RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1407, 1 June 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHIIISTCIIURCH.—Wednesday, MAY 31. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.—George Browning was charged with this offence. There \yas another charge against the prisoner, that of having resisted the police in the execution of their duty. The offences having been proved, he whs fined 10s. Another Case,—Philip S. Patterson was brought up on a similar charge, Prisoner admitted that he had been guilty of the offence, and was fined 10s. Breach of Siieei> Ordinance.—Alexander Lean was fined £100 on each of two informations, as being the. owner of scabby slieep at Mount Hutt Station, the fines to be remitted if clean certificates are produced on or before Nov. 30 next. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and Alex. Lean, Esq., J.P.) Obtaining Goods Under False Pretences. — John T. Collins was brought up on remand on this charge. The same professional gentlemen attended as on the previous hearing—namely, Mr. Garrick for the prosecution, and Dr. Foster for the defence. The following additional evidence was.adduced:— Henry Buchanan: I am a carrier, living at Kaiapoi. On May 11 I went to Mr. Symington's store, and took away some goods. I took them to a place close to Mr. Barnard's yard. They were taken from my dray, and put on another. I did not the next day take any goods to the prisoner's house at Kaiapoi. It was getting dusk when I took the goods. Robert Cooper Rose: I am a teller at the Bank of New Zealand at Kaiapoi. The prisoner had an account there. The cheque produced was presented at the Bank, and dishonoured for want of funds. Mr. Garrick contended that he had produced the cheque as an element of knowledge, showing that the prisoner must have been thoroughly acquainted with the state of his banking account. Witness: On May 11th the prisoner's balance at the bank was £3 17s 2d.

Mr. Garrick argued that the gist of the offience was that the prisoner had obtained goods by means of a valueless piece of paper, which he falsely represented as cash.

Some evidence was taken as to the exact time when the bargains were concluded, and the cheques given. R. C. Hose recalled and cross-examined : I was present at a conversation between the prisoner and the bank authorities on May 2nd. He had overdrawn his bank account to a very small amount I believe 2s lOd. He was told that he must not again overdraw his account. He was informed if he paid up the amount, his cheque would be Honoured. I was engaged in the duties of my office at the time, and I only heard portions of the conversation. On May 2, Mr. Gilkison lent the prisoner £26, to meet a bill due that day. The money was lent in order that the prisoner might not overdraw his account. Mr. Gilkison took no security for the loan as far as I know. I swear that he did not do so. He told me so. William Gilkison: I am agent to the Bank of New Zealand at Kaiapoi. On May 2 I told the prisoner that I could not allow him to overdraw his account, as he wished to do. I lent him a small sum, to enable him to meet his liabilities. Cross-examined: He left with nie some Dunedin gas shares, as security for the loan. I had also live packages from Dunedin delivered to me, to be held as security until the money was paid. I know nothing of the value of the packages ; the prisoner told me that the value was about £30. The prisoner has banked with us for some months. As far as I remember, I may have held over a crossed cheque of the prisoner's at my own risk. I advanced the prisoner the money simply to save his credit. This was the case for the prosecution. Dr. Foster should submit to the Bench that there was no case against the prisoner. He should rely upon the opinion given by several judges as to the danger of carrying the law further than it ought to be extended. (Dr. Foster cited some law-cases, in support of his view of the case.) It was in evidence that the cheque given by the prisoner was a crossed one. He was fully entitled to the benefit of the delay always obtained by a crossed cheque being paid into a bank. Mr. Garrick observed that Dr. Foster had made such extraordinary statements, that one would almost imagine that the prisoner had taken counsel s opinion, as to how near he could go to swindling, without being liable to be indicted for the same. (Mr. Garrick combatted the arguments of Dr. Foster, quoting some law-cases in opposition to those cited by the latter.) The prisoner had clearly bought the goods, and had falsely represented that his cheque was a valuable one. He (Mr. Garrick) thought that it was a most mischievous theory,thata man who hadj£l at his banker's could go through the length and breadth of the province, drawing cheques right and left, and then not be liable to a prosecution for obtaining goods under false pretences. For his own part, he was satisfied that he had established a prima Jhcic case, calling for the intervention of a jury to settle the question one way or tliq other. After some consultation, the Resident Magistrate observed that the Bench were of opinion that there was no case to send to a jury, and that the prisoner must be discharged.

LYTTELTON.— Tdksuay, MAY 30. (Before Wm. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Breach ok the Police Ordinance.—'This was the day appointed for hearing the charge preferred against Sergeant Ileweston, for .illegal discharge of firearms, 011 the evening of the 24th. Mr. Floekton was called to prove that the Armstrong gun was fired. He said it was near to ten o'clock at night; lie was with Sergt. Ileweston at the di ill shed, near half an hour before. Sergt. Ileweston did not deny the charge. He produced a number of first-class testimonials respecting his previous service in the Itoyal artillery. The Resident Magistrate gave him a severe reprimand for his illegal conduct, and mitigated the penalty to a fine of 20s and costs. KAIAPOI.— Tuesday, May 30. (Before W. B. Pauli, Esq., lt.M.; and Dr. Dudley, Esq., J.P.) Charge oif Evadino Toll. —A shepherd, in the employ of Mr. Caverhill, sheep owner, was brought up, charged with attempting to evade the payment of tolls at the Kaiapoi Swing Bridge, 011 Thursday, the 25th of May last. W. L. Powell, toll-keeper, sworn: On the Thursday evening iu question, the defendant drove a tnob of sheep over the bridge j it was about ten minutes past five, and too dark to couut them. I thought there was about 1,000, but defendant said there was only 500, for which number he paid me. I told him at the time of my suspicions relative to there being a greater number, and cautioned him if there were more than lie stated, lie was liable to a penalty of £5. I afterwards heard that there were more than 500 in the mob. I went to tie defendant the evening following, and requested nun to pay me for the remainder. He would not, but; reiterated his statement that there were only •>»< • It, Hickman, sworn, deposed to having taken a sheep out of the mob. after they had been driven over the bridge, to Messrs. Weston and 1 yards 011 the Island. He was confident there were more than 150 left, but he could not say how many. The driver had, however, told him that he le station (Mr. Caverhill's) with 1,040, but had lo>it 30 or 40 on the way. E. Parnham, butcher, Ivaiapoi,

sworn, said he had followed the sheep in question after being driven over the bridge on to the Island. He calculated the mob tocontain about 800 sheep,but there were certainly more than .500. Theßench thought tho caRO wns not proved, as the plaintiff ought to have gone and counted the sheep immediately on being warned of the imposition. The evidence was not conclusive, therefore tho case Would be dismissed.

Dkunkennebh. — John Brown was brought up, charged with being drunk and incapable in Kaiapoi, the previous evening; fined !in and costs.

Horse Wandering at Larqe.—G. C, Black and W. A. Crooke were each charged separately with having a horse wandering at large, within the precincts of the town, on tho 26th ult. The former was fined ss, and the latter l()s.

Laucicny as a Bah,km—John T. Collins was brought up on remand from Christchurch, charged with fraudulent conduct us a bailee. Inspector Pender, of the Cliristcliurch police, conducted the prosecution; Mr. J. C. Porter appeared to watch the ease on behalf of Captain John Fuller. John Fuller sworn, said: On the 11th of February last I sold the draper's business in Kaiawi (which I had previously carried on between three and four years, under the name of Roberts and Co.) to the prisoner. As he had no security or money, I stipulated my holding a bill of sale of £500 over the property. There was also a clause in the agreement. that, no property should be sold off the premises, except in the ordinary course of business, without a written consent from me. The agreement and bill of sale produced are those mentioned, to all of which the prisoner fully agreed and signed. Amongst other property in the shop there were two rolls of carpeting, which I saw in the store several times previous to the 6th of May, but never since. I never authorised prisoner to sell the carpeting, except in the ordinary course of business over the counter. I saw the prisoner on Wednesday night, the 10th of May; he went from Kaiapoi on the following day. On hearing which, 1 went and took possession of the store, and found the carpeting gone The prisoner never spoke to me of leaving. I have never seen him since until to-day. The carpet was worth between £30 and £40. The prisoner was acting as bailee or trustee of my goods until he could pay for them; five years was the time allowed for him to do so. I had some conversation with prisoner shortly before leaving concerning a bill of mine he had dishonoured, when I reminded him of the agreement concerning the sale of the stock. According to agreement he was to keep the value of the stock up to £500. I made the stock over to him as bailee, but never really parted with it, having the bill of gale over it. I reserved to myself the right of entering the premises whenever I thought proper to inspect the stock. I did so several times, but the goods were in such confusion, in consequence of alterations he was making to the premises, that I could not make any calculation. When I went after he had gone, I found the stock far below the stipulated value (£500). It was about £300. What is meant by the ordinary course of business, is over the counter. By prisoner: The amount of stock when you took possession was £740, for which I received bills. The carpets mentioned were not included in my sale to you. 1 do not know whether the carpets ever belonged to you. If any one had left the carpeting with you to sell, and they were put in the store, they would be included in the bill of sale. I know, from information received, that the carpeting was not sold in the ordinary course of business, but not from my own knowledge. I several times reminded you of your engagement to keep the value of the stock up to £500. I was prompted in so doing by your having dishonoured your bills and from hearing you talk of insuring the premises. Edwin Clarke, aged 12, late shopboy to Mr. Collins, being sworn, deposed to seeing the two rolls of carpeting mentioned in the shop, which were marked severally 4s 6d and 6s Cd per pard. Mr. Collins took them away to Christchurch the Tuesday before he finally left Kaiapoi, in Bruce's coach. He never said where he was going ; but previously, when he went to Christchurch, he had always acquainted me with his intention. There were about 40 yards in each roll of carpeting. I went to dinner the same day as Mr. Collins took the carpet to Christchurch ; he might have sold it whilst I was away, but he did not do so whilst I was in the shop. James Swann, chemist and druggist, Kaiapoi, sworn : Deposed to seeing prisoner take away the rolls of carpeting by Bruce's coach to Christchurch, on Tuesday, the 9th of May. The prisoner remarked at the time that it was ordered to carpet the Carlton Hotel. Inspector Pender here said that he was unable to proceed with the case any further, in consequence of a man, named James Barker, residing at Papanui, who purchased the carpet from the prisoner, refusing to attend as a witness,) and there had not been time to serve him with a subpoena. After retiring for a few moments, the bench said they were of opinion the charge was not proved, and that the case was more of a civil than a criminal character. The contract was not sufficiently explicit, as the words " in the ordinary course of business" might be variously understood. However, it was altogether a most disgraceful case, and not an honest manner of dealing with Captain Fuller. The case would be dismissed. J. T. Collins, prisoner in the former case, was again brought before the bench, charged with feloniously detaining certain sums of money collected by him, as a relief fund for James Brown, farmer, Island Kaiapoi. Charles Dudley, sworn: I know the prisoner. Towards the end of last April, a man of the name of Brown, living on the Island, during a severe illness, had his house destroyed, which, from the length of time he had been confined to his bed, rendered it a case of very urgent distress. Prisoner here asked if he could not have the case remanded, as the charge had been so abruptly brought against him; and as it was likely to damage him in the eyes of the public; he would then immediately give Dr. Dudley an order for the amount of subscription he had received. The Bench decided that the case should proceed. Dr. Dudley then continued: I conferred with the Rev. W. Willock respecting the state of Brown. We decided to insert advertisements in the local papers, calling for assistance for the man in the shape of subscriptions. I gave one advertisement to prisoner, who promised to get it inserted in the Evening Mail (he being agent for that paper) a few times gratis. At the same time, he expressed his sympathy for the sufferer, and gave mess, as a subscription. The following day I met him, vvhen he said he had asked several parties for subscriptions, and had received several promises and some donations. I requested him to band the money over to me at once, so that we might do something for the poor man winter set in. He asked me to call in the evening, when lie would pay me. I went to his shop, when he asked me to call the following day. I applied to him repeatedly after that time, day after day, but he had always some frivolous excuse, such as had left his pocket-book at home, &c. I could neither get money nor list of subscribers. I then saw Mr. Willock, and asked him to call, which he did several times, without obtaining the money. Prisoner said he had received £7 10a, in subscriptions. The night before he finally left Kaiapoi, he agreed to give me the subscriptions the day following. I have never seen him since until to-day nor received the money. The Bench here said it was useless proceeding with the case any further, as it was more of a civil than a criminal character. The case would therefore be dismissed.