MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4680, 5 June 1902, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4. (Before Messrs T. W. Young and E. Arnold, J.P.’s). Three first offending drunkards were dealt with. James Laugdon, who was convicted for drunkenness on the 3rd June, was fined 10s, in default twentyfour hours’ imprisonment for a similar offence on the same day. A second offending drunkard named James Dorman was fined ss, or in default twentyfour hours’ imprisonment. A woman named Mary Ross pleaded guilty to n charge of drunkenness, and not guilty to a charge of being an idle and a disorderly person, having no lawful visible means of support. After hearing the evidence, the Bench imposed a fine of 10s, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, for drunkenness, and dismissed on the second charge. Hugh Spiers admitted being an idle and a disorderly person, having no lawful visible means of support. ■ Detective Cox gave evidence that the defendant lived with a prostitute. During the last three* months he had not done any work. The Bench sentenced defendant to a mouth’s imprisonment with hard labour. The four hoys who were charged with having damaged property belonging to the City Council, to the extent of £2 6s, again appeared in Court. Three of them who paid for the damage which they had done were discharged. The other boy was allowed another week to pay his share. James M. Bird was fined ss, with 9s costs, for having boon the occupier of premises in Featherston street at which a chimney caught fire. A young man named William Sherwood was charged with having been the owner of a dog which bit a boy named Win. Bowden. Sub-Inspector O’Donovan stated that this case was brought before the Court in order to give publicity to the fact that the police will prosecute in all cases of a similar nature, where evidence can bo secured. The Bench imposed a fine of ss, -with 13s costs. For having ridden a bicycle without a light, after sunset, Eric Johnson was fined 6s, with 7s costs. SERIOUS CHARGES. William Edward Barrows was charg ed with having forged a cheque for £6 about 21st December, 1901, and uttered the same to Hong Kew; with having stolon a watch and chain valued at £5, the property of Martin Hogan, on 11th March, 1902, and with having escaped from lawful custody. Martin Hogan gave evidence that he stayed at a boarding-house in Taranaki street. Before leaving (ns bedroom at V. a.m. on the 11th March, he left his watch (the number of which corresponded with the one produced in Court) on the wall. When he returned from work at 7 o’clock the same evening, the watch was not to bo seen. An employee at the boarding-housa stated that the accused occupied a room in the house, opposite to the informant’s roam. When he first wont to the house ho had no watch, but after he had been staying there for about two weeks witness observed that he had a watch and chain. Detective Cox stated that when the accused was arrested, he had the watch (produced) in his possession. Whilst m custody at the gaol, the accused made a statement to the effect that he paid some person £1 for the watch. Hong Kew gave evidence that the accused purchased - fruit on several occasions at his shop. ‘ On one occasion when ho purchased 2s 6d worth of fruit, he asked witness,to cash a cheque for £5, which was purported to have.been signed by James Smith, and was drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Blenheim, in favour of Win. Robinson. James Smith, draper, Cuba street, stated that he had no account in any branch of the Bank of New Zealand. The signature on the cheque produced was nothing like his, and. bo_ had never authorised anyone to sign his name. Evidence for the prosecution in the third charge was given by Detective Cox and Constable O’Connor. The accused, who reserved his defence, was committed to the Supreme Court for'trial. Bail was granted—ac•cused in his own recognisance of £2OO and two sureties of £IOO each.