RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 421, 6 March 1880, Page 9

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, February 26. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULTING WOMEN.

Charles Nicholson was charged with having, on February 21, assaulted Mary Davis. The woman was living with prisoner, and on the evening of the day in question she had been pulled out of bed by the man, and struck and kicked by him. Mr. Mansford commented very strongly on the conduct of prisoner, who, he said, had acted more like a brute than » man, and sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. Another charge against the same prisoner of assaulting Phillip* Jane Armstrong, resulted in an additional sentence of fourteen days’ imprisonment being passed. AN IMPOST**. John Connolly was charged under the Vagrancy Act with imposing on Alfred G. Johnson, Relieving Officer of _the Benevolent Institution, on February 23.

Alfred George Johnson deposed to defendant having come to him on the 21st February with a tale of distress, to the effect that he was in a starving condition, and wanted to be assisted to Christchurch. Witness asked defendant to call again, and he would in the meantime com* municate with Mr. Holdsworth. On Monday, in consequence of a letter which defendant had written to the Mayor, witness gave defendant 2s. 6d., and sent him to Mr. Maginnity.of the Telegraph Department, with a memo., with the view of employment being obtained for him. Mr. Maginnity replied to the effect that the man had already had several trials, and he did not feel disposed to try him again. _ Witness subsequently saw the defendant coming out of the Pier Hotel very much under the influence of drink, and on inquiry found that he had spent some 2s. there. A. T. Magionity, secretary to the Telegraph Department, deposed that the defendant had been an operator for about a month, and was a first-class telegraphist. He had come out in the Lutterworth, and had been appointed on trial at a salary of £IOO per annum. He had been dismissed for misconduct after several cautions.

Thomas Glew, barman of the Pier Hotel, deposed to defendant having spent 2s. or 2s. 3d. there on the day in question. Detective Warren deposed to having apprehended defendant on the previous evening. He was then drinking at the bar of the Albion Hotel. Mr. Mansford said men like defendant, who could earn good wages, could not be allowed to go about imposing on people with impunity. He would sentence him to four weeks’ imprisonment with hard labor. The same defendant was then charged with imposing on J. E. Evans, saddler, on February 24th.

Mr. Evans deposed that defendant came to him with a begging petition, and said that Mr. Johnson had recommended him to draw up the document. Witness said if defendant would get an endorsement from Mr. Johnson to the effect that the document was genuine he would assist him, and at the same time witness gave defendant a loaf of bread to last him until he could communicate with Mr. Johnson. Next day witness saw defendant go into the Branch Hotel and get something to drink.

Mr. Mitchell deposed to defendant having also presented the petition to him, and Mr. Nash deposed to defendant having got the paper upon which to write the petition at the Corporation office, on pretence that he required it to write a letter. Mr. Mansford said that the action of defendant was calculated to> hinder charitable people in doing what they do to assist the deserving. He had rendered himself liable to twelve months’ imprisonment. The sentence be would pass on this occasion would be four weeks' imprisonment* making eight weeks in all. JUDGMENT SUMMONSED. Gilmer v. Kingi, £8 195.; defendant ordered to pay debt and costa in one month, or go to gaol for four weeks. Waters v. Davey, £2 13s. lid. ; to pay in fourteen days, or go to gaol for ten days. Macauley v. Herry, £3 16s. fid. ; to pay ss. per week, or go to gaol for fourteen days, jjgp- • CIVIL CASES. City Council v. Macdonald and Co.— This was a case in which the Corporation sued T. K. Macdonald and Co. for £IOO, a promised contribution towards the cost of cutting down Dixon-street. The case had been previously heard, and reported at length. His Worship now delivered judgment as follows :—lt must, I think, be evident that the object the defendants had in view when they offered to pay one-fourth of the cost of the construction of Dixon-street, was to expedite a work which under any circumstances must have been done by the City Council at no very distant date. The defendants were the owners of some property known as “ Hunter’s Acres,” which they had recently purchased, and which they intended cutting up into sections and selling by auction at the end of November, 1878. The land abutted on Dixonstreet, then unformed, and it is obvious that their property would be greatly improved in value by the street being made prior to the proposed sale. The offer made by the defendants to pay 25 per cent, was conditional on the work beiDg proceeded with at once, and completed before the time of the sale. The only question for me to decide is whether there was any unavoidable delay on the part of the plaintiffs. The agreement between the parties was entered into early in September, and tenders were called for the work, and what may be termed a provisional contract entered into with Mr. McLean on or about September 19 ; and as the work was only to take two months in completion it is quite clear that in the absence of some delay the road would have been finished before the end of November, the advertised time for the sale by auction. Before the contractor could commence his work it was necessary that the permanent levels of Willis-street, with which Dixon-street. connected, should be confirmed at a meeting of the Council duly advertised. A meeting of the Council was properly convened for this purpose on the 25th September, which, unfortunately, lapsed for a reason which it is unnecessary to mention, but which rendered another meeting imperative, at a loss of five weeks’ time. For this delay the plaintiffs are alone responsible. It was easily avoidable, and they must suffer the consequences. There were other delays after the work was commenced, so that its completion did not take place till three months after the time originally stipulated, and which delays occasioned serious loss to the defendants. The plaintiffs did not perform their part of the contract, and my judgment will, therefore be for the defendants with cost’s. Beckwith v. Alexander. This was an action brought to recover from defendant, a pawnbroker, the sum of £7O damages for wroogful conversion of certain goods. Mr. Bell appeared for plaintiff* and Mr. Gordon

Allan for defendant. From the evidence, it appeared that plaintiff had brought out with him from England, in June last, a case of saddlery, which he intended to take up the country and dispose of. Becoming short of money, however, he pledged the bill-of-lading to defendant, obtaining £3 10s. 6d., for which he undertook to repay £4 16s. Defendant had no authority to sell the goods. In August, defendant instructed Mr.. Sidey to sell the case of goods without opening it up, and Mr. Sidey did so, the brother-iu-law of defendant, Mr. Hyams, buying it for £l7 odd. Mr. Moss subsequently sold the goods again, under instructions from defendant, and as they were by this time opened up, they realised over £27. In rendering an account to plaintiff defendant only gave credit for the goods at the price realised at the first sale to his brother-in-law. Mr. Mansford commented strongly upon the manner in which the transaction had been arranged, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £34 11s. 3d., with £5 I6s. costs.

In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs :—Fenton v. Mountain, £8 15s. : Gardner v. Udy, £l9 4s. lOd. ; McCarthy v. Sellars, £1 145.; Cheymol v. Corbett, £43 7s. 9d.; Same v. Goodacre, £l4 3s. 3d.; Clark v. Awe Awe, £9 9s. Bd.; Same v. Wi Teira, £l2 11s. 6d.; South Pacific Company v. Woods and another, £6 11s. 6d. ; Cook v. Barron, 195.; Glew v. Thompson, £4 4s. sd. ; Smith v. Richardson, £lB 145.; Watts v. Watson, £4 7s. 6d.; Oakey v. Strasburg, £1 10s.; James v. Sherwood, £lO 9s. 6d.; Cato v. Wilton, £1 ; Townsend and others v. Smith and others, £l6 ; Phillips v. Berry, £23 25.; Bergen v. Millen, £4 : Ryland v. Wacksmuth, £l4 125.; Hally and another v. Beere, £6 7s. sd.

Saturday, February 28. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) AN IMPOSTER.

Frederick Lyness was charged with begging alms in Willis-street on the previous day, and pleaded guilty. It appeared that he had accosted Mr. J. M. May shortly after 12 o’clock with a tale of distress, to the effect that he had walked from Wanganui, had failed to obtain work, and was starving. Mr. May was about to give him a shilling to obtain a meal, when Detective Warren told him of the man s character, and arrested defendant.

The evidence of Detective Warren was to the effect that defendant had been discharged from gaol on January 31, having just completed a sentence for larceny. Since then defendant had been getting his living by begging and loafing about public-houses. He had twice warned defendant that week. In answer to the Bench defendant stated that he had tried to get work, and was intending to apply to Colonel Reader for employment on the Waimate Plains.

Mr. Mansford said but for the warnings given the man by Detective Warren, he would have felt inclined to deal leniently with him, as he knew how difficult it is for a man just out of gaol to get work. Under the circumstances, however, he would send the defendant to gaol for four weeks, with hard labor. EMBEZ ZLEMENT. William J. Weston was charged with embezzling £1 on February 16, the property of his employer, Edward Garton. He pleaded guilty to the charge, and also to two further charges of embezzling similar amounts, the property of his employer. It appeared that the man had been employed as collector by Mr. Garton, and he had collected the sums he had embezzled, and given receipts for them, but had not accounted for them to his employer. He made a statement to the effect that he felt his position bitterly, and had never been guilty of any dishonesty before. He had a wife and four children depending upon him, and he hoped he would be summarily dealt with. He had fully intended to restore the money, and would never have taken it but that he was pressed for money, and he bad given way to drink. He had made a solemn vow never to touch drink again. Mr. Mansford said similar statements were frequently made by men in prisoner’s position. As for his wife and children he might tell prisoner that his wife had made an application for a protection order, and stated that she would be better off without him. He would sentence prisoner to two months’ imprisonment on the first charge, and one month each on the other two, making four months altogether. ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES. Catherine Broun was charged with obtaining from Augustus Brown, on February 20, goods to the value of £2 7s. 6d., by means of false pretences, Bamely a valueless cheque. Mr. Sandilands defended the accused, who pleaded not guilty. From the evidence of Mr. Brown it appeared that the accused had purchased some goods from him, and he had let her have them believing she had the money in her pocket to pay for them. He let hei have the goods before he saw the eheque. Mr. Mansford ordered the ease to be dismissed, as the false pretences had not been proved. NEGLECTED CHILD. John James Vowless was charged with being a neglected child. His father, who was present, stated that the boy was over 11 years of age. The boy was entirely uncontrollable. Mr. Mansford read the youngster a severe lesson, and then ordered him to be forwarded to Kohimarama Training School for two years and six months. ASSAULT. W. J. Woods, a cabman, was charged with assaulting another cabman named Wakeford, on February 11. Mr. Cutsen appeared for complainant, and Mr. Hutchison for defendant. The assault was a trivial one, and after hearing the evidence, his Worship ordered defendant to pay a fine of Is. and Court coats.

Monday, March 1. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) VAGRANCY.

Frederick Plummer, alias Bayley, was charged with being an idle and disorderly person, and with sleeping in an unoccupied house, the property of the trustees of R. Port. He pleaded guilty. Detective Warren deposed to the arrest of the defendant, whom he found in an empty house in Bowen-street, on Saturday morning. C. P. Powles, secretary of the Northern Land, Loan, and Investment Society, deposed that the house in question formerly belonged to Mr. Port, but was now the property of the society. Defendant had no authority to be on the premises. Defendant said he wished to make a statement, and it would be a rather long one. Mr. Mansford said he could not prevent defendant making any statement he liked, but he could see no good in defendant raking up his antecedents. He (Mr. Mansford) knew defendant’s past history, but he would not allow that to affect him in dealing with the present case. He would simply deal with the case as an ordinary one. The defendant then made a long statement explanatory of the manner in which he ha,d got an alias, which he said was taken by him when he left gaol in consequence of the representations of several gentlemen who had interested themselves in him amongst whom he mentioned the Hon. Mr. Driver, Mr. Sheehan, and others. He was very unwilliug to take an alias, but it was pointed out to him that he would never be able to get along if he went by his proper name. After this he went to Auckland, to his friends there, and got work, by which he was enabled to save money. It was then arranged that he should go to England, and he came down to Wellington en route. Upon arriving here he went to the Opera House to see Mr. Creswick play Othello, and there was a great crush outside the theatre. He took out his pocket book, which was full of bank notes, and took one note out, with which he purchased a ticket, receiving 18s. change. He thought he put the pocket-book back into the same pocket again, but he missed it shortly afterwards, and then realised that he had lost it. By this loss he was left in Wellington with only 18s. He did not like to write back to his friends and tell them of bis loss, so he determined to put up with it. He lived the best way he could, and wandered about a good deal at night to save the expense of beds, and one night when he was very hungry he did that for which he received the sentence of six months, and this he thought was the hardest justice that ever he had. When he left gaol, about two months’ ago, he had only a half-penny to face the world with. He was assisted for a few day s by friends, and then tried to get employment on the Wadestown works, and was told he would be taken on. His clothes were, however too good to work in, and he went to the railway station to get some luggage he had left there prior to receiving his sentence, but Mr. Ashcroft would not let him have it unless he paid ss. He then got a note from Archdeacon Stock to take to Mr. Ashcroft, but by this time Mr. Ashcroft had left, and he only saw the station master, who would not let the clothes go unless he received the ss. This treatment prevented him going to work at Wadestown. He lived for two days upon water-cress, which he got in the creeks between here and the Hutt, and he then got work at harvesting, and managed to save six or seven pounds. He then came to town and endeavored to get work, but he might as well ask for diamonds as for work. He had endeavored to do better, and wanted te retrieve his position, but everything was against him. Mr. Mansford said he had listened attentively to all defendant had to say, a d he believed there was a deal of truth in it. He would remand the case until Wednesday, and in the meantime telegraph to his brother in Auckland concerning him. Defendant : “ Thank your Worship.” JUDGMENT SUMMONSES-

Dirnant v. Berry, £9 6s. ; defendant ordered to pay in 28 days, or go to gaol for four weeks. Baker v. Watts, £l4 7s 3d. ; to pay in four weeks, or go to gaol for four weeks. Wingate v. Moore, L 3 108. ; defendant to pay 10s. per week, or go to gaol for a month. Collins v. Eteveneaux, £lO 7s. lid. ; to pay LI per month, or go to gaol for two months. Rabe v. Mayr, £2 ss. ; to pay in seven days, or go to gaol for two weeks. Buckingham v. Stott, £2 16s. 2d. ; to pay 2s. 6d. per week, or 14 days’ imprisonment. Reid v. Berry, £l2 2s. ; to pay in six weeks, or go to gaol for eight weeks. Henry v. Plummer, £5 10s. ; to pay in 14 days, or go to gaol for four weeks. Casey and another v. Scully, £8 Bs. Bd. ; to pay 10s. per week, or go to gaol for six weeks. Hunt v. Leach, £l3 13s. 9d. ; to pay in eight weeks, or go to gaol for two months. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs :—Moorhouse v. London, £7 4s. 10s. ; Levy v. Valentine, £2 10s. ; Cooper v. Taffner, £5 ss. lOd. ; Coogan’s estate v. Eastwood, £6; Kircaldie v. Burr, £9 14s. 3d. ; Mills v. Staite, £2O 18s. 2d. ; Wiggins v. Beard, £1 ss. ; Dermottv. Mountain, £l6 45.; Levy v. Barnard, £3 ; Sloan v. Nicholls, £9 ss. 6d. ; Zohrab and Co. v. Fairbrother, £57 11s. 2d. ; Johnston v. Davey, £5 9s. ; Neale v. Haywood, £5 7s. ; Strasburg v. Wills, £6. Tuesday, March 2. (Before Messrs. J. Woodward and Thomas Kebbell, J.s’P) LIGHTING A FIRE IN THE OPEN AIR. Ann McDermott was charged with lighting a fire in the open air without first obtaining permission from the City Council. She admitted the offence, but pleaded ignorance of the law. A fine of Is. and costs was inflicted. OBSTRUCTING A THOROUGHFARE. W. P. Windmill was charged with obstructing the thoroughfare between Lambton-quay and Plimmer’s-steps, by permitting a horse

and cart to remain there. He pleaded guilty, but said he bad only been seven weeks in the colony, and did not know he was breaking a by-law. He was fined Is. and costs. Thomas Darien, who was similarly charged, also pleaded guilty, and said he had done it scores of times before. He was fined ss. and costs. A HORSE AT LARGE. Stephen Bishop, charged with permitting a horse to wander at large, aid not appear, and. the case was dealt with ex parte. The Bench considered that defendant had treated the charge with considerable indifference by not appearing, and inflicted a fine of 10s. and costs. DRUNKENNESS. John Windsor, for being drunk at Kaiwarra, was fined ss. and costs, in default of payment to undergo 24 hours’ imprisonment. INDUSTRIAL-SCHOOL CHILDREN. John Rice was charged with failing to contribute towards the support of his two children in the Burnham Industrial School, and after making an explanation of his circumstances to the Bench he was ordered to contribute 2s. 6d. each weekly towards their support.