MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6534, 4 February 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Fbidat, Fbb. 8. (Before B. Boetham, Esq., 8.M.) DbtjbkbßßKSS.— Annie Wharton was fined 10s for being drunk in a public thoroughfare on the previous day. Dbsketino his vbbbbl. — Jack Bose, a seaman of H.M.S. Raleigh, was accused of deserting his vessel at Wellington, on August 11,1880. The accused admitted the offence, and was remanded for eight days to enable the police to.enquire if there was a man-of-war at Wellington on board which he could be sent.

liiLBOAUiT oh Pbbmisbs.—Thomas Brown, who was found on the premise* of Mr Philpott, St Asaph street, without lawful excuse on the night previous, was discharged, in consideration of this being his first offence. Ai&bqbs YioIiBHT Abbaui/t.—Danzie Cant and William Cant, father and Son, on remand from Feb. 1, were charged with violently assaulting John Hempleman at Fapanni, and with resisting Constable Flanagban in the execution of his duty. Mr Stringer appeared fortheaooused. JohnHempleman, a carrier, of Eoiapoi, deposed to being at the Fapanni Hotel on the evening of Jan. 81. He had no clear recollection of what took place. Remembered asking the elder prisoner for a lift in his cart to Kaiapoi, and receiving a blow on the mouth, but could not say from whom. Beoolleoted the constable coming and taking hold of him. Was badly bruised, and had to seek medical aid in Kaiapoi. Cross-examined; Did not think he had taken hold of Danzie Cant’s beard before being knocked down. William Penninghouse said he saw Hempleman lying on the ground covered with blood. He got up, and William Cant knocked him, down. The elder prisoner was also threatening him at the time. Saw one of the prisoners strike at the constable with a whip when the latter was endeavouring to arrest them. The barman of the Fapanni Hotel deposed to seeing William Cant strike Hempleman with a whip. The prisoners struck him when he was down. Cross-examined: The row took place outside the hotel. Hempleman came into the bar and offered to fight after it was over. He was nnder the influence of liquor. Constable Flanagban deposed that, hearing of a disturbance at the Fapanni Hotel last Tuesday he had gone there, and found Hempleman lying in the bur, and the prisoners standing beside him. The latter resisted violently when he endeavoured to arrest.them, necessitating his calling on a bystander to assist him. Dr Ovenden, of Kaiapoi, deposed as to the injuries received by Hempleman, that he was very much bruised abont thefaoe and head j the left elbow bruised and. lacerated ; there was alio a large bruise over the kidneys, which bad the appearance of having been produced by a kick. This concluded the case for the police. For the defence Mr Stringer submitted that the accused were justified in resisting the constable, who had no right to arrest them without a warrant, seeing that the offence wa* not committed in his presence. He called Richard Blackburn, who deposed that after a struggle between Hempleman and prisoners outside the hotel, - the former came into the bar and “ squared up ” to Danzie Cant, and the two engaged in a fight, which, was oyer when the constable arrived, and another witnesssaid he saw Hempleman take hold of the elder prisoner’s beard previous to the fighting. His Worship wa* of opinion that Hempleman was drunk at the tune, and had himself to blame for the trouble hehad got into. The case was therefore dismissed.

OiTiii Cash.—Lee v. George, claim £6O, for damages through alleged non-fulfilment of agreement. Mr Watson for plaintiff; Mr Holmes for defendant. Plaintiff was a batcher, who had leased a shop from defendant, the latter having agreed to erect a verandah round the shop to ensure the meat keeping good during hot weather. This had not been done, and a large quantity of meat had been rendered unfit for food during November last. The defendant had paid £2 14s fid into Court. He pleaded that there was no time stated for the erection of the verandah, and that plamtiff had no exact statement of the quantity of meat destroyed. His Worship could not hold that the damage was directly traceable to defendant, and gave judgment for the amount paid into Court, without costs.

TIMARU. Fbidat, Fbb. 8. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., 8.M.) Dettnkbnnbbs.—A man who appeared for the first time was fined 10s for having been drunk in a public street. —Peter Smith wae charged, under section 167 of the new Act, with unlawfully wasting his means by excessive drinking. Biohard Sullivan, watchhouse keeper at Timaru, proved that Smith had been convicted a dozen times since 1879 of drunkenness and vagrancy. He was a carpenter and a respectable man, except for his drunkenness, but he was wasting his time and means and injuring his health by excessive drinking. His Worship made an order forbidding any licensed or other person in Timaru supplying Smith with intoxicating liquor for the space of one year; and warned him that if he did not give up his bad habits foe would get others into trouble as well as himself.

FAIBB Pbbxbkobs.—Catherine Scott, a girl 16 years of age, pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining by means of false pretences some yards of lustre, a cape, and a Sair of shoes, of the value of £ll2s 4d, from fessrs Davis and Murphy. His Worship deciding to hear the evidence, Percy Freeman, draper at Messrs Davis and Murphy’s, stated that accused obtained the goods in question on Jan. 24, representing that they were for Mrs Hathaway. Jane Hathaway stated that accused was her sister, but she was not living with her. She never authorised the girl to get the goods. Constable Willoughby stated that he arrested the girl at Geraldine, and found the goods m her possession. She was wearing the boots. His Worship sentenced the girl to two months’ imorisonment, directing the gaoler to keep her separate from other female prisoners should any be sent to gaol during the term of her sentence. Stbaung took thb Pbbbon.—Thomas Beid was charged with stealing a silver watch from the person of Thomas Feely. Accused admitted that he took the watch. Mr Pender said it appeared the accused and prosecutor, with a third man, left Saltwater Creek on the evening of Jan. 81 in a dray, all three being intoxicated. They commenced showing watches to eaoh other. Ultimately Feely missed his watch, and there was no doubt Beid took it. He believed it was a mere drunken freak, and that Beid had no intention to steal the watch. He doubted whether there was any chance of a conviction if aoonsed were committed for trial. The prosecutor said he did not wish to press the charge. His Worship then dismissed the case, cautioning Beid to avoid drink in future. Fobobby and Uttbbiho.—John Thomas Healey was charged with forging, on Oot. 22 last, the name of John Priest, to a promissory note for £27 10s. Mr Jameson appeared for accused, who pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr Inspector Fender called the following evidence: Joiiah Ralph, clerk to Messrs Wildie, Allan, and Stumbles, atatedthat the accused brought the bill to their office on Oot. 24, to get it discounted, and one of the partners agreed to do it. Witness wrote out a cheque, as instructed, for £2fi 2s, beingthe amount of the bill less discount. Q. H. Wildie, a member of the firm of Wildie, Allan, and Stumbles, stated that the first time he saw the bill that he could recollect, was when it was shown to him by Mr Withey, of the bank, on its due date, but he must have seen it before

that, a* it bora hi* endoreemenfc, and (hat ha made on Jan. 26, the day after it wee received at the office. The signature, “J. T. Healey,” wagon the bill when witness endorsed it. Hehad never spoken to aoouead about the bill. John Priest, farmer, Pareore, had known aooneed eeven or eight yean, and had been on friendly terms with him. The eignatnre 11 J. Prieet ” at the foot of the bill produced, wag not in hi* handwriting, and he had never authorised anyone to sign each a bill. Accused had never spoken (o him about it. Did not know anyone else of the name of John Priest in the district. To Mr Jameson ; There are, or were, tome Priests about Kai* apoi, but I know nothing about them. Deteotive Kirby, who arrested accused, stated that the latter made no reply to the charge. He had made enquiries for another John Priest in South Canterbury and Christchurch, but could hear of none besides last witness. Mr Pender now asked to have the words " and uttering" added to the information, and this was done. A ' charge of forging the name of John Priest on a promissory note for £l2 10j was then proceeded with. D. M. Bess, of the firm of Boss and Sims, commission agents, Timaru, stated that accused brought the bill produced to his office and asked witness to discount it. He looked at the bill and asked which John Priest it was whose signature it bore. Accused replied: “ It’s old John Priest i the old man; you know him.” Witness understood him to mean John Priest, a farmer at Pareora. He knew no other John Priest, He believed accused endorsed the bill in his presence. The signature at the back of it was his. Witness’ partner was present, and he gave accused a cheque for £ll 16s (cheque produced) in exchange for the bill. The cheque was cashed and charged to his firm. J. Priest gave similar evidence in this as in the last case,—Accused was then charged with forging the name " Jamas Prouse and 0o.” on a cheque for £4O, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Waimate, and with uttering the cheque, knowing it to beforged. The following evidence wastaken : Miohaelf SpiUane, licensee of the Royal Hotel, Timarn, recognised the cheque produced. It was given to him at his house on or about Jan. 10 to change. Not having sufficient change, witness gave him £lO then, and accused endorsed the cheque, and the next day he gave aooneed the balance of the £4O. The cheque was on the Bank of New Zealand at Waimate, and accused said witness could pass it through his account at the Bank. He said nothing abont the signature. —B. M’Owen: Had been Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Waimate, during the last fire years. Beoolleoted the cheque produced being presented at the Bank. It was not paid, because there was no account under the name on the cheque, "James Pronseand Go.” There never was an aooonnt at the Bank under that name. There was no firm of that name in the Waimate district so far as witness was aware. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed, on each charge, for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court, at Timarn. Bail was fixed at two sureties of £250 each, and accused in £6OO.