POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2333, 7 September 1877, Page 3

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Betore R. C. Barstow, Esq., R. M.) BACCHANALIAS VOLUNTEERS. The following sons of Bacchus were paraded this morning in the Police Court, under command of Captain Peter Finn, and subjected to the annexed fines :—Peter Finn, 5s ; Martin Dwyer, ss; Michael Burke, 5s ; George Jackson, 5s ; John Leonard, 10s ; and Wm. Elder, 20s, and five days imprisonment. CHARGES OF FORGING AND UTTERING. Morris Hyams, on bail, appeared to answer several charges of forging and uttering : (!) a transfer for 55 shares in the Tafrua Prospectors' Gold Mining Company (Limited), purporting to be signed by Wm. Young, with intent to defraud, on or about June 15, 1876; (2) 100 share?, on or about August 3 ; (3) 50 shares, on or about August 23 ; (4) 40 shares, on or about August '23 ; (5) 20 shares, on or about 2nd September. Mr Brookfield and Mr A. Whitaker appeared for the prosecution, and MiTyler and Mr Hesketh for the prisoner. Mr Brookfield opened the case for the prosecution. Mr Whitaker elicited the evidence. George Winter deposed that he was secretary of the Tairua Prospectors' Goldmining Company (limited), now in liquidation ; and produced the certificate of the corporation of the Company, also the registration of the sh ■ "(-holders.' The registered owner of the tn fer for fifty paid-up shares was William Vi mg ; the transfer was from Mr William John Hurst, of Auckland, to the said '^iii' m Young in consideration of the suit! •• H42 10s. TJiere were calls due upon tlic hares, but he had been unable to find William Young. _ lie was not personally acquainted with William Young. £80 10s was due on these and other shares. James Frater, in the employ of Frater Brothers, mining agents, deposed that he kuew the prisoner, who was in the habit of doing business through their Thames office. He was in the employ of Messrs Barnett and Levy. He kuew the transfer marked "B.I." It was partly tilled in by himself, but he could not say who instructed him to describe Wm, Young as " storekeeper." Mr Tyler asked that witnesses might be ordered out of Court. Hi* Worship said he had the power to order counsel out of Court, but this was an indictable case, in which any person might be called ac a witness, Even if a witness was in Court his evidence could not be refused. Mr Hesketh considered that his Worship had the discretionary power ; he was sitting ministerially and not judicially ; and in a late ca*e where he (Mr Hesketh) had applied, witnesses were ordered out. His Worship said in that case he oulcred the Court to be cleared. He thought there could be no objection to witnesses remaining. After some further discussion, witnesses were ordered to leave the Court. Examination continued. Mr Hyams called several times respecting transfers in the Tairua Company, and by his instructions the name of William Young was given. He said Young was a shopman in their employ. He nerer saw William Young sign the transfers. Mr Hyams always took them away for the alleged purpose of getting the signature, and he (Mr Hyams) invariably brought them back ts the office. He could not say who paid the purchase money. His brother usually received payments. He treated the transfers iv the usual way.

Cross-examined, by Mr Tyler

John Frater, of the firm of Prater Brothers, knew the accused, Mr Hyams. He had been instructed, to buy shares for him in the Tairna tioldmining Company (limited), bui ac could not remember datc-s. He was instructed that William Young was their storeman. He purchased through the Auckland office, but could not say from whom. He could not say who registered the transfer. He purchased under Air Hyara's instructions, but not with the condition that William Young's name should be inserted in the transfer. Cross-examined by Mr Heskcth. William Henry Young deposed that he was in the employ of Ivies.- it-; Barnett and Levy at the Thames. He knew Mr Hyams, but did not know hi? position vx the firm. He was at the Thames in IS7G. He never purchased shares ir. the TVirna Prospectors' Company, nor did he authorise anyone to purchase shares for him. The signatures 031 the transfers were not his. He! had seen '-Mr Hyams' signaturr often, and should take the signature to be his. He was away from the f tore four months through an accident, from June to October. There were two men successively in h.13 place during; his absence. One's name was William, but he did not know his surname. He signed a transfer for Mr Hyams once, but could not say whether it was on the Tairua Company; he' thought it wag. Thomas Ivlacillirlane, liquidator of the Tairua Company,:, deposed that there was a meeting held about a fortnight "go in respect of the said company, when William Young was called upon to shew cause why his name should be struck oft iron the list of contributors. He had applied to have it struck off, and accordingly it was done. The accused, ll.ya.ms, was then examined upon oath, and the transfers shewn to him, and amongst others B. T. Tie stated that the signature was his, but previously he had denied it. "Witness asked who William Young- was, when he replied that the Young- of the transfer was not their shopman, buta miner of the same name : he couid not tell wiiat mine he was working in. Detective Samuel Brennan, of Grahamstown, deposed that he know but ones William Young of the Thames, who was the witness in this To Mr Hesketh: He had found three other Youngs, Wm. John, Wm. Joseph, and Wm. J. Young. He knew them, but they were not miners. He had searched the register of miners' rights. This was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner was fully committed to take his trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed—himself in filOO, and two sureties of £200 each.