MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11898, 23 May 1899, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHtJRCH, Monday, .May 22,

(Before air W. H. Cooper, J.P., and Cap-

tain T. M'ClateEie, J.P.)

: : Ds,tjnkenness:—One, first offender, a young man, was convicted and, discharged> while'another,' a woman, who did not appear, .was- fined ss. Christina Lawson, a very old offender, was sentenced to fourteen imprisonment. Illegally on Premises. —Patrick John , 6'Connell pleaded guilty to a charge of havi ing. been illegally on the premises of Campbell and Crust. Sub-Inspecfcor O'Brien said the accused had been almost continually on the " spree " for the last three months. He left- his family, and the police would suggest that if lie were remanded for a few -davs he might uget some of the drink out : of "him* and pei&aps be able to go to worlf. It was not suggested that he had been dn the promises of Campbell and Crust for any. unlawful The"accused"', ■ was remanded till May 26. .Alleged Theft of Money.—William. Shaw was charged with having, on May 11, stolen £237 from the person of John. Wilson. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, and Sub-Inspector O'Brien conducted the prosecution. John Wilson, a saddler at Amberley, deposed that on May 11 he came to Christchurch. He had in his pocket-book two £IOO notes, six £5 notes and seven £1 notes, and a deposit receipt from the Union Bank for £1751. In Christchurch he bought, an overcoat, for which he paid with .three £1 >notes. He went to' the City Hotel, having;previously had-'two drinks,' and. saw •■ the'accused upstairsr in! the 'billiard-room..'. 'He had first met .the j'aecused.- in .March last. He could not'say whether he'had any drinks in the billiard : room,"or'how lohg : Ee stayed there. He went downstairs again and stood out- [ side under the verandah:for some time, and ' then went into the front bar. After being there for a little while he was called on to pay for five drinks and a broken glass. This he did with,a .£l.note, which he tookoui>- df- ;; 'his^• pocket-book. -y'-iat-'''' the tiine-. the accused was standing alongside land'must'have seen where he put his: pocket-book. He had . been carryiirg the two £IOO notes in /his pocketbook for nearly two years. While stand-, ing outside.the hote,l, .about eight, the ; .accused invited"'witness * r t?a '-'go'--' 'i6t a walk. They went down Colombo Street and called in at the Prince of Wales Hotel. They stayed there for some time, and then, at the accused's suggestion, left. Bv this time witness was pretty far gone in liquor, and could not say -what direction they took. The accused shortly after parted company with witness, remarking that he would see him again. .Immediately after he went, witness missed his pocket-book. Later on witness, found himself locked up for drunkenness, and reported his loss to the police. The following '■ day he went with ChiefDetective Chrystal to the Eiccarton Hotel, where they saw the accused. When charged with stealing witness's money, the accused made no reply, and on being searched was found to have a £5 note and a £1 note. The. £5 note he said had been given to him by' Mr Lewis, a horse-trainer of .Ashburton, aS wages. The accused? s" bedroom was searched, but no more bank notes were found. The Chief-Detective went downstairs to make inquiries about the accused's return home the previous night, and while he was away the accused and witness had somß conversation. Witness told Shaw that if he got his money back, no more would be heard of the affair. Shaw replied that he had not got it, and 3id not know how much witness had lost. If witness would wait till the next day SEaw said he would give him what he had in the Savings Bank. Witness believed the two £IOO notes produced were his, andhebadanidea that the £5 note was his, but he could not say as to the £1 note. He had heard that the JtilOO notes hadijeen found in the City Hotel, but did not think it was possible that he had dropped them there. To Mr Donnelly: He did not shout for some people in the City Hotel' 1 billiard-room, and .pay with a £5 note. He did not remember having ordered the drinks for which he was called on to pay. He went to the City Hotel about two or three o'clock, and it was dark when he left to walk down the street with Shaw. In the interval he had spent a good time outside talking with different people. Harry .Ernest Oppenheim, barman at the Prince of. Wales Hotel, deposed to seeing Wilson and Shaw on the night of May 11. They were there for nearly two hours, and : had several drinks together, Wilson being served with limejuice and soda and Shaw with claret and lemonade. Millie Le Sueur, barmaid in the Jbiffiard-room at the City Hotel, deposed to seeing Wilson on the afternoon of May 11- The former shouted for 1 several strangers, and gave inpayment a £5 note. Shaw was in the room before Wilson camei Robert Alexander, licensee of thVCity Hotel, and Irene Ryan, waitress at that hotel, also gave evidence. ChiefDetective Chrystal deposed to going, on March 12, with Wilson, to the Racecourse Hotel, where he saw Shaw, who, when questioned as to his movements the previous night, said that he had returned home at 10.45. • Witness was, however, informed that his bed bad not been, slept in that night. On the day foUowing witness received the two £IOO notes from a' ■ jockey named Hussey at the,; Detective Office. Wilson said he was satisfied that the notes were his property. To Mr Donnelly: Hnssey said he found the notes on the floor of the billiard-room of the City Hotel, between three and four o'clock on May 11. Lucmda Halll, housemaid at the Racecourse Hotel, deposed that the accused did not sleep- at the hotel on the night of May 11. Edward Hussey, jockey, deposed that he handed over two £IOO notes to ChiefDetective Chrystal on the morning of May 13. His statement that he found them on the floor of the "billiard-room of the City Hotel) was true. He Went to the billiardroom about "foiif O'clock on the afternoon .of May 11;.and was.there for about a quarter of an hour. : Shaw was there, playiv billiards, at the time, but Wilson was not there. Cross-examined .by. Sub-Inspector O'Brien: Claitc-n,.who was with .witness, saw the'notes first, but did hot pick them up, as he was keeping the score. Witness put the notes in his pocket, and only looked at them when they were down the street He gave one of them to Claxton. The only other person whom he told of the find! was "Smiler" Knight, .who advised} him to keep the notes for a couple of days, and see if there was a reward offered. If no reward was offered, he told him either to put an advertisement in the papers or hand the notes over to the police. On Saturday morning, May 13, Knight came out to Eiccarton to tell.him that the polce were looking for the money, and that he had better hand it over to them. J. Claxton also gave evidence as.to the finding of the notes. Sub-Inspector O'Brien applied for a remand till Saturday, m order that they might obtain the- evidence of ; Mrj Lewis, of Ashburton. He-said that witness would' swear that when paying Shaw he had not given §nr a"£s note, but four £1 notes.- Mr Donnelly opposed the appli: been brought against his client. There had already been one remand granted, and it would, be unfair to .adjourn the case again.. After consideration, the Beneh ! said that they considered the case a rather weak one, and not one on which a jury would convict. They would therefore, dismiss the case. This decision was received with applause, which was quickly suppressed. (Before Mr A. Scott, J.P., and Mr E. , Smith, J..P.) '-. Civil Cases. Judgment went for plaintiff by default, with costs in the following cases:—F. C. Raphael v. G. J. Webster, ■ claim £l4; M. Jones v. W. Hobbs, claim £ll9s 4d. A number of cases were .adjourned, as follows:—May 25—C. J. Mountfort v. A. T. Chapman, £25 14s; Cook and Gray v. E. Carroll, £4l; Official Assignee v. White and Co., £B4 3s 2d. May '29—A. H. Anderson v. Knizetfc, £7O 6s 9d; G. W. Macfarlane v. J. Ross, £24 2s lid.; S. Sadler jtlJv Glenie, £39 8s 10a.; D. Hillv. the Bank of" Australasia. £47 l6st 6d; J.Dillbway v. G. Hamill, £7O lis lOd. June 5 J. . Daroley v. Heathcoto Road District, £2ll Ta.<Jut«ura'T. Trustees late J. King, 7s J. Miller v: W.'H. Stokes, claim £lO. Mr Thomas for lie plaintiff and Mr ,I^^aU^or^-dsifoad»at v The-daim....was ;

for money which it was stated had been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant when he was " hard up " in Sydney. In defence, the defendant admitted having received the money, but said that Miller-had given St to bim- unconditionally to put into a scheme or system of backing racehorses' in Australia, which he (defendant) had come over from New Zealand to put into operation. There were contributions. into a general fund, manipulated-by defendant, from several persons, but after consistently following the principles laid down hi the system for some time, with rather disheartening results, he put up the shutters and returned to the land of his adoption, convinced that the Sydney bookmaker was just one-degree too " downy " for him. Before leaving Sydney, however, Miller made a demand for the return of the money. He had given it in thfe first place to defendant unconditionally, and it had all been but rather thaii have any trouble about it, defendant promised to give him back £lO, but he was going to dp so at his pleasure. He did not really owe ifc to him. Questioned by Mr Thomas as to the nature of the-system, the defendant was very reluctant to say'ariy-'' thing, -but'at"length explained that the.' underlying principle was to- back-a favourite* eVery" time.' Mr Thomas : Why;' is nothing fresh in' that. Everybody backs a favourite. And do you really mean to say that Miller gave you this money to do as you liked with, and not to be held accountable for it? Defendant: Oh, there are a lot of details about the system besides backing favourites. Miller knew all about it. It took me about two hours to explain it to him, but he was quite satisfied, and gave a contribution to' carry it on with. Mr Dougall submitted that if the Bench held that the money had been lent to carry on the scheme it was not recoverable at law. It was monev lent .-'for betting purposes, and therefore the plaintiff could have no legal remedy. The Bench came to the' conclusion that no betting scheme, such as could be called a scheme, had been disclosed. Judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, £2 Bs. F. H-- Bruges v. P. Hardcastle - arid ' : Deac6rr and Bishop, -claim £5: Judgment went -for/ the plaintiff with Costs. " : '-' ■■"■•' '•' : •'■- >;.' ; "-'- :-';■■ ■•- LYTTELTON. ■''-•• •-'" ■' - Monday, Mat 22. '* •' ".; '_ '(Before Mr "J. : Hamilto'n, J.P:) '"'■''' . DjariNKk\-NE|s, etc."—Three .first offenders were. _esch fined ss, in- default, twentyfour hours' imprisonment.—Thomas Stilling, charged vyith using obscene language, was. sent to gaol/ for seven days. William MEnan and James Stephens, charged with being drunk and disorderly, were each fined 40s, in default, fourteen days' imprisonment. OXFORD. • , Monday, May 22. * (Before Mr H. W.. Bishop, S.M., and Mr G. A. White, J.P.) Steay Cattle.—H. Hoare and J; T. Jones, for allowing cattle to trespass on the railway line, were each fined 5s and* costs 7s. "'-'.'. I " Civil Cases. —Askew v. Jones, claim £1 X7s 9d. Judgment was given for defendant. —Howard Rees v. C. Bluett, claim £3 15s. Judgment for plaintiff.—Prfbchard; v. G. Bull, cllaim £3 7s lOd. Judgment' by default for plaintiff.—W. J. Smith v. G. "Bull. The case was struck out: ASHBURTON. Monday, May 22. (Before Mr A Harrison, J.P., and Mr T. E. Upton, P.P.) Alleged Theft.—James Eastes, on, remand from Christchurch, vras charged with, the theft, on April 21, from the Racecourse,, of a Massey-Harris bicycle, the property of J. H. Rickman, valued at £2O. -Mr Cassidy appeared for the accused. J. H. Rickman said he identified the machine in Court as the one he had left against a fence at the racecourse on April 21, but it had been painted afresh, the name band had been removed, and tie number filed off. Accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Christchurch. ' A charge against Eastes of stealing an acetylene lamp, the .property of D. J. M'lntyre, was heard, but after John Carlhad identified the lamp in Courtas having been his property,.and satisfactorily accounted for its coming into the possession of the accused, the cfiarge was dismissed!