A FORGER'S CASH.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 48, 25 February 1910, Page 5

A FORGER'S CASH.

POLICE OFFICER'S DILEMMA. SUB-INSPECTOR HENDREY SUED, An unusual civil action occupied the attention of Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Sub-inspector Hendrey was sued, as a sub-debtor, by Thomas Markwick, licensee of the Queen's Ferry Hotel, in Vulcan-lane, for the recovery of the sum of £6 6/1, held by him. The circumstances of the case are peculiar. Last year a man named Chadwick was arrested by the police upon a charge that he had forged and uttered a" cheque in the name of Thomas Markwick for the siun of £10. When he was arrested the sum of £6 6/1 was found in his possession, and, together with ias other possessions, was held by the police. He offered to pay this sum back to Markwick if the police would stay any further proceedings. The police could not, of course, accept such a proposal, and in due course he was committed for trial at the Supreme Court, where he was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The judge, however, did •not make any order regarding the disposal of the money found upon the prisoner. After he had been convicted, Chadwick was asked by the police if he would consent to the sum found on him being paid over to Markwick. He refused point blank to accede to this suggestion, and said he would not surrender a penny of the money, which had been sent to him by his mother. The money, therefore, remained in the hands of the police. Subsequently Mark-wick-applied to the Subninspeetor for « refund of the £6 6/1, but in fhe* absence of any order of the Conrt, and in face of Chadwfck's attitude, he declined te pay over the amount. Markwick thereupon ciVnmenced proceedings to recovee £6 6/1 from Sub-inspector Hendrey, as sub-debtor. The difficulty of the situation is apparent. Chadwick claimed that the money, was his, and in the absence of, any orde* by the judge, if 'he gave the money ta Markwiek he might later on be cued by; Chadwick for the amount The Sub-in-spector very properly refused to part ■with the money without a definite ordet of the Court as to whom it belonged. After hearing the facts, Mr. Kettle said he was of opinion, from a legal point of view, that the Sub-inspector of police could not in any event be joined as a sub-debtor. He made an order for the sum to be paid into Court, and directed that , the sum of £6 6/1 be paid by the Court to Thomas Markwick, upon giving a clean receipt to Sub-inspector Hendrey, and indemnifying 'him against proceedings in respect of the amount on the part of any other person.