RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'B COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 310, 3 January 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'B COURT.

» THIS DAY. (Before the Hon. P. A. Buckley, J.P., and Mr. P. Moell«r, J.P.) CKUBX.Tr TO A HORSB. T. W. Neil was summoned for cruelty to a horse. Defendant did not appear. Mr. Mansford, R M., deposed that on Saturday week he was uralidng along Lambton Quay, when he saw the defendant, who is an expreaadriver, belaboring a horse with the butt end of a whip. Anything more brutal he never saw in his life. The Bench fined the defendant 40s and costs. (Before Mr. Mansford, R.M.) BROACHINO CAROO. , George Wise, William Pick, Robert Erwen, and A. J. Camming were charged with embezzling three bottle* of ch&mpague, value £l, from tbe cargo of the Heraione. Mr. Brandon, jun., appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Gordon Allan for the defence. Daniel Thomas Roberts, master of the Hermione, gave evidence of the offence, widen was committed while the vessel was lying at the quarantine station on 16th December. In broaching the cargo they dropped a candle, endangering the vessel. Wh »n brought before the captain, the men were the worse for liquor. Pick, on being questioned why they went into the hold, said tnat it was to see what they could get. The other men assented. Mr. Gordon Allan submitted that the offence was not embezzlement, and, therefore, the information failed. Mr. Mansford, however, decided that it was embezzlement. Wise was then called, and denied having taken tbe champagne. In reply to Mr. Brandon, however, he admitted that they west down " to see what they could get." Two other prisoners wen called, and denied the robbery. One said he went to get hit coat, and another to " see what he could find." Mr. Mauford ordered each of the prisoners to be imprisoned for twelve weeks' hard labor, 4 and to forfeit 5s (one-fourth the value of the cfaampagna) oat of their wages. FOKGBRT AND LARCBKT. James Alien Mackie, late manager of th« Hutt branch of the Bank of New Zealand, was charged with feloniously forging a cheque fo £1300, with intent to defraud the said bank. Mr. Jzard, the Crown prosecutor, with Mr* Buckley, appeared for the proiecaiitit, and Mr. Forwood far the defence. Hr. bud, having opened the cue, called

Thomas Mabey, who deposed that he wa* a butcher at the Upper Hutt. He knew prisoner, who had been manager of the Bank of New Zealand at the Upper and Lower Hutt. Witness was in Carlyfe in June lut, and lodized £81 11s 6d at the Bank of New Zealand there. The slip produced was signed by him. The body was in the writing of a cierk in the Bank. The deposit was made in error in the name of William Mabey. Witness signed the cheque produced and paid it into the Land Office at Garble. He paid the £81 11s 6d into the Bank by means of a Government cheque given in return for the cheque last produced. Some time afterwards witness told the prisoner of the balance to his credit at Carlyle, and said be thought he might at well have it at the Hutt. Prisoner said, " If you give me a cheque I will -* -forward ft up." Witness signed the cheque "produced, and gave it to the prisoner. The utter afterwards told him that the cheque was dishonored, as the deposit ws# made in the name of W. Mabey instead of T, Mabey. Subsequently witness again spoke to the prisoner about the matter, and the latter said, " I'll fix that up for you ; you sign a blank cheque, and I'll forward it up for you." Witness at once signed a blank cheque and gave to the prisoner, the latter stating that the amount would come back, less com— iieioni per cent. The signature and the date of the cheque produced were in witness's hand-writing, and it was the blank cheque which be gave to the prisoner. Witness endorsed the cheque he gave to the prisoner. This he did at tbe request of the latter. - Witness had a deposit account of about £1400 at the Upper Hutt a: that time. His drawing account was about £160 or £170. Cross-examined— Witness believed that it was on Saturday last that he first beard at the cheque having been filled in for £1300. Witness did not complain of it to anybody, and did not lodge the informs iicn. Witness came here at the request of the solicitor to the Bank (_r. Buckley). Henry Robert Lawry, assistant-accountant of the Bank of New Zealand, said that the document produced (referring to an alleged lodgment of £1400 by Mabey) was in the handwriting of the prisoner. On the 23rd December witness, in consequence of instructions received, went to the Hutt and Upper Hutt branches. At tbe Upper Hutt prisoner told him that' he got a blank cheque from MaUy to transfer the Carlyle balance, and had filled it in himself for £1900.v He also said that Mr. Mabey did not know that he bad filled it in for that amount. Cross-examined— When he went to the Hutt he told the prisoner he cama to relieve him for a few days. Gave him no intimation that the Bank had any reason to complain of him, or that he came to " overhaul " htm. Witness took a letter with him to the effect that he had come to see that everything was in order. Prisoner made the statement about the rheque freely and voluntarily. the witness Mabey, recalled, denied having given the prisoner authority to pay in £1400 for him. He knew nothing of the document •polen of by the last witness. Prisoner, who reserved his defence, was then committed for trial at the next criminal sessions of tbe Supreme Court. He was next further charged with feloniously atoaMng, on the 23rd December, £1310 in money, the property 0$ the Bank of New Zealand. Mr. Lawry, the assistant accountant, gave evidence to the effect that when he went with the prisoner to the Upper Hutt branch on the 23rd December, as described in his previous evidence, prisoner said to him " Mr. Lawry, I have some bad news to tell you." Witness asked him what it was, and he replied that witness would find hid cash £1310 short. Witness replied, "Well, I pity you," and added that he would have to telegraph to the manager, but before doing that he would have to count the cash. Witness counted it, and iound it exactly £1810 short. Witness then telegraphed to the manager at Wellington. He stayed at the Upper Hutt with tbe prisoner that night. The latter asked him whether the Bank would be likely to compromise the matter, and witness said he couW _Jt tell. After that witness asked him bow he managed to pass the previous inspector's examination. Prisoner replied that he might as well make a clean breatt of it, and stated that he managed, it by filling up Mabey's cheque. He aim said that the defalcations had been going on for about two yean, and' that, with one exception, when the inspector visited him, he never brought down the cash from the Upper Hutt. In cross-examination the witness* said that he had no intimation of the deficiency of £1310 until he got it from the prisoner himself. When the prisoner first went to the Hutt he received £150 per annum salary, Avith £50 allowance to cover travelling expenses, ke. Last April he received an increase of £25. His railway fare between the Upper aid Lower Hutt would be paid. When he first went there the business was very small. Robert William Kane, accountant of the Bank of New Zealand, and Charles William Chilman, clerk at the Hutt branch, also gave evidence. Prisoner was then committed on je charge of larceny also.