KAIAPOI.

Press, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5057, 22 November 1881, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

MOSDAY, NOVB-CBBS 20. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Eiq, 8.M., and G. H. Blackwell, Esq., May or .j O-SOBKH LANauAGB.—L. Whitehead, a youth, was charged with using obscene langnage. Acoused admitted the offence, and was fined 40s and costs, or in default ninetysix hours' imprisonment. In the next case of the kind the Benoh said [that the fine would be £5, with the option of a fortnight's imprisonment. Public; House Acts.—Patrick Kearney, W. Bui-nip, and A. Piper, were each oharged with breaches of these Aots, but as a material witness teamed Gillies was absent, the cases were adjourned for a fortnight. Pbitt Labokkt.—Dominic, a Maori boy, was charged with the laroeny of a necktie value 3s, the property of Annie Manahi, a Native woman. A Maori woman named Mary Ann aoted as interpreter. The offence was proved, and accused was sentenced to one week's imprisonment. liLBGAiiT DBiviKa Hoksbs.—Mark, a Maori, was charged by James Edwards with this offence. Accused, it appeared, had, at the request of other Natives, who considered they had an interest in the land leased by complainant, driven the horses away. The Benoh pointed ont that a claim ought to have been made for rent before other steps were taken, and in this instance it was shown that complainant was prepared to pay the rent to the trustees of the Maori from whom the land was leased. Accused was fined ss.

Makht-- a Famh Dbolabatiok.—Fred. Edward James Hunter was charged with making a false declaration by which he obtained a marriage certificate. Mr Holmes appeared for aooused. S. Johnston, registrar of marriages, produced the " Gazette" notice ef his. appointment, and said accused came on sth inst. to the post office with a person named Vogel. Acoused said he wished, to be married, and that he had resided in Kaiapoi some time. Witness filled up the form. Acoused eaid r he was to be married te Mary Ellen Hewsorj, and stated her age to be twenty-one years. He said be did not know the month, but thought it was July last, and appealed to Vogel, who agreed with him that it * was July last. Witness filled into the register the particulars as given by acoused, then read them to him, and handed him tbe book, requesting him to read it through, and sign his name at tbe bottom of the declaration whioh is contained at the foot of each entry in the book. Accused read it to himself, said it was correct, and signed it F. E. J. Hunter. Witness then gave accused the necessary forms, addressed to the Bey. J. H. Sinsmondsj Wesley an minister, Kaiapoi. On the 14th, in reply to witness, acoused said the declaration was false, and had been brought abont through unpleasantness at home. He then said he believed his wife's age was nineteen. Vogel was present on this occasion also. By Mr Holmes—At the second interview he did not say that the girl had been beaten at home, but that there was unpleasantness. He said he had been Urged by the girl in order that she might get away from home. H. Vogel gave corroborative evidence. Walter Hewsensaid aooused bad boarded at his house three or four months. He had married witness' daughter. She was nineteen years of age as. shown by the vaccination certificate. (Mr Holmes submitted this was no evidence.) Witness then explained that she was born in 1864. Mr Holmes pointed out that this made the age only seventeen, and the evidence was unreliable. He did not know-if his daughter was likely to bean heiress. Witness was not a man of property. He would have consented if he had been asked. He had sinoe given his consent. Sergeant Gilbert, said when arrested accused said he knew she was not twenty-one, but her parents did not behave well to her. "She was not served like one of the family, so I married her." This having closed the case, Mr Holmes had hoped the Benoh would have been able to have dealt with this case of insane amores—the insanity of love—in a summary way. The Besident Magistrate did not see any other course allowed by the law but to send the case for trial. If on looking into it he could do so he would, and adjourned it for a fortnight, aooused being released on his own bail of £25.

Embezzlement. — Alexander McMillan, saddler, out of business, was oharged with embezzling £12 10a and other moneys received on. account of his master, Hugh MoLaohlan. Mr Nalder prosecuted, Mr Holmes defended. Sergeant Gilbert stated that he arrested accused on the 14th by virtue of a warrant. He said, "I never was a servant of MoLaohlan./ no more than I am of yours. The business was mine, and MoLachlan was responsible to the merchants for mc. I never received a shilling of wages from MoLaohlan before tbe Monday I left, when he gave my wife £_." Next day he said in witness* office," There was no money of MoLachlan's put into the business for over four months after I started. At the time I started I got £15, from a friend and £210s for a saddle that I had and sold, £2 for a pig and 25s for an orange sash that I had not sold. I put all that money in the business, and the goods were obtained from Mason, Struthers and Co. and Butler Bros., and MoLaohlan was responsible to them." By Mr Holmes—He did not say he had reoeived £30 from one Brandt. Hugh McLaohlan, farmer, deposed—About the 6th April he started a Saddlery business in Kaiapoi, and took accused to manage it for him. Aooused was employed at weekly wages of £3 per week to look after the men, keep accounts, pay all wages, and hand witness the balance of earnings. Accused signed the agreement to that effect (now produced), of which he kept a copy. Witness purchased all the stock in his own name. This arrangement continued trom April 6th to October 17th, when witness got dissatisfied with the money not coming in as he expected. He took Mr Champion in and demanded the books, which accused refused to give up at first, but afterwards Mr Champion got them. Witness then found that he had notreceived the £1210. and other I sums in question, and applied to accused for it. He also met him a week after in Christohuroh when accused asked for his wages. Witness asked him what he had done with £69 out of the business which had not been accounted for. He said he had not taken a shilling. He said if he could get up to the books he could explain how.it had gone. Witness gave him a pound to pay his fare and expenses to Kaiapoi to explain the books, but he could not. Had not received the amount of the present charge. By Mr Holmes—The hooks were here. Saw the accused in March. He was insolvent then. He asked t'me for a loon of money. Witness gave him £3. He had not then opened a shop in the old Pbbss office. Accused had been working for Mr R. Moore, and said he wanted to start business himself. He started for witness on the 6th. He rented the shop in his own name. Witness was not aware accused put any stock into the shop. Knew Senior. Senior went in to work as a weekly man. Sever knew that McMillan bought stock in Senior's name. Knew nothing of the invoice produced, or saddlery business. Had been informed that Mr J. Kerr had supplied leather. It was not P-rt of the agreement to provide stock out of •28 per week. Witness had provided all the stock. Did not say the agreement was made on April 6th. The agreement put in was not made on Ap-ii 6tb, as dated, rot .two months before __, put accused out, vis., in August. Tbey dated the 'agreement back because the arr *°_«nent was the same as when it wss made. Bemember accused receiving an ■mount feoan, Kinley. His trustee in bankroptcy tefeed the money, aad it was on that

day the agreement was drawn up. Did not ask to go into partnership with McMillan in £300 if hewbuTd teach witness the business. It was not understood that MaMilh_-,b-ing insolvent witness would baekhim. Witness did not back the bills. Accused bought the goods on his account. Witness went to Mason, Struthers and Co. and told them he would be responsible for what was bought. He signed a paper be : coming liable for, anything accuse- might want for the saddlery business. This was before ho started. Witness did not sign an acceptance tfll a month after. The first earnings was paid him in July of £26 out of the ■! business; not to meet a bill, aa accused knew nothing about it. The payment to witness of £21 in August 2nd did not include the £12 10s said to hare been embezzled. The £1210s was credited to W. Keith's account in tbe daybook and ledger. Witness kept a bank account, but not in connection with the business. McMillan paid £4 10s in once. There was a bill coming due ; it was paid in to meet it. Witness, had given acoused the , money to pay in. The accounts were rendered in name of " A. McMillan, agent." Witness did not think, although he owned the business, it was necessary to use his own name. He thought it would bring a better custom in McMillan's name. [Laughter.] There was no blind. Accused was supposed to charge himself with per week wages. Witness did not know whether he had done it or not. Witness did not understand books. Acoused boarded the men; he had not oharged for them. He bad to pay 8s a week for one and 15s for another. Accused took the latter from Mr Wilson, secretary to the building sooiety. Wilson insisted on the rent being paid in advance. Mr Holmes — .Did you expect accused to be a manager, a saddler, keep the workmen, and pay rent, all for £3 per week, according -, to agreement. Witness —I had nothing to do . with what he did—that was our agreement. Never had any difficulty in getting at the ' books till the last, as acoused was too candid to make witness suspicious. Never told Lancaster he never had any interest in the business from the first. Witness one day asked the price of some tacks in the shop. It was out of mere curiosity. Witness never wanted acoused to sign a dooument acknowledging him as his servant. He tendered him a week's wages of £3 in lieu of a week's notice at the last. After the agreement was signed, and witness found accused paying his accounts by contra accounts witness told him he would not be responsible for the £3 a week. Witness said he would have the agreement cancelled and wind up the business. Accused tore up his copy of the agreement. Witness could not give the date —never kept datee, but it was a month before he put accused out. It was on September 12th that the agreement dated April 6th was made. Acoused never asserted he had an interest in the business till he was asked to account for this money. Knew he was sending out bills in his own name. Witness objected to it, : and never knew bnt what accused had altered it. The objection was made at the latter end of the time. He was never authorised to buy only at Mason, Struthers* and Butler Brothers', or buy in his own name. Witness never paid him wages —he took it out of the business. Accused handed the business over to him and sold it to Hale and Co., hut not at a sacrifice. Did not sell saddles invoioed at £4 at £3. Sold the stook for £176 4i lid, discount 15 per cent, allowed. The stock was valued. Witness told acoused that all he wanted was his own money back. Never told Lancaster the busmeaa was M'Millan's. Never told Bountree that the -agreement of April 6th was to prevent Hale as trustee olaiming on acoused. By Mr Nalder—The workmen were one seventeen and the other eighteen years old, and one Mrs M'Millan's brother. W. Keith, farmer, Kaiapoi Island, gave evidence of paying accused £12 10s for saddling. By Mr Holmes—The credit was entered in _ book. It was paid in July. Acoused—His first payments were coming due in August, and he would want the money then. 0. J. Champion, aooountant, stated he had examined the books on M'Lachlan'e account. He found £68 lis lOd not accounted for in proper form. Certain sums had probably been reoeived by acoused for goods sold, and other sums paid for general expenses, which were not entered. The total defioit was £95 2s 9d, taking the accounts in the book according to a statement made, after allowing £84 for wages and rent, but sundry charges made would reduce the deficiency by the books £65 11s lOd. The £12 10s in question was not inoluded in the cash-book. It appeared in the other books, but the cash was not accounted for. Accused said in his office if the books were gone into properly the £65 would oome out. By Mr Holmes—Witness gave a list of monies not accounted for amounting to about £30. He went into every item with the acoused; The receipts from July 29th to August 2nd, inclusive of the £12 10s would be £29 16s 6_, less charges £21 9s. On the latter date there was a receipt given by MoLaohlan for £2115.. There were contra account, of £30 whioh witness was instructed to take as private accounts. A sum of £30 was entered as received into the business from Mr Brandt, and £5 owing by hi-n whioh had not been taken into account. Witness had drawn up a form of receipt, to be signed by accused for wages, whioh he refused to accept. Mr Holmes contended there, was no case; The Besident Magistrate said he would hear the evidence for the defence. O. Oram stated he let a shop to accused believing he was in business on his.own account. J. L. Wilson, secretary Northern Building Society, stated he subsequently let accused a shop at 15s a week, and required payment a month in advance, because accused had not a discharge from his bankruptcy. Would never have asked for it in advance if MoLaohlan had guaranteed it. W. Keith gave evidence that MoLaohlan told him that accused worked for him, but that accused refused to recognise him as his master. John Lancaster stated MoLaohlan. had told him he was helping acoused through friendship, to do him a good turn. James Kerr, f ellmonger, stated he sold acouaed five or six rolls of harness leather, and accused gave him an order for part pay* ment on McLaohlaa. Thomas Chilton stated he was at accused's house before he began business again and saw rolls of leather, harness, chains and other things. This was between the time of acoused leaving Moore and opening shop in the old Peebs offioe. Mr Holmes applied again for a dismissal. The Besident Magistrate said that a prima facie case having been made ont, it would be necessary to commit acoused for trial, bail being taken, acouaed in £50 and two sureties of £25 each.—A. McMillan was further charged with having on 28th May, as a servant of H. McLachlan, embezzled £2 14s; on the 6th June, £3 15s; and on 20th August, £4 7s 6d; but on the request of counsel, these oharges were not gone into. j

C-VH. Casks.—W. H. OvendenvJ. Urn, £8 lis 6i, £3 paid; judgment for plaintiff. E. Hornby v Dr. McCarthy, £3 6.; no appearance* W. H. Ovenden v Gf. Pearce, £10 4s; judgment by consent. W. H. Ovenden vJ. Nixon, £8 18.; judgment for plaintiff. Eckersley and Maofarlane v Q-. Wiseman, £22 7a 8d; judgment by default. J. Banby v Nathaniel (a Maori), £1 lis; judgment for plaintiff. -