MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXII, Issue 65, 18 March 1910, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY (Before Messrs Drummond and Newett, J's.P.) William Worthington was charged that on February 28, 1910, he did obtain from Annie Brown, by means of a false pretence, the sum'of £ls. Sergeant Black prosecuted. Annie Brown deposed that she was a housekeeper residing at Dannevirke. She met accused at the Coffee • Palace about a month or five weeks ago. He was there as' a boarder. She found out that he was in difficulties. He said he had obtained through influence a situation in the Crowii Lands Department at Napier. Ihe salary was to be £BOO per year He was in ill-health and would" be glad to get out of .boarding house lite. He said he had cabled home to his people for monev, but for some reason it had been delayed. Then he said there was a house and furniture allowed in the situation and he would go down and take an inventory of the furniture. Witness lent him £ls to do so, and he was to go to . Napier by first train to do so. Did not see him in the morning, but was told he had gone to Palmerston. He had no breakfast before he went. She Avas to haA-e heard from him on the Thursday, but as she did not have a letter she Avent and saw Mrs RobertshaAye, Avhom it was understood Avas an intimate friend of accused. .She subsequently heard that accused had not obtained the situation he spoke about, nor was he a friend of Mrs RobertshaAve's. Accused said he Avas going to Tahoraiti to an entertainment and asked witness for the loan of her rings. She lent them to him, and he returned them next morning. On the following Sunday evening he said he Avas going to the Rev. RobertshaAve's house after the service, and again borrowed the rings. When he returned home that night he'was breathing very hard, and witness said he should not have hurried so. She thought no more about the rings t as she thought lie was a gentleman and -would return the rings in due course. He did not return l the rings. The rings, produced; were the ones she lent him; she did not authorise him to convert them to his oavii use. To the Bench: When accused asked for the money she Avent to the Post Office and dreAv it out of the SaAungs Bank. She paid him in cash. To accused: Her proper name Avas not Mrs BroAvn, as she had been married since. He did not haA r e the rings continuously from the time he first borrowed them. She lent him the rings o-n the first occasion before anything about Napier Avas mentioned. There Avas no exchange of rings made. She had a band ring in her possession which belonged to accused. He left it on the table when: he put hers on. She had never Avorn it at the Coffee Palace, but it was still in her possession. He had her rings on the 28th, and she knew he Avas going to Napier next morning, but nothing Avas said about the return of the rings. She did not knoAv he. was taking all his luggage Avith him, but she understood she Avas to have a letter on the Thursday. She took it for granted the rings Avould be returned. Never advised accused not to stay at the Coffee Palace when' witness came back. Breakfast Avas generally ready at 7.30 a.m.

Continuing, Mrs Brown deposed : Accused stated that he Avas in difficulties, and witness offered to lend accused the money. No arrangements were made to pay the money back.

To the court: Accused led her to believe the money Avould be paid back Avithin a short time.

1 To accused: .Nothing was said about marriage. Witness told Mr Thomsen that she was leaving the Coffee Palace. 1 ' 'Did you lend me this money for business or sentimental reasons ■"'— "There was nothing sentimental about it." "Did you ever go for walks with me?"—" No." Received a telegram from accused as follows:—"Returning to-morrow; sorry so long.—VV.W." Witness then asked the police to - withdraw the case. If witness had received the telegram from accused before making the complaint she would have waited, lie-examined: Would- never have parted with the money if accused had not made the representations about his billet in Napier. To accused: He mentioned at the time of the representations as to to his position that he might have to go' to .Napier. Henry T. Price, chief draughtsman in the Lands and Survey Department, Napier, deposed he had never saw accused before. Accused never obtained a situation in the Lands Office in Napier. Had accused done so, witness would have been aware of it. No man by the name of Worthington had ever applied for employment in their office. Vacancies at £BOO per year were few and far between. To accused: The Receiver of Land ■ Revenue was being transferred to Auckland at the end of the month. That gentleman was a married man. Mrs Brown, recalled, produced the telegram received from accused. John James Cassells, detective, stationed at Wellington, deposed he saw accused at the Trocadero, Wellington, on March 9. Accused refused to give his name. Took accused to the ** police office, where accused stated his name was Green. He (witness) then charged him with theft. Accused said there was some mistake. Found a pawn ticket on accused for two gold rings. Claimed the rings (produced) at tiie pawnshop. Accused told witness the rings were the ones stolen from Mrs Brown. To accused: You were arrested on a warrant issued for obtaining the rings on false pretences. This closed the case for the prosecution. Accused, who had nothing to pleaded "Not guilty,' 7 and was committed for trial at the Supreme Court at Palmerston North. Accused stated that he was in the last stages of consumption, and on that account he would ask that he be sent to Napier gaol pending trial. He would further ask that bail be allowed him. He would undertake to report to the police once or twice a day if necessary, or to comply with any, conditions they may see fit to impose. Sergt. Black asked that the bail be made substantial, as the accused was not a resident of the town. l Accused stated he would be willing j to reside in Dannevirke if bail was allowed. Bail was allowed, accused in his own recognisances of £SO, and two sureties of £SO each.