MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1807, 5 December 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

OHRISTCHURCH. Friday, December 5.

LBeforo G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M., and G. L. Leo, Erq, J.P.J Illegally on Premises.—Mary Anno Duff us was charged with being illegally on the Hospital premises. The Inspector of Police said the woman had been brought on to the premises by a late servant of the Hospital, and as there was no felonious intent apparent, he should ask permission to withdraw the case. The woman was discharged. Assault.—lsaao Burt was charged with assaulting his infant child on the Ist of December and breaking its arm. The injury, from the evidence of the child's mother, wbb occasioned through a quarrel between the parents, in the course of which the defendent threw her down and injured the child in her arms. The Bench considered the charge proved, but as they did not think the injury was a wilful one, let the defendant go on payment of £1 7s 6d costs.

Bbeach op the Stamp Act.—Richard Davis, Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, appeared to answer five informations to the following effect: —That he did without lawful excuse file in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, at Christchurch, declarations under the Debtors and Creditors Act, 1876, the documents not being stamped, as required by the Stamp Fee Act, 1575, and the Regulations of the Governor in Council, published in the New Zealand Government " Gazette," No. 74, on the 24th December, 1874. Mr Cowlishaw prosecuted on behalf of the Auditor-General, and stated that during the month of November the attention of Mr Fitzgerald, the Auditor-General, was drawn to the fact that there were a large quantify of documents unstamped. Investigation led to the discovery that there was a deficiency of over £SO worth of stamps. An opportunity had been afforded the defendant of recouping the money, but he had not availed himself of it. The Crown Prosecutor had been consulted, and had given it as his opinion that, on technical grounds, an information for larceny or embezzlement would not lay. The only course that remained was to lay an information under the Stamp Act for the recovery of the penalties incurred. The evidence that would be brought forward would show that the cases had not arisen out of inadvertance, and although criminal proceedings could not be taken, there was something more than neglect or carelessness involved. The defendant asked that the cafe might be adjourned, on the ground tha* the notice given him had been too Bhort, and his counsel was engaged in banco proceedings in the Supremo Court, and could not possibly attend. At the same time, he was in communication with the Government, and was under suspense, and was waiting a reply. Mr Mcllish said this was not a Goverßment on quiry under the Civil Service Act, but a charge brought before the Police Magistrates, and thoy must hear it. The defendant said he had not been guilty of any dishonest action; the deficiencies had arisen out of inadvertance, ai-ising from the fact that he had been greatly overworked. He had retained Mr Joynt to act in his behalf. Mr Cowlishaw said ho had reason to believe that this was not the case, but that could be ascertained by sending a messenger to the Supremo Courf Mr Mellieh instructed Detective Noill to go the Supremo Court and inquire if Mr Joynt was retained by Mr Davis. In the course of a few minutes Detective Neill returned and informed the Bench that Mr Joynt said the defendant had applied to him to act as his counsel, but ho had declined, as he could not possibly do so from pro-engagements. The B.nch under the circumstances said that he could Bee no reason for adjourning the esse, which was then proceed with. F. do o. Malet, Registrar of the Supreme Court at Christohuroh, deposed as follows :—On tho 26:h of October my attention was drawn to the fact that there were a number of documents unstamped, I examined a quantity'

and found no stamps, or any trace of stamps. having been placed on them. There were 491 documents, consisting of agricultural liens, bills of sale, wool and oil securities and mortgages of stock. I reported the matter to the Judge on Monday morning. The defendant came into my room at my instance. I drew his attention to the fact that Mr Stansell had found several of these documents on the file, and they had been filed by him. I drew his attention to the fact that several of the documents had been filed by persons resident in Ohristchurch and by others resident in the country. I asked the defendant how the documents came to be in that state, and he admitted in Mr Stansell's presence he had received money from people with which to buy stamps; that he had neglected to do so and filed the document. Some documents were filed which he admitted he had received from persons up country through the post; and that he had received money from these persons with which to buy stamps, in some cases he had stamped the documents, and in others he had not. In the course of conversations I aßked him what he had done with the money which ho admitted he had received. He said, " I don't know." I said, "Did you put it into your pocket," and he said "Yes, I suppose I aid." I said, "What then?" He said he web in the habit of having money in his pocket, and ho supposed he didn't notice it. Subsequently I caused inquiries to be made, and found 401 documents unstamped. Defendant was greatly distressed, and asked me to allow him to replace the stamps so as to avoid a prosecution. On some of the documents there were no traces of a stamp ever having even boen on tbeia. After consideration I told him in the evening I should allow him to stamp the documents, aud he stamped some documents that evening. The search occupied some days. Defendant ke pt on stamping documents as they turned up unstamped. They extended as far back as 1876. After that the Government sent an Inspector of Audit, who found a very large number more documents unstamped. I pointed out to Mr Fitzgerald the mark where stamps had been, which had been removed from off documents. There were signs that the stamps on documents had been grossly tampered with in the office. I produce the bankruptcy papers of Henry Smith, of Doyleston, No. 657, filed on the 4th of June, 1869, and endorsed by the Deputy-Registrar. There was no stamp on it or sign of one. A fee Btamp of £1 should be affixed to it by the Bankruptcy Regulations. By the defendant —" Practically, as a rule, it is your duty to mark and file a'.l deeds in the office. You found the stamps for the 491 documents." Defendant—"l did not." "Mr Vigors was away from the office through illness for seven weeks, and I was absent too. You were by yourself for a considerable time." By Mr Cowlishaw—The work of the office could be done in office hours. Night work, except on extraordinary occasions, was wholly unnecessary. Henry Smith deposed—l am a gardener, living at Doyleston. On the sth of June last I filed a declaration of insolvency in the Supreme Court. I paid some money on it—over £l. I asked the defendant how much I "was to pay, I gave him the money ; a pound note and some silver. The document unstamped was put in as evidence. This was the case for the prosecution. The defendant pleaded overwork and pressure of business as the reason for the documents being unstamped. In fact he was doing two men's work. He had offered, in his letter to the Government, to rectify all errors, and was still [prepared to do so. He had had the option from the Government of resigning, but had declined to do so, and had courted investigation. A legal witness named Martin was called for the defence, who stated that the stamps frequently came off parchment documents, and sometimes off paper ones. The latter generally left no trace of the stamp. Mr Raphael, a law clerk to Mr Slater, endorsed the opinion of the (last witness as to the frequency of stamps becoming detached from documents, both of paper, and especially parchment. Mr W. A. Neck, solicitor, gave similar evidence, and further added he remembered complaining to the defendant of the inferiority of the adhesive substanca put on to the Government stamrjs. He remembered remarking to Mr Davis that all the Government officials were underpaid and overworked. The Bench regretted there was not a shadow of doubt as to judgment being given against the defendant, and a penalty imposed. It was absolutely preposterous to imagine that the stamps could get detached from so large a number as 491 documents. The Bench were of opinion that there had been a systematic neglect in not stamping the document, and that a gross misappropriation of money had been going on by the defendant at the same time. Although they could not prosecute on technical grounds, there could not be the slightest doubt of the moral criminality of the defendant. Mr Calvert, late registrar of the Supreme Court, and brother-in-law o£ the defendant, gave him the highest possible character bused on thirty years knowledge of him. There were five other cases against the defendant, which were then gone into, the evidence being of a similar nature. Technical evidence was given by Mr James Davis' as to the possibility of stamps rubbing off documents, and the marks of a rubber stamp becoming obliterated after a few months wear, but the Bench held that the number of documents which were unstamped was too great to admit of such a defence being set up. For the first offence a fine of £5 was imposed, for the Becond £lO, for the third £ls, for the fouth, fifth, and sixth £2O each, making in all £9O, with Court fees and expenses of witnesses, and at the same time the Bench expressed their opinion that the defendant had been dealt with very leniently. The Court adjournod until hnlf-two o'clock.