CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7181, 4 June 1891, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Wednesday, June 3. (Before B. Beetham, Esq., 8.M.) Throwing Stones. —Henry Garland, Frederick Swindell, Jainea Allard, Herbert Munyard aad Thomas Couzens, small boys, were charged with having thrown stones with " shanghais " to the danger of persons and damage of property, near St John'B Church. By leave o£ the Bench, Inspector Pender consenting, the charge was withdrawn, Mr A. F. N. Blakiaton stating that he believed the damage, a broken window, had been made good. Licensing Act. —William M'Leod was charged with having kept his licensed house, the Forresters' Arms, open for the Bale of liquor on Sunday, May 10, and with having sold liquor, to wit a glass of beer each to Jamea Hammil and James FergußSon on the same day. Mr Stringer defended. The two men, Hammil and Fergusaon, swore that they were in the hotel on the day mentioned. They were there three times, and were Berved with a small beer each time. They admitted having been the worse for liquor, and having assaulted a gentleman during the day. For the defence it was denied that the men were in the house at ten o'clock, as they stated, and it was further asserted by the barman, and an independent witness, that when they did come there they were refused liquor. The Bench, in dismissing the caae on the contradictory nature of the evidence, said it was almost impossible to obtain a conviction under the present Licensing Act, and the sooner it was amended the better. This Day. ; , (Before E. Westenra, F. E. Wright and T. York, Eeqs.) Bbbaxino into a Dwelling.—Walter Ullmer, on remand, was charged with breaking into the dwelling of Mr P. D.

Boag at Upper Riccarton on May SJi, and stealing therefrom £4, the property of Michael Coffey. Chief-detective O'Connor deposed to the arrest of the accused in Christchurch on suspicion of the offence and to his identification by Miss Robertson, who had changed a sovereign for him on the same day. When accused was arrested he denied having been at CFpper Eiucarton or having had a sovereign to change since he came out of gaol. The witness testified to the fact that tbe door key which he had found on the accused opened Mr Boag'a door. It belonged to Isaac Burb and fitted the do>r of Burt's house. Burt had another key. Michael Coffey said he resided with P. D. Boas: and W. Doyle in a house at Upper Riccarton. Witness described the build ing. and explained that the money was iti a purse in his clothes, which were hanging up in an inner room. WitneES identified one sovereign as having a hole in it, which had been filled up. Had obtained it from Mr 3 Moiloy, of the Queen's Hotel, on May 12, and had kept it in his possession. Had changed ft cheque for £o 5s there, acd bad noticed the stuffing of the sovereign on three occasions, and had directed Doyle's attention to it also. The witness stated that accused had passed the cottage on Monday, May lS.Jand, when on the Thursday following the money was missing, he found that a cake of Juno tobacco had been taken from the mantelpiece in the front room. William Doyle, who worked for Mr Boag, and resided with him and the last witness, identified the sovereign as the one that his companion, Coffey, had shown him on two occasions. Peter Dewar Bong deposed to having been in town during May 21, and having locked up the house. The keys of the housu were hanging in their usual place when he returned. In the evening witness noticed thattbere were marks on the door of bis bedroom which were not on it in the morning. The keys of the house hung in the coach-house in such a position that a stranger would not notice them unless he looked for them. Witness believed he had ocen the accused at the farm on May 18, but did not speak to him then aa Coffey went out to see him. On the evening of May 21 Coffey told him of the money being taken. Had been : ehown the sovereign on more than one occasion, and thought that the hole was filled up with copper. Jane Robertson: ! Said she recognised accused by sight. On May 21 he had tea, and paid for it with the sovereign produced. W. Aness recognised the sovereign by it having had a hole filled up in it. Witness changed it for accused at Langdon and Steel's, next door, and gave the accused the change. Francis H. Steel deposed to giving Miss Robertson change for the sovereign. Thomas Bullivant, licensee of the Britannia Hotel, said that accused slept at the hotel on May 20. On the following night accused came bank with a man-of-warsman. He was pretty free with his money that night, and after having had several drinks, for which the accused paid, they went out, and when they came back a third man, boarding at the hotel, had joined them. He paid that they bad been to the coffee stall and had had a good feed, for which accused had paid. When they came back accused paid for more drinks, once at any mte. Could not Bay if he shouted mor« often. Accused remained all night and came back the next night, but he did not shout for anyone that evening. He had a glasß of beer by himself. This closed the case for the prosecution, and the accused having been cautioned, said that there was no evidence to prove the charge brought against him of breaking into the house. The accused was then formally committed for trial. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., R M.) Civil Cases. — Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases : — Freeman v. Piper, £3 16a; Mason, Struthers and Co. v. Meckay, i>l2 19s Id ; Donaghy v. O'Donnell, JBI 3s ; P. Hay man and Co. v. M'Kay, 8g ; Perry v. Chancy, £A 5s 6d ; Ingram v. Patterson, .£3 10?.— Stewart v. Stranaghan, claim £4, Is 6d. Mr Franks for plaintiff, Mr Russell for defendant. Plaintiff was a pickle maker, and was in the employ of Mathews and Co., pickle manufacturers, previous to and at the time of the liquidation of the Company. He paid the wages of the hands, being given the money to do so by George Hutchinson. He was also told by Hntohinson to engage hands to carry on the work of pickling. Stranaghan, the defendant, had at that time a bill of sale over the property, and had a bailiff put into the place to protect his interests. The wages of the hands were paid up till a week or two prior to work being stopped on the place, and Hutchinson was employed, first as Secretary to the Company and afterwards as liquidator. A meeting of the shareholders was held at Sumner, at which it was decided to put all the material in the factory in a marketable condition, as it was then considered that there would be a considerable surplus to be divided amongst the shareholders after the satisfaction of the bill of sale. Hutchinson continued paying wageß, the money for which, he received from Stranaghanj and waa otherwise instructed by him to carry on the work. It was afterwards found that there would bo no surplus above the bill of sale, and work was stopped. The defence was that Stranaghan made the advances to protect his own interests under the bill of sale, and made the advances for wages to Hutchinson to carry on the business to give the shareholders a chance of getting something out of it. He told plaintiff to get hia wages in advance if be could, or he might lose the money. He resumed occupancy of the property when he found there would be no surplus for the shareholders. He admitted paying 17s 3d to one of the bands in the factory, but deducted the amount from the next cheque he gave Hutchinson. Plaintiff took a nonsuit, the Bench remarking that as there were a aumber of such claims pending, it would bo better to try an appealable one and have the question settled.