CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 267, 22 March 1869, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day.

(Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., T. W. Maude,

A. Back, and G. Hall, Esqrs.)

DnuNKENNESs. — Martin Warren was charged with having been drunk and incapable on Saturday last. Being his second appearance before the Bench on a similar charge, he was fined 10s.

Assault — Michael Needham was brought up, on remand, charged, with this offence. William Bowys, the complainant, said : I am a farmer, residing in the Lee3ton district. I know the prisoner; he lives nearly opposite to me. I saw him on March 17, near his own fence. I was passing at the time. Aa I passed he wished me " Good morning." I replied iv the same way. He seized me by the leg, and pulled me off my horse. No words passed between us. When he pulled me off the horse he kicked me twice in the face, and I became insensible. After I got up he caught me by the throat. He had a spike - nail in his hand, with which he tore my waistcoat. He said that " he would be worse on me than Douglas had been." I had had no previous quarrel j with the defendant, but I had a dispute with I Douglas. By Mr Joynt, who appeared for the defendant: I had been in a public house, but I only had a small quantity of beer. I remember distinctly all that took place before the assault was committed. I did not turn back in order to speak to defendant. lam confident that I was sober at the time of the occurrence. I do not remember any quarrel with the defendant, about currant trees. I drink sometimes, but I am not an habitual drunkard; I am not quarrelsome when I have taken too much. I did not take off my coat in order to fight him. I went to see Mr Patrick the same evening. I have never, when .drunk, offered to fight defendant. I cannot account for the attack upon me; we had somo dispute about Impounding cattle, but the quarrel was made up, and we were civil to each other afterwards. Mr Joynt said that he was in a

dilemma about the production of witnesses. He had no time to procure their attendance. It could be clearly shown that the complainant was very quarelsome when in his cups. The defendant, on the contrary, was a man of peaceable habits. The offence took place wben the men were alone, and all the evidence he should be able to produce would be as to the respective conduct of the parties. S. A. Patrick: I saw the complainant professionally. There was a contusion on the side of his cheek. There was a triangular wound on the lip, which I sewed up. I believe that that wound was caused by a sharp instrument, and not by a blow from the fist. The complainant had been drinking when he came to me, but knew what he was about. Complainant at first said that the injuries were caused by a threshing machine. On the following day he said that he had been attacked by a man, but that he did not wish it to be known that he had been engaged in a fray. The : complainant was recalled, and admitted having given Mr. Patrick the two versions of the story for the reason, just mentioned. Mr Joyht applied for a remand, but the Bench decided on hearing a witness then in Court. — .'Greening was called, and gave some details as. to the general conduct of the two parties. The complainant was in the habit of drinking,] whilst-the defendant was of temperate and quiet 'habits. Defendant on being called upon to make a statement, said that some words passed between him and the complainant relative to some "eunrant bushes. Complainant took off his coat to fight, him. A scuffle ensued, and the complainant struck, him twice. He (defendant) then struck him 1 in defence, and they lay together for some time scuffling and striking each other. His Worship said that the Bench were of opinion 1 that an assault had been committed of a very serious nature. The complainant had evidently been drinking, and had probably used j insulting language towards the defendant.! The offence could not be passed over, and the defendant would be fined 20s, and must pay £1 Is for the attendance of the Medical witness.

Ehhezzlement.— Charles Whittaker was charged with this offence. Inspector Pender stated that the prisoner had been arrested in Hokitika on a warrant charging him with embezzlement. William Manning stated ? I am a brewer carrying on business in Christchurch. I know the prisoner, as he was in my employment. I believe that he was em ployed by me as drayman since November. 1867. He left my service this day fortnight He gave me no notice of his intention of quitting my service. His general business was to deliver beer and to receive payment. Every night he ought to have accounted to me for money so received. The entries should have been made daily in the cash-book produced. I sent a cask of beer to Mr Holman -by the prisoner. The cash price was £4 10s. I have never been paid for that cask of beer. I repeatedly spoke to the prisoner- about it. He said that Holman had never paid him for the beer. I frequently told him to apply for the money. He said that he had made a mistake with reference to Holman's money. I accused him of having done something wrong, and gave him notice to leave. On applying to Holman for the money, he gave me the receipt pro-* duced. It is signed by the prisoner. He left before the time mentioned in the notice. I told him that if he could redeem his character, I would ; keep him on. The notice was for one week • he left before the expiration of half . that time. On January 27, I sent another cask of beer to Mr Garland, the landlord of the White Horse Hotel. I have never received the money for it. On February 3, prisoner gave me £14 13s on account of Mr Garland. This sum was entered in tbe cash-book in the usual manner. This was for beer delivered in January, but it does not represent the whole amount. £5 lis was still due to me. Prisoner said that Mr Garland had not paid him for a cask of beer which be had in January. lam sure that the prisoner mentioned that particular cask of beer to me. I have applied to Mr Garland for the money, and he gave me the receipt produced, signed by the prisoner. In February, I sent a cask of beer, on account of Mr Garland, to the Heathcote Valley and another to the White Horse Hotel. I have never received payment for these two casks, nor has the prisoner ever accounted to me for them. Since prisoner left me, I asked Mr Garland for the money, and he shewed me a receipt given to him by the prisoner, and signed by him. I produce the receipt. John Holman, an hotel-keeper, residing on the Ferry Road, stated that he knew the prisoner as being in the employment of the prosecutor. He had received beer from him at various times, and had also paid him for it, obtaining a receipt at the same time. Henry Garland gave similar testimony. He had obtained the receipts produced from the prisoner, in payment for beer delivered. The depositions were read over, and the prisoner, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court. ,

Forgert and Uttering. — The same prisoner was charged with the forgery and uttering a promissory note for £30. Sergeant Jeffrey stated that he charged the prisoner with forgery and uttering a promissory note purporting to be signed by James Sheriff. He said, "Oh well, I suppose that I mhst make the best of it. I wish I had never gone to Manning's, and I should never have been in this trouble." James Sheriff : I know the prisoner. In November last, I did not sign any promissory note at his request. The signature to the note produced was never written by me. About two years ago) I signed a similar note at prisoner's request. I never saw it afterwards. Morris Harris :' I am a loan and discount agent residing at Christchurch. I know the prisoner; In Nov. last he came to my office, and applied for a loan of £80, naming Mr Sheriff, the stonemason, as his security. I let him have the money. I wrote out the note produced, and it was sigued by the prisoner. He took away

the note, and afterwards brought it back with Sheriff's endorsement, or what purported to be so, on the back. On this charge, also, the prisoner, who declined to make any statement, was committed for trial.