POLICE COURT NEWS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11511, 6 October 1915, Page 5

POLICE COURT NEWS.

TO-DAY'S CASES. _ _» (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S-M.) DRUNKENNESS. Five first offenders, one of them e. woman, were each fined ss, with the alternative, on charges of drunkenness. John Campbell, a third offender, who had been on remand for a week, was fined Uls and costs on n. charge of drunkenness. THEFT AND VAGRANCY. Edward Diggs was charged with stealing an overcoat, valued at JL'4, the property of Charles Phillips, on September '4 last, and was further charged with being an idle and disorderly person. Accused said he could not plead either ''guilty'' or "not guilty" to the- charge of theft- He was drunk, and took tho coat from Tattersall's, Hotel, in mistake for his own. leaving it at his brother's place an hour or two later. He had admitted everything when arrested, and told the detective wliere the coat was. He pleaded for lenient treatment. He pleaded "not guilty" to*the charge of being an idle and disorderly person, and said he was at work for a fortnight three weeks ago. The police evidence was to tho effect that accused did hardly any work, and was always hanging about the hotels, consorting with bad characters and getting drunk. When arrested on the charge of theft, accused had said he took the coat as a joke. Accused was convicted on both charges. On the charge of theft he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and on the charge of vagrancy he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the sentenoes to run concurrently. James D'ggy, brother of Edward Diggg, was charged' with receiving from Edward Diggs an overcoat valued at * £4, knowing the same to have been stolen, and was further charged with being a rogue and a vagabond. xxe pleaded not guilty to both charges. The police evidence was to the effect that when accused was questioned about the overcoat he said he did not know whether his brother hand'ed him a coat or not. He later showed tho detective a coat, which turned out to be the stolen one, and later still returned a cap which had been in the pocket. _ Accused did very little work, was living with a prostitute, and was always hanging about the hotels utwi consorting with bad characters. There was evidence that he lived on the proceeds of prostitution, and made a practice of " taking down " drunken men. Accused gave evidence that his brother was in the habit of leaving his overcoat at hies place. He did not ask l hirn if the overcoat was stolen, as he had no reason to suspect anything of tho sort. He d'id not look at the coat. He owned a horse and cart valued at £7, and furniture to tho value of £2O. He would leave town at once if given a chance. He could always earn a good living as a hawker if he chose to. The prostitute referred to by the police had been his housekeeper for the past two years. He had never received money ' from her. j Accused wnsi convicted and" sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the charge of vagrancy, the case of receiving stolen goods being dismissed. VAGRANCY. Timothy Lyons was charged with being a rogue and a vagabond, he having been found at night without lawful excuse on tho premises of Jones Bros., coach builders, Colombo Street, Sydenham. He pleaded not guilty. Tho police evidence was to the effect that accused was found in the yard of Jones Bros, at night under the influence of liquor. Beyond drunkenness there was nothing against him. Accused said he was sleepy, and he climbed into the yard to go to sleep. He meant no harm. The Magistrate remarked that uc- ' cus-ed had' fifteen convictions for drunkenness against him. Accused would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. He must leave town at once. ALLEGED FORGERY. Lucy Pullman (Mr Cassidy) avas I charged with forging the name of L. Davis to a receipt for a money-order telegram for 10s, on August 10. ChiefDetective Herbert conducted the case for the police. Maud Davis, wife of Lionel Davis, residing at Oamaru, said that on August 10 last, a-t Oamaru, she sent a moneyorder telegram to her husband. Mr Cassidy objected to the evidence, and asked for the production of the application. The evidence was modified to a statement that witness paid 10s and cost of transmission, and applied-for a moneyorder telegram addressed to L. Davis. I She did not know accused. Tho application was produced. Lionel Davis, shearer, husband of the last witnsss, gave evidence that he i stayed at Bradford's boarding; house, Moorhouse Avenue, from August 9 to 11 last. Ho received no money-order telegram from bis wife, but expected j one. The signature "L. Davis" on I tho receiot produced was not his signa- j ture. James Gillespie, supervisor of Christchurch telegraph office, produced the original money-order telegram, and the duplicate filed and signed by him. Thomas Stanley Hunton, telegraph messenger, Cbristehureh, gave evidence that he took a telegram addressed to L. Davis. Bradford's boarding house, on August 10. Davis was out, and he left a notice for Davis and took the telegram back to the office. Robert: Firman, telegraph messenger, said he took an Oamaru money-order telegram to Bradford's boarding house some time iu race week. He thought he gave it to a woman, but could not swear to that. Louisa Bradford, b-oardinghcu«-.e keeper, said accused entered her employ as a waitress on August 7. Witness did not know her .surname, and called her "Lucy." When the money-order telegram notice came for L. I)a\is, witness | took the notice" to accused, and sa'd j she thought the telegram must be for accused. Accused said she had boon expecting some mciey, but it was so long since she asked for it that she had given up expecting it. Witness rang nj> the telegraph effice and had the telegram brought back to the house Accused left witness's employ on August lb', to go to Wellington. When •;<• cased got the wire she said it was only 10s. ny.d that was not all that she expected. Accis'jd was married, but worked muter hr.r maiden name. To Air Cassidy: Everything was open and above board in regard to accused. Witness knew accused was married. Dorothy M'Guiro, housemaid at Bradford's boardinghouse, gave evidence that r : .he knew accused as Lucy Pullman. Lucy Davis wa-. accused's maiden name, and accused said she was cxpt'Cing some money "from her boy in Sydney." Witness arid accused noticed that tho telegram came from O.maru. Accmed aid she was a si ranger to Now Zealand. She also said she had b-r-en here about six months and had come from Sydney Witue--:-, told accused tlie money order nn:st h*' for hoy. as then' was eo other L. Davis in the bono. Tho v\ hole ea.se v;;s purely a mistake. Witness fitiVre.l to pay the n< ■:'-■(■'.'■'■:<.' 'be .).<>■■ our oi her own pocket to >ave proceedings agasre-t accused. Thomas Cavil], licensee of the Wellington Motel, saul he cashed the muney order "elcgram in question for a man whom he did net know on An- - : Davis, Mid it wr.s his signature en t.ie order. Constable William Ntlson Ferguson, stationed a', Mastorton, said he intor-vH-ved accused on September 2-1 in regard la the y-resen!: charge. Accused said she received the money order telegram and admitted signing it. She seal she w-is working at Bradford's ixuU'dinghouso in Chjvstehureh when she received it. She told witness she

jverkccl in Christchurch under the name' of Lucy Davis. She gave the teleeram to her husband, William Pu.llmo.ti"j who collected the money for her. She had lent a girl los in Wellington and was. expect.ng it to bo returned. She thought the 10s was part of the money. Sue could not give the np.me or address of the sir! to whom, wie lent the money. It w?.s a stranger whom she met in the Accused wa:; working as a housemaid at. the time of her arrest. This closed the cast? for the police. Mr Cassiuy tsaicl the whole of the evidence was inconsistent with crime. The Magistrate said a. prima facie case of forgery had been made out. Mr Csftsidy further addressed the Court, drawing to many points in the evidence which showed Jack of criminal intention. The Magistrate said the evidence of the last witne-s was the weak point in the defence. Mr Cassidy urged that to send the rase to trial would he a waste of time. The mistake of the Postal Department in not addressing the telegram " Lionel Davis' : w;.- at ihc of the whole •(i-oulile. To roiiimic the girl for tr'a* V-'llil'i'! ii[(';i!l '!!HH-i:!OV,M01lt l'f'! litT 1.1 11 I! 1 K-\t. Noi'eiid, t 'i. ;, ■ she e.'u;!d not 'jot hail. The Magistrate -aid the]-,;, tviis a prima fu-eie cn<c. and he was not all.'.vced lo decide upon the merits of the (■'•■H'ltrY. The accused was committed for trial and re-erred her defence,