MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11929, 28 June 1899, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, June 27. . (Before. Mr il. Bcetham. S.xVI.) Alleged Forgery. —Elisabeth Owatk;ns w,:s charged with having, on April 20, 1899, at-Chiistchuich. forged a, -post office order for £5 15s 6d. Sub-Inspector O’Brien conducted the prosecution, and Mr Hoban appeared for the accused. The case for the prosecution was that the accused had signed the name of Mary Barker to a post office order made out in favour of a person of tint name, had cashed the order, and .then deposited the amount in the Savings Bank to the credit of Mary Barker. Mr Hoban submitted that there had been no criminal intention shown. Everything the accused had done was done in ignorance of the ’ law. ' The husband 'of Mrs Barker wished to send his l wife money from opring-■-field' t-o "where she resided ' in - Wanganui.. f[ P ,;m,f- a Inttc-v to Mrs Gwatkin's. a mu-tual-friend, residing .in Christchurch, asking • her if she -would cash the -money ' order : ami deposit if in.the batik' in Mrs Barker’s' name. The accused said-his Worship was already in possession- of all ( the. facts of the case. - and she would not give, evidence. John Barker-was then charged with having, on April 9, procured Elizabeth dun Gwtk 5 ”« to *f>v -e a. vest office order f-r £3 15s 6d. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, and said he did not wish to supplement the evidence heard in the pre-vious-case, except with that of Rohe.it Edward Cameron, of the Christchurch Post Office, who deposed ■ that the ac-. cused Barker wanted to draw the money out of the Post Office Savings Bank which wrs deposited to the credit of Mrs Barker, his wife! Witness refused to let him have it, a? he was not Mrs Barker. He answered (bat his name was John Barker, and if he did not get the money there would be trouble. "Mr Donnelly submitted that , it was not sufficient for an act to be- committed, there:mtut be. intention tovdeftand shown to make a, .prima -facie ease,- The 'sender.had, a Tight to control the .money,, '"arid’the pbst office was practically The muleaccused’s agent at the tune. It was pretty certain'that no jiirv would convict .on the evidence, and he asked his Worship- hot to send if’forward. His Worship said it was a most curious case, but there was the fact of Mrs Barker’s name, having been forged. The charges would b? adjourned till Saturday, and he would consider what he would do'in the matter-in the meantime. - The accused were admitted to bail in their .own

recognisances. • Theft. —Harriet Scarlett, a domestic; servant, ag-d twenty, was charged with having, on May 28.- at Innwood, stolen, two pinafores, value ss, and cne petticoat, one child’s dress and an apron, value 15s, the property of Emily Radham, The accused pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector O’Brien said the accused had been in the employ of the prosecutrix, and before she left the articles wero mis*»d. Search being made, they were found in her box. This was the accused’s first offence. She was remanded till Saturday fer the report of the probation officer, bail being allowed in one sum of £lO. ■Assaulting the Police. —Frank Davitt, an old, poorly-clad man, was charged with assaulting Constable M’Gill while in the execution of his duty. The evidence was that the accused had been fined some days ago for pitching his tent on a road'Way at Riccarton, and, refusing to pay the amount of the fine, Constable M’Gill went out in' a trap to execute an order of committal. Upon his being apprehended the accused, fought, kicked, bit, and was generally very violent. -The accused was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour. Breach , of a Prohibition Order.— Denis Patrick Mahoney, being a prohibited person, was charged with being found on licensed premises during the currency ox a prohibition order. The. . defendant pleaded guilty. Sub-inspector O’Brien said that there was no proof that the defendant had been served with liquor in the hotel, •but he • must have procured it ■ somewhere,

for be was under the influence of drink when spoken to by the constable. The defendant was fined £5 and costs. Maintenance. —Malcolm M’Kinley was charged with disobeying an order of the Court providing for the maintenance of his wife. The wife said she had received no ‘instalments since December. The defendant ■said he had been suffering from ill-health, and had been in the Christchurch Hospital for six weeks. The order had been in force for two years, and w r as £1 a week. &übinspector O’Brien said that when arrested 1 the man was in a state bordering on delirium tremens. The wife said that she had been unable to live with her husband because of his drunken habits. Drink was the cause' of all the trouble. The. defendant said he had not been earning more than 15s a -week during the last few months, and that -only for a few weeks. He could get work with a farmer in Annat. His Worship adjourned the case to enable the wife to get' ait order from .this person for the handing over to her of the defendant’s wages when he went to work.—David Le Comte applied for the variation of a maintenance order providing for the support of , his mother. Mr Byrne appeared for the,, applicant, and Mr Kippenberger opposed the application. His Worship refused to vary the order.—John Napier, who did not appear, was charged with, disobeying a maintenance order providing for the support of his wife. He was sentenced to a,month’s imprisonment.

RANGIORA. Tuesday, June , 27. (Before Mr E. R.‘ Good, J.P., Mr J. L. Wilson, J.P., and Mr A. Todd, J.P.). Giro Cases. —T. White v. F, Bums, claim £3 4s sd. Judgment by default for amount .and 5s costs..—Same v.-:6, S:- Bartrum, claim. 2s 3d. The account was for horseshoeing, and defendant- produced his day-book and cash-book, showing that he ipaid plaintiff’s..rSon.. : Plaintiff was nonsuited. v . ...

TEMUKA. Tuesday, June 27. (Before Mu 0/A. Wray, S.M.) Breach of; Railway Regulations.— A stockman, a’ first offender, was charged with having refused to surrender his railway ticket when called upon, and also with using abusive and threatening language to Guard Horsman. He was fined 40s and costs on each, charge.

Civil Cases. —Temuka Road Board v. John Mahukey, claim £4 5s Bd. Judgment for plaintiff -for amount claimed, and costs.—J. S. .Hayes v. T. Cowan, claim £3 3s 6d.. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed l with costs, less £1 16s paid.—T. Collier v. A. Scott, claim £l7 ss. This was a claim for a month’s rent and sundry items in connection ■with an alleged breach of covenants of a lease. His Worship held that plaintiff was entitled to 14s, the estimated cost of repairs: to fences, but gave judgment for defendant, with' solicitor’s fee and costs of Court and witnesses,-the 14s to be deducted therefrom.—P. and D. Duncan v. ; J, Wilson, claim £7l 8s 9d, price of a gorse-cutter. Evidence in this case was taken for- transmission to Christchurch. ■ ,