POLICE COURT.—Monday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3045, 30 April 1867, Page 5

POLICE COURT.— Monday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.]

DRUNKENNESS. Sarah Condron, James Kelly, Patrick O'Keane, Samuel Boyce^ James Sullivan, William G. Gray, and Maria (a native) were severally convicted of this offence, and reoeived the usual punishment.

LABCENY. William Co3tello was placed in the dock and charged with having, on Saturday last, stolen a pair of blucher boots from the shop of Marion Garrick, West Queen-street, valued at 16s. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. The offence was clearly proved by the evidence of the complainant and her son. The Commissioner of Police stated that the prisoner had been four times charged with larceny, and thrice convicted. The Bench sentenced him to four months' imprisonment with hard labour.

BREACH OF MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1864. Edward White, articled seaman on board the ship • John Scott,' was charged with wilful disobedience of orders of the master on 7th February last, when the veisel was on the high seas. The information was laid by Captain M. Penfold. There was a second oharge of assault against the defendant brought by the captain of the vessel. Mr. Brookfield appeared for the complainant, and Mr. MacCormick for defendant. The accuied pleaded guilty to haying struck the captain, but denied the charge of wilful disobedience of lawful commands. Mr. Brookfield laid the oomplainant would be satisfied with the plea of guilty to the charge of assault. The prisoner was sentenced to twelve weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

EDMUND J. COX. Edmund J. Cox w»s then placed in the dock. Mr. MacCormick appeared for the piosecutiom ; Mr. Beveridge appeared for prisoner. Some discussion took place as to whether the Bench should hear the charge of larceny or forgery first. It appeared that the information for lareeny had been laid first. Mr. Ma&Cormick said that, ai he did not think he would be able to sustain the charge for larceny as laid in the information, he would bring the case as one under the Fraudulent Trustees Act of 1860. The case was therefore proceeded with, and the prisoner charged, under the 3rd clause of the fraudulent Trustees Act, 1860, with converting to his own use, with intent to defraud, the sum of £200, the property of Mr. William B, Logan, on or about the 4th Dec, 1866, the Skid sum being entrusted to the prisoner as an attorney. Mr. MacCormick stated the case for the prosecution, as disclosed in evidence. William E. Logan deposed : I reside at Otahuhu. I knew the prisoner as a solicitor practising in Auckland for several years. I knew him as a member of the firm of Brookfield and Cox, solicitors in Auckland, in November last. I know Mr. Alexander Wilkie, of Epsom, The prisoner had been employed to effect a mortgage by Mr. Wilkie to myself. The mortgage was subsisting on 4th December. I made arrangements to meet Mr. Wilkie in Mr. Cox's office on 4th December, for the purpose of being repaid the sum of money due to me by Mr. Wilkie, and my executing a reconveyance. Mr: Wilkie \tas due me at that time £250 for principal, and £7 16s. 3d. as interest. I saw the prisoner on that day in Messrs. Brookfield and Cox's office. I had a conversation with him. I asked him if Mr. Wilkie had called. The prisoner said he had called a short time before I came in, and that Mr. Wilkie was not then prepared with the money, and that he would return in about an hour. I said I had business in town to transact, that the prisoner could receive the money, and that I would sign the reconveyance. I told him when Mr. Wilkie had paid the money to hand him over the re-conveyance along with the other title-deeds of the property. I signed the re-conveyance, and left it in the prisoner's hands. I then said I wished £200 of the amount re-invested, and the balance I would take with me. He gave me a cheque on the Bank of Auckland for £57 16s. 3d., which I got cashed. I can't say whether it was signed merely by the prisoner or Brookfield and Cox. I then left the office, saying I would call back before leaving town, to see if all was right. I did call again at the office on that d*y, and saw the prisoner. I asked him if Mr. Wilkie had called and paid the money. He said he did, and that it was all right. He said Mr. Wilkie had paid 3d. more than was needed, in order to make it even money. He said Mr. Wilkie had paid the total amount of my claim. I did not repeat the instructions about the £200, as I had given full instructions on my first interview with him. On the first interview the prisoner said he would write and tell me when he had a good investment for the £200. On the 22ad November I called at Messrs. Brookfield and Cox's office and saw the prisoner. He asked me if I had received his letter of the 21st. I said I had not, but it might have passed me on the road. He said he had written to me about an investment for the £200. He stated the nature of the security. He said two persons named Close had bought a farm from Mr. Fitnes«, for which farm they had given a mortgage for £300 to Mr. Fitness. It was upon this mortgage that he wished to lend my money. We had some conversation about the goodness of the security, and, after his explanation, 1 authorised him to lend the money. He said he would do so. I then left him and returned home. I had not received a letter after the 21st November. (Letter produced.) I received this letter on the 22nd November— on the day I returned home. It is dated the 21st. I know the letter to be in the prisoner's handwriting. Som« weeks after, on hearing of the dissolution of partnership between Messrs. Brookfield and Cox, I went to town and saw the prisoner. I asked him if he had got all my papers— that as he had always carried on my business T wished it to remain with him. He said he had got some of them he believed, and the reßt he would obtain for me. I asked to see Mr. Fitness's deed. He said that it was all right, that it was in the Registration Office, and he would get it for me. It was the supposed deed of mortgage by Fitness to myself. I did not insist upon seeing it, and then went away. I have not received from the prisoner either directly or indirectly any such mortgage deed. In consequence of some rumours I had heard, I made inquiry about the prisoner in the beginning of March. I could not find him ; he was gone. I called upon Mr. Fitness. I caused a search to be made for the supposed deed of mortgage. I made inquiries at the prisoner's late office, and of the clerk formerly, in his employment. I have not received from the prisoner directly or indirectly the £200, nor any portion of it. He has had no communication with me m reference to the payment of the sum of £200. I have not seen the prisoner to speak to since before he left about the £200— since the interview I had with him respecting the dissolution. The witness was not cross-examined. Alexander Wilkie deposed : I am a farmer residing at Epsom. I know the prosecutor and the accused. On 4th December last, I was indebted to Mr. Logan in a sum of £237 16s. 3d. I received instructions from him to pay the money to Mr. Cox. It was money due on a mortgage by myielf to Mr. LOgan, for which I was to receive a re-conveyance of the property from Mr. Logan, upon payment of the money. I paid that sum of money to Mr. Cox on 4th December. I paid it by a cheque for £207 16s. 6d. (produced), and an ordor upon the prisoner himself for £50. Tke order had been previously accepted by Mr. Cox. I received a re-conveyance, executed by Mr. Logan, from Mr. Cox. Witness was not crois-examined. Ebenezer Fitness deposed : I am a carpenter, and reside at Newton. I know Mr. Logan, the prosecutor, and the accused. I never authorised the prisoner to borrow the sum of £200 from Mr. Logan on mortgage of my property. I have never received any sum of money from Mr. Logan through the hand of the prisoner. I never executed any deed of mortgage to Mr. Logan. No cross-examination. Frederick Kissling deposed: I was formerly accountant to Messrs. Brookfield and Cox. I was so on 4th December last. The firm kept their general account at the Bank of New Sonth Wales. They had a small account at the Bank of Auckland for payment of witnesses in criminal prosecutions. Moneys received by the firm in the usual course of busineas would be paid to the Bank of *ew South Wales. I produce cash-book kept by me. (lurns to entries on 4th December.) There is no entry of a sum of money to the credit of Mr. Logan, or to the credit of Mr. Wilkie. There is no entry of the £257 16s. 3d. I never heard of any such sum of money having been received to the credit of Mr. Logan or Mr. Wilkie on that day or about that date. Mr. Cox kept his private account at the Bank of Auckland. No cross-examination. Lewis O'Neill deposed : I am ledger-keeper m the B»nk of Auckland. I know the accused. He kept an account at the Bank of Auckland on 4th December last. I produce the ledger. (Turns to Mr. Cox's account.) There was a sum of 16s. 6d. lodged

to hit credit on the 4th December but. There ii no. other entry of sums paid into the Bank on that day. There are no fund* to his credit in the bank now. To the Court : The Moused hai been in the debit acoount for four monthi. Edward Hammond deposed: £ am teller at the Bank of Auckland. I know the accused. (Cashbook produced.) I was teller on the 4th of December. 1866. There was a cheque on the Bank of New South Wales for £257 16s. 6d. lodged to Mr. Cox', credit on that day. It bears the Bank of Auckland stamp on the back. 1 know the cheque produced is the oheque lodgei at the Bank of Auckland. No cross-examination. George Gilmer deposed : lam teller at the Bank of New South Wales. I produce from the Bank the cheque for £257 16s. 6d., dated the 4th December, drawn by Mr. Wilkie o» the Bank of New South Wales. It was received from the "Bank of Auckland. No cross-examination. This closed the case for the prosecution. The evidenoe adduced was read over to the prisoner. Mr. Beveridge said he had no observation to make. His Worship aaid that, after the evidence, the Court had no other course to adopt than to commit the prisoner for trial. Mr. MacCormiok said, with respect to the charge of forgery, he was not prepared to proceed with the case in the absence of an important witness, named McDonald, who resides at Tauranga, and who had been aubposnaed to appear. The subpoena for this witness had been posted for transmission to Tauranga on the day on which the prisoner was first brought up on this charge, but, owing to the vessel carrying the mail being detained several days by contrary winds, the subpeana could not be served upon the witness to ensure his appearance this day. He was expected up in a few days. His Worahip said the prisoner might be indicted at the Supreme Court, without any preliminary proceedings. , , , - „ Mr. Beveridge asked that the charge should bo dismissed. . Mr. MacCormick said he was indifferent in tne matter of the application, as he could proceed against the prisoner by indictment in the Supreme Court ; but he thought it would be fairer to the prisoner to let the case be adjourned, as, in tl« event of the case being gone into before the Bench, the prisoner would have the benefit o£ learning what evidence would be brought against him in support of the charge before being placed upon his trial in the Supreme Court. Mr, Beveridge pressed for the dismissal of the case. The charge was then withdrawn. Mr. Beveridge asked that the prisoner should be admitted to bail. His Wonhip admitted the prisoner to bail, in two sureties of £500 each, to appear for trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court. This concluded the business.