RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6164, 7 February 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Monday, Febr-Ojlry 6

(Before Mr T- K. Newton, J.P., and

Mr E. Lyndon, J.P. FALSE PRETENCES.

John Todd Stokes was charged with obtaining £3 lls by mear»3 of a valueless cheque, from S. A. Snelling. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Major Scully suggested that the Bench should, hear some of the facts, and called

S. A. Snelling, who stated that the prisoner came to his hotel and engaged another man to go with him to Makatoku. The defendant went out and came back some time after and said Mr Holt, from whom he had some money to draw, was not at home. Prisoner asked for two blank cheques, which witness gave him. Prisoner filled the two up, handed them to witness in payment for himself and his mate, and received £3 11s change. On presnting the cheques at the bank witness was informed there was no account in prisoner's name, and on enquiry he found that Mr Holt did not know the man.

The Bench : Did you know anything about the prisoner. Witness : ]N"o ; I had never seen him before.

The prisoner in self-defence stated that he was not in his right senses when he wrote tho chequea, and, ia support of his contention that he must hare been drunk, described pretty minutely how many glasses of different liquors he had had on tho day and night previous, and on the morning in question.

The Bench to the prisoner : WeU, you seom to have a very clear recollection of what you were doing.

Mr Suelling said that only one glass of beer was served to the prisoner, and ha was as sober as ho was then in Court.

The Bench said thoy were of opinion Mr Snelling was blameable to some extent. The prisoner was a total stranger to him, and Mr Snelling ought not therefore to have given him the blank cheques. This kind of offence was now so common that hotelkeepers and others should bo particularly careful as to who they received cheques from. The loss of the money j would no doubt prove a warning to Mr Snelling in the future. The excuse put ' forward by the prisoner was no palliation of the offence. Although prisoner said he bad been drinking he seemed to have a pretty good recollection of what he was doing. The "Bench were not inclined to inflict the highest penalty allowed by the law, because a good deal of negligence had been shown in permitting him to gain possession of the blank cheques, but substantial punishment must be inflicted. The prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labor. OBSCENE LANGUAGE AND ASSAULT. William DicUsou pleaded guilty to a charge of using obscene language in Hastings-street, and of having assaulted Constable Shanahan while in the execution of his duty. The prisoner appeared to have an animus against the constable, who he alleged had with others perjured himself against him (the prisoner) m a case at Gisborne. The prisoner's manner was very insolent, and he had to be told to keep quiet. On the first charge the prisoner was fined £3, or two months' imprisonment, and for the second offence, £2 or 0113 month, the sentences to bo cumulative. DRUJS'KKNNESS. David Oarswell waß fined 5s and coats for drunkenness. KESC UINO- AX IMPOUNDED HORSE. George Heam was charged by Thomw

Home, with unlawfully rescuing a horse while it was being driven to the pound. Mr Lee appeared for the complainant, and Mr Lascelles for the defendant, who pleaded not ffuilty. Thorfiaa Eorne, of Hastings, deposed that he was County Ranger. On Friday week he was at Olive and saw two 1 hdraes on the piiblic road. No one was in charge of them. One was a chestnut gelding and the other a black gelding. Witness was taking them to the pound, but on reaching Ruddick's gate they bolted itp the Havelock-road, and lie headed them backwards and forwards. He saw someone run into Ttuddick's paddock and open the gate. While witness was trying to drive the horses along by the right road they ran into tho open jjaddock. Mr Ituddick gave him leave to go into the paddock and take the horses. He tried to diive, them out, but the defendant, who gave his name as Jones, caught the chestnut and put a bridle on it. Witness told bim if he took the horae it would bo at his own peril, as he (witness) was taking it to the pouud. Defendaut said he did not care, and having saddled the horse he rode away on it.

By Mi- Lascelies : Witness did not know if the paddock was a public grazing paddock.

Constable Pickering deposed to asking defendant if he was the man who took the horse away. He aaid " Yes," he wanted it. By Mr Lascelies : Defendant said he had borrowed the horse from another man. H Eii ward Smith deposed to seeing tho complainant driving two horses. He saw them running up the Havelock-road, and some time after one of them ran into Ruddick's paddock, nnd the other horse followed. Before that he saw a man come from the hotel and open the gate. Mr Lascelies held that the prosecution must fail on the point that directly the horse 3 went on private property tho ranger's possession of them ceased. Mr liuddick should have been called to prove that he did actually tell the complainant to go into the paddock — the evidence as it stood was only hearsay. He called John PurJliss, who deposed that he owned a chestnut horsp, which he had kept in Ruddick's paddock for two months. He lent the horse to defendant. Witness had seen him in the paddock a quarter-of-an-hour before. Witness drova the horse in himself. By Mr Lee : Witness did not open the gate, nor ask anyone to do so. Defendant had seen the horse before. Before putting the horae into the paddock he had heard Home was driving it. The Bench said the case cauld not be sustained, and dismissed it with costs. In answer to Mr Lee, the Bench said they did not think it advisable to give any special reason for their decision. An exactly similar charge against Thomas Huxley was also dismissed. The Court then rose.