them with a cheque He gave the cheque for £3 produced, in payment. He (witness) filled up the body of the cheque, and prisoner signed it. Paid prisoner the balance of the cheque in cash. The prisoner took the goods away. Would not have parted with the goods or money if he did not think that the cheque would have been honored at the bank. Thornhill Cooper—Agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Ashburton, stated that the cheque produced was entered in his register by his predecessor as honored. From looking at the cheque, he saw it had been through the bank and returned dishonored, as there were not sufficient funds to meet it. The prisoner has 6s 6d to his credit at the bank. The account had not been operated upon Since the 27th May last. The bank would not pay the prisoner's cheques if he had not sufficient to his credit to meet them. Prisoner's account was overdrawn on one occasion for a short time. Prisoner has not taken any steps to see how his account stood.' I i >,::. nnnvaA ~';...< :h ri •■! ■■<■ ■ • '

By the prisoner—You opened your account with £SB. I do not know what was the second amount you paid in. To the Bench—l should not think that the prisoner had any reasonable ground to suppose that his cheque for £3 would be honoured. I don't know whether he had any instruction from the Bank that his cheques would not be honoured. By Detective Feast—lt was my predecessor who dishonoured the cheque given to Mr Gavin. Prisoner wished permission to ask Mr Oram a question, which was granted. Mr Oram to prisoner—My manager has often received cheques from you at the Ashburton, and they have always been honoured. By Detective Feast—l have not received payment of any cheques since I gave evidence yesterday. The prisoner said that he opened his account at Ashburton with £SO, and afterwards paid in £6O. Mr Buddie, in the Bank, has often given him an overdraft, as much as £lO on one occasion; and he (prisoner) had always made his account right afterwards. He did not keep a cheque-book, and always left it to Mr Buddie. His Worship said that it was evident the prisoner had an account at the Bank, and through the drunken life lately led by the prisoner that he might possibly have made a mistake. There was some doubt about it, and as it verged so closely on a criminal charge, he was desirous of giving the prisoner the benefit of this doubt. If a civil action were taken against the prisoner, he would give judgment and issue a warrant of execution. Detective Feast told his Worship he had six or seven other cheques uttered by the prisoner to different persons in the city. His Worship said he would issue immediate summonses to the other persons if they desired to proceed with the cases civilly. Detective Feast said he knew of one cheque which had been given by the prisoner, who represented himself as being a farmer and also having an hotel. His Worship decided to dismiss the present charge against the prisoner, aud to remand him on the other charges for further information until Tuesday next. On the application of the prisoner, his Worship said he would admit him to bail in two sureties of £IOO each. LYTTELTON. Thursday, August 27. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] assault. . This was an adjourned case: Robert Boyd was charged with having assaulted his wife, Mary Boyd. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the complainant. The complainant stated that between 10 arid 11 o'clock on Monday night accused came home in an intoxicated state, and struck her on the face and behind the ear. Accused had on a previous occasion been bound over to keep the peace. He was always intoxicated, and treated her like a dog. She (plaintiff) was in terror of her life. She supported herself entirely, receiving no aid whatever from him. Constable Wallace said that as he was passing the house on Monday evening last plaintiff called him in and stated that she was being violently assaulted by complainant. He had served the summons on accused and read' it. When he had done this accused had rushed into the house with the intention of assaulting his wife, and would have done so had it not been for his interference. Mr H. N. Nalder addressed the Beiich, and asked ;that accused-should be bound over to keep the peace for a long term. If accused would agree to a deed of separation, the bond would not be enforced. The Bench sentenced the accused to seven days imprisonment with hard labour, and to find sureties' to ensure his keeping the peace for six months ; but if he consented to a deed of separation the latter sentence would not be carried out. The accused stated that he was willing to sign a deed of separation. breach of public house ordinance. .Mr .Saunders, of the Mitre Hotel, was charged with this offence. Sergeant-major O'Grady stated that on Sunday last, between the house of 4 and 5 p.m., he went down to the Mitre Hotel. He went himself to the front door, and sent a constable to the back. Saunders was in the passage; he went in, and closed the door as he was coming in. He went into the large room, arid found five people present. Three of these had drinks in their hands. There was no hindrance to his entrance into the hotel. By Mr Nalder : He had not received any information of the breach of the Ordinance. The three meu drinking were from, Christchurch. Their names had been procured. There were only two other people in the room. He did not see them taking any drink. He was in charge of the Lyttelton police. Constable McGorman stated that according to instructions received from Sergeantmajor O'Grady, he went to the Mitre Hotel and entered by the back door. He saw three persons in the front room drinking. He left by the front door. By Mr Nalder: He was sent to the back door by the sergeant-major. Two captains ' then gave evidence. They stated that they were lodgers at the hotel. They were at the hotel when it was visited by the police. They had engaged beds at the Mitre during their stay in port after their vessels had left the wharf. They had their meals at the hotel. Sergeaut-Major O'Grady said he consisidered it was an infringement of the ordinance. The front door of the hotel was open, although he ought to state that not the slightest opposition had been made to his entry into the house. Mr Nalder said it was an unfortunate circumstance that he could not put the defendant in the box, or he would have been able at once to disprove the charge. The landlord distinctly denied having used the bar. The facts of the case were that three men came in from Sumner, and being Christchurch residents, demanded refreshment. This was to them not from the bar, but from the rear of the building. He should like to ass whether the Bench thought the front doors of the hotel should be closed and locked, his reading of the Ordinance was entirely different. He (Mr Nalder) objected strongly to the present system of espionage, and thought it wanted stopping. Constables had every right to go into any house between the hours of six in the morning and eleven at night, but had no right to spy about the back premises unless they had good grounds for suspecting a breach of the Ordinance was intended.

The Bench said that unfortunately, the drinking in Lyttelton was notorious. The captains whose vessels were lying in the stream had an tin loubtcd right to a bed at any hotel on shore, and should have the same privileges as oilier lodgers. The police had shown a strong prima facie case against Saunders, but the offence was not proved. Case dismissed. CIVIL CASE. Butler v Oram.—This was an action to recover £4O 9s 8d for wages due and materials supplied to defendant. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the plaintiff. The Bench after hearing the evidence adduced by both parties, gave judgment for full amount for the plaintiff, with solicitors' fees, £3 3s, witnesses' expenses 10s and Court costs. The Court then rose. KAIAPOI. Thursday, Aucust 27. [Before B. G. Kerr, Esq., Mayor.] POLICE ORDINANCE. Patrick O'Neil, in custody, thought to be a discharged soldier who had served eighlten years in the Crimea, India, Malta, and New Zealand, was charged by Constable Haldane. with having been drunk, disorderly, and using abusive language at the railway station on the previous day. Fined 10s and costs.