MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 8787, 8 May 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHUEOH. Tuesday, Mat 7. (Before R. Westenra, James Gapes, and James Forrester, Esqs.) Laecent. Henry Jackson (thirteen) pleaded “ Guilty ” to a charge of stealing a gold watch, valued at £34, the property of Thomas W. Hasten, at Linwood, on May 5. Detective Doolan said Hasten left the watch hanging in his waistcoat in Jackson’s stables, where he was employed. The watch was in the pocket, and returning shortly afterwards, he missed it. Accused had been seen about the place, and enquiries were made about him. The boy’s father afterwards handed them the watch. Accused said he took it to play with. Detective Neil said accused was, as a rule, a well-behaved, honest boy.' The Bench remanded accused till the following day, when the Probation Officer would bring up a report. Charges of Foegert. —Charles William Dawson alias' William Eix Rose was charged with forging the name of B. Gray to a cheque on the Bank of New South Wales for £9, and uttering it to James Hooper on April 20. The same accused was further charged with forging a cheque bearing the name of Ernest Gray on the Bank of New Zealand, and uttering it to Francis C. Hooper on May 6; also with obtaining, by means of false representations, the sum of 80s from Francis Bridges on May 5. The police said they were not yet prepared to proceed with the charges, and asked for a remand, which was granted to May 13. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. —John M. Walker v. E, Truman, claim £32 12s 6d; adjourned to May 14.—G. Hutchinson v. F. W. Delamain, claim £42 17s; adjourned to May 14. H. W. Read v. Mary Anne de Weston, claim 16s Bd. Mr Byrne for plaintiff; Mr Russell for defendant. The claim was for interest due on a mortgage by defendant to plaintiff, and possession of tenement. James Anderson, law clerk, swore to a mortgage executed by Mary Anne de Weston to H. W. Read, for £3120, on Dec. 23, 1887, for a term of one year, but, in the event of interest being punctually paid, the principal would not be called up till June 23, 1892. Defendant, however, was to keep the house insured in an approved office. Previous to April, 1889, three quarters’ interest was due under the mortgage, and was not paid until April 15. The premium on insurance was due on Oct. 3, 1888, by the mortgagor, and was still in default. Cross-examined: Plaintiff ultimately distrained for rent. There was no interest due on the mortgage at the present time, except that sued for. The insurance due on Oct. 3 had been paid by Mr Bruges, as-Read’s agent, on Oct. 8. Did not know why 16s 8d had been charged as rent of the place from March 23 to April 23. Robert M'Clelland, a bailiff, had demanded possession of the place from defendant, who said she would give up possession when she was ready to. That was previous to the other action. The place was worth 6s or 7s per week. W. D. Bishop, clerk to Mr Bruges, served a notice on defendant for payment of principal and interest. Mary Anne de Weston said she .saw Goodman, and tried to get him to lend £340 on the property to a proposed purchaser. But the loan and the sale fell through. She admitted being in default with the insurance premium. Mr Russell said that, under Section 96 of the Land Transfer Act, plaintiff should have foreclosed on the mortgage, and sold up the property. The fact that the interest being paid on April 15, and demand being made on April 16 for the principal, could fairly be argued that there was animus on the part of the plaintiff, and a desire to oppress the defendant. He recalled defendant, who said that Goodman tendered the principal to plaintiff ten months ago, and Read refused to take it. Goodman afterwards refused to advance the money. The Bench remarked that the offer was contingent on the money being advanced, and as that was not done, the statement that the money had been offered was valueless. It was admitted that defendant had committed a breach of the mortgage by, being in default with the insurance. The place would be ordered to be given up on May 22, but the Bench would not give judgment for the amount of the claim, but defendant would be ordered to pay costs, £2 4s. —C. Hewatt v. E. Hiorns, claim £3l 10s; judgment for defendant. RANGIOEA. Tuesday, May 7. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., and the Mayor.) Assault. —Richard Clark was charged, on the information of his wife Elizabeth, with assault on April 28. Mr Gresson appeared for the defence. The evidence of the complainant was that on the day in question accused struck her on the chest. In a lengthy cross-examination by Mr Gresson, the complainant entered into a dissertation on her matrimonial troubles, which had extended over a period of fourteen or fifteen years. Mr Gresson, however, elicited the fact that she had on several occasions absented herself from home, going to Timaru, Christchurch, and Rangiora at various periods. Subsequently, however, by arrangement between the parties, the assault was dismissed, on the understanding that Clark gave up complainant’s clothes, and an order was made for him to pay her at the rate of 8s a week on the second charge of failing to provide for her maintenance. Indecent Assault. —Frank Reeves (16) was charged on the information of Mary Bennett, a girl aged fifteen and a half years, with committing an aggravated assault of this nature. Mr Gresson prosecuted ; Mr Helmore defended. The complainant made a long statement of her case, which was to the effect that on April 29 when she was at home alone, her mistress, Mrs T. White, being away at the time, the accused, who drives a baker’s cart, and calls at the house daily, and is usually paid for the bread he leaves, called. She asked him for two small loaves. He would not leave the bread without the money, and immediately after committed the alleged assault. In cross - examination by Mr Helmore, complainant stated that she had been an inmate of the Industrial School till nine years ago, when she went to live at Kaiapoi. She had not long since run away from there, and had gone to Woodend to reside with a Miss Ainsworth. During Mr Helmore’s crossexamination several expressions of opinion were given vent to by the public present, and once, when a titter arose, the Court was cleared by the Magistrate’s orders. Mrs T. White, Mr White and Dr Clayton gave evidence for the prosecution. Mr Helmore reserved the defence, and accused was committed for trial, bail being allowed in two approved sureties of £3150 each. Civil Cases. —North Canterbury Watch and Clock Company v. A. Nelson, claim £2 2a; judgment for plaintiff by default.— W. j. Crothers and Co. v. G. Burt, claim £34 16s; judgment for plaintiff by default.