POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 240, 11 October 1888, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

YESTERDAY,

Alleged Larceny as a Bailee.— Joseph Lee was charged with having converted to his own use a certain dray, value £11, of wl'iioh h'6 was the bailee, such dray being the property Of fiichard Sandall. Mr Hugh Campbell appeared for. the pros-ecutor and Mi' Theo. Cooper for the accused. Mr Campbell in opening said th& accused had hired the dray in question from the pfolecutor in January last at the weekly rate of five sh.illihgs. Only £3 had been paid, and on ffcfre 28th S6ptemb6r 'last accused had allowed the dray to be'sold at Mrßucktand's. auction mart." Previous to this Lee had refused to return /the dray or pay up the balance of the money due as rent, ahd ivhen Mr Sandall. had attempted to Seize the dray in Mr Buckland's saleyard, he had prevented him. — Charles Sandall, a butcher residing in ilymonds-Streeit, deposed to being the ovvher of the ' dray in ' question, which he , had leased to the defendant through Mr Ebenezer Gibbons for fts a week. He had on several occasions Since the.2nd of February last up till the *Bth September sfeeh Lee in pos'sesifibn of the dray. He saw it on the last date in Mr Buckland's saleyard when it was 6old by Mr Buckland to Maurice Casey. AotiuSecl was present at the time. Before . tho sale witness tried to rescue the dray, but Lee and his man prevented him. ,Le/i jiaid fcinle> "ou !&"* m& ?ufc of ft bcirse last week, and I'll do you out of a .tray this Sveek." Lee had ho authority to tfeiti with the dray. Tho value of the dray was in February £11, and at the sale it fetched between£6 and £7. The dray was still witness's property on the 28th September. Cross-examined: He neverspok eto Lee. The leasing of the dray was done through Gibbons, andhe did not authorise Gibbonsto Sell the dray. -He did not authorise Gibbons to sell the dray for £9 to be paid within 6 anonths nor for £11 to be paid in a longer period. He never gave Gibbons Authority to sell the dray at any time. •He rendered a verbal account to Lee for the rent of the dray. His wife received £2 from Lee about the 16th March, and £1 in May. He allowed the rent to fall into arrear for about four months. He claimed the dray for Lee at the saleyard. Mi' Buckland had "said to him if the dray Was his he would be answerable.for the hmney. AMr Bray had asked hrm to sell him the dray;in January: He.might have iiome to hini ; and asked him to,, sell it after his -had hired the dray^ hut h6 neVertold'him that Lee had bought %tie dray. A man named Clarke had nbt comefrbm Leeandtold hihi that Lee-would pay him £5 in a week. He had not told V man hamed Frank- Wood that he would have to_ sue Lee for the money for'the dray. He --never told Mrs Clarke that he had sold tho dray to Lee, hht that he held Gibbons-s security : -foi. the money. He never sent a boy namoH Mbyle io Lee for the balance »| the purchase money. Gibbons was Lee's agent, loot his, in the matter of the dray. ■Re-examined: JHe wanted -£12 for-the dray Ijrhen Gibßoris wanted to buy the dray for •Lee. Lee was not agreeable, -80 he offered to take £11' cash, brft Lee still declined, so he hiade the arrangement about, letting the dray-fdr Ss'per week. —E benezer Parsons Gibbons, a timber merchant residing at SwaHsbn, 'deposed :that he knew both the .aee'iised and tho -prosecutor, and had had -dealings fwitsboth. Be had negotiated between the two £xr the sale of a dray at tho 6»d of Ja»u.?y

last. Lee wished to buy it, arid as Sandall wanted- £11 nothing came of the matter. He then! arranged with Lee for the .lease of the dray ab 5s a week, '.and he received an order from Sandall to obtain the dray from the blacksmith who held it, and then banded the dray over to Lee, who took it away. Lee had asked him afterwards to apologise to Sandall for.hot paying him tho money, as lie would not'getbis money until bhe end of the mouth. There was no particular time mentioned for the hiring ; tho dray wa-r'TO" be returned when the 5-» a week was nob paid. lie considered this charge of 5s a-week a fair one. - Cross : There was no sale of the dray to. Lee. Did not tell Mrs Clarke-thab the dray was sold to Leo, and if lie- did nob pay then Sandall would come down on him. He had had various transactions with Sandall. Lee had repaired the dray, and spent money on it. Among other things he had put a new shaft! in, the old one being defective. Sandall had never toid him that be held him responsible for the money.-—Elizabeth Sandall, wife of the prosecutor, deposed to Lee paying her £2 at the shop, which he said was for rent of the dray, .he had nob had any further conversation with Lee.— Alfred Thomas Mdyle, in the employ of Mr Sandall, deposed to taking a message from his employer to Lee, requesting him to pay some money for the rent of the dray. Lee said thab he was expecting some money from the Road Board, and would let Mr Sandall have the same on tho first of the month. He was sent on another Occasion to Mr Lee, but did nut see him. Saw him on .Friday week, when he obtained a horse collar from Lee. On that occasion Leo told him that if ho (witness) went to Court and swore that he (accused) hired the dray, he would be telling .lie. —Chariea Lowe, a blacksmith residing in Symondsst'reet', deposed to delivering to Mr Gibbons a dray belonging to Mr Sandall, on receipt of an order from the owner. He could not say if Lee was with Gibbons when he took the dray away.—Mr Cooper addressed the! Court, contending thab & prima facie, case liad nob been made out. If His Worship thought t-iuit such had been done, thou he would produce an array of witnesses for the defence, whose evidence was such bhab no jury would convict.—His Worship thought that otr bhe evidence adduced no jury would convict. There was some slight evidence of hiring, bub bhe accused had apparently gone upon what he considered his legal rights. He would therefore disiiiss the case and order the accused to be discharged.