MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5917, 12 February 1880, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEIBTOHUEOH. Wednesday, Feb. 11. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M.) DBNNKENNKS3.-A first offender was fined Goods and Money.—Edward Emil Dransfield was charged with obtaining coeds and money by means of a valueless cheque, drawn for £6 16s 9d. Accused, who Lad been arrested late on the previous day, was remanded until the followmg morning Bereeant Morice mentioned that a warrant Lad been issued at Bangiora against the prisoner, and he suggested that this ease Should remain in abeyance pending the settlement of tho charge on which he low stood remanded. Bail was granted, prisoner m the eum of £IOO and two sureties in the sum or £SO each. Obtaining Money by False Pebtbnces. —Michael Murphy, who had been arrested on a warrant, was charged with obtaining tho anm of <£2 2s by false pretences from William Letford. Mr Deacon appeared for theproeecution, and Mr - M'Connell for the defence. William-Letford, painter, Colombo street, de-posed-that in the month of October last he met a roan named James Swindell, and went with him to Murphy, for the purpose of borrowing some money. Believed it was the latter endkff the month. Saw Murphy, who aaid to Swindell. “ I’ll have nothing at all to do with you.” That was the first remark made. Swindell said, “ Oh, its not me, I’ve brought a fiierd who wants some money.” Prisoner then wanted to know what security witness could giva,and he replied thatthe onlv security he could gi?j-was a personal one, or rents of the cott;§oi. which were bringing m £2 a week. Witness told prisoner he wanted £lO «p £l2, m he bad a mortgage coming due. Murphy eaid ''£lo or £l2 is no use to you ; why don’t youdiave £IOO or £JSO ?” Witness arranged to borrow £IOO, and it was further arranged that-they should meet atMrM Connell’s office. They went there, and witness gave instructions* to Mr M'Connell to prepare a deed of second unortgage. The word used by Mr Murphy was re-mortgage. Witness thought he cord if not do this, and Murphy eaid, “ Oh yes, you can.” Swindell was with witness at the time. Went from there to the Golden Age, and had a drink together. Swindell did not £0 inside Mr M'Connell’s office, because he was objected to. He was standing in the passage. Could not say whether it was Mr M'Connell or Murphy who raised the objection to Swindell. Arranged to meet Murphy on another day. On or about the Si-me day that the interview took place at Mr M'Connell’s office, Murphy asked witness to shout, and! he replied that ho could not -do so, aa he was stuck up. Murphy said witness need not be stuck up, and gave him a cheque for £5. Witness said, “ What’s the use of this to me P” and Mnrphy gave him another cheque for £3. Witness signed a cheque for £B, but did not read it. It was on a Saturday these cheques were received, and witness was .certain that then an arrangement was made to meet again in a few days to sign the deeds. The meeting was to be at the Golden Age, between 10 and 11, on. Tuesday or Wednesday. On one or other of those days, witness and Swindell waited outside the Golden Age for two hours. Met prisoner afterwards at the Golden Age, and he remarked that he had been out late on the previous night gambling. Went to Mr M'Connell’s office, Swindell being with witness, but he (Swindell) was ordered out by Mr M'Connell or by Murphy, the remark being made, “If we want you well send for you.” Mr Murphy made the remark ‘'lts between Bill and me.” Mr M'Connell did not, to tbe best of witness’s belief, at any lime object to Swindell being in the room. , The deed was read over to witness on this occasion, it having been previously explained that witness was to have only £6O, at the . same rate as he was paying Mr Dixon. Murphy said he had sent Mr Alport up to value the land. Witness signed the mortgage, hut did not get a penny in that room or at that time. Thought everything fair and aboveboard, and then went to the Golden Age, Swindell joining witness and Murphy on the stairs. At the hotel Murphy called for pen, ink, and paper, and they began to reckon what balance witness was to receive. The items mentioned by Murphy were as follows£l2 10s, which he said he was going to pay to Mr Dixon (duo to him on the mortgage) ; two cheques, one for £5 and the other for £3, these being put down as £lO, including commission or interest. That was £3 for the use of the £8 for three or four days. The next item was £3 2s for Mr Alport; Murphy said he bad paid Mr Alport that amount for his valuation, and witness objected to it, remarking that he had not to pay it on a ■previous occasion when the property was mortgaged to Dixon. Murpliy said witness ought to think himself lucky that he had not been charged for cab-hire, taking Mr Alport up to value the property. Prisoner also said he was not going to be the loser by the transaction, as he gained nothing by it, having paid Mr Alport the money. Believed Swindell was present all the time. There was a further deduction of Is, for a stamp. The sum of £8 was deducted for the mortgage deed prepared by Mr M'Connell. Witness received in cash, about £27, and some shillings, six or seven. Would not have allowed Murphy to keep the £2 2s, if he (witness) had not believed the money was paid to Mr Alport. Witness objected to the charge. Murphy handed Swindell half-a-sovereign over the table, but witness could not say if this was done before or after he had got the money. Swindell said, “ No, that won’t do for me, Murphy ; I want money bad enough, but I’ll have no blood money.” They stopped and had a drink, and then left. ' Witness did not, on any occasion, in connection with this transaction, receive money from Murphy, other than the sums he had stated. To Mr M'Connell: The shilling stamp was for putting on the agreement between Murphy and witness for the £B. Knew the stamp was fetched by Swindell, but could not say if it was put on. Signed for this £8 on a small piece of paper, which was torn up. Knew what was told him by Murphy, as to the contents of that paper. Was not told it was an agreement to mortgage a property. For all witness knew, he might have handed both cheques to Swindell; could not say for what purpose. When executing the mortgage, did not execute any other document on that day in Mr M'Connell’s office; was positive of this. When he received the £B, he decidedly gave Murphy a bill of exchange or promissory note for £lO, but did not know it. Thought the bill was for £B, as he was to receive other money ; believed it was an act of kindness. (Laughter.) Mr M'ConnellYou went to the wrong shop for kindness, I think. Witness would not swear that the signature on the documents produced was his. (Documents pat in, one being the mortgage admitted, and another a ■ document which Mr M'Connell undertook to prove was executed on the same date). Witness, to his knowledge, did not at any other time, to the beat of Ms belief sign any other documents or deeds in Mr M Conneil’s office. (This question was objected to, but allowed as a test of the credibility of the witness.) Was paying Dixon 12J per cent, and did not know that he had power to charge more in the event of irregular payments. Did not remember Mr M'Connell saying he had arranged with Mr Dixon to charge only 12£ per cent. His Worship did not see what this had to do with the present case. Murphy kept back the £2 2s; he did not say he was going to pay it, but that he had paid it, and was not going to be the loser. He did not say he had made the valuation himself, nor that he would make a charge for going to look at the property. Re-examined: In sajing he did not remember having signed more than one deed, witness meant that he signed only one in reference to the £6). He never, to his knowledge, signed two deeds referring to that sum. James Swindell, a watchmaker residing in Kilmoro slreet, stated that he went with Letford to Murphy’s house on a Saturday morning about tiio latter end of October —about the 22nd or 23rd—and having explained that Letford wanted to borrow £l2 10s, an arrangement was made for an adjournment to the Golden Age. Murphy said

Letford had better have a second mortgage on tho property, -and that if he Y° ul f elude the life .interest he could have £IOO or £l6O. It was n BTran that Letford ehould have £IOO at the same rate of interest he was paying Dixon, 12J per cent. They all 'then went over to Mr M'Oonnell’s office, but Murphy would not allow witness to .go,.into the room. Witness stood in the passage,-and aft ei, walt * n 6 a while went over (to the Golden Age. Met ■ Murphy and Letford as they were coming : i out of Mr M'Coanell’s office, and they all went into Allen’s .together. Biurphy they had agreed to tfilOO, and Letford was to come on Wednesday morning to sign the deed. Murphy asked Bill to shout, and Bill said he had no money. Murphy saidhe could have some money, and wrote him a cheque for £5. Letford, when he took the cheque, eaid, “That’s not enough; and Murphy then gave him-another cheque for £3 Murphy sent witness for a shilling 1 stamp, which was got and put on the agreement, Letford, then signing it. Witness did not -see the document. Did not hear Murphy say the agreement was for £8 It was then arranged that they were to meet on the following Wednesday morning at ten o’clock. Murphy came between twelve and one, and said he had been gambling till three or four o’clock in the morning. That was his excuse. Murphy had a brandy and soda, ami they then went to Mr M Connell s office. Witness was again kept bacJr Dy Murphy, who said, " We can do without you.” Witness remained on the top of the stairs a good while, and heard Mr McConnell say, “You’d better go somewhere else; 111 have nothing more to do with it. Did not know to whom the remark was made. When Murphy and Letford came out, witness went back with them to the Golden Age. While going there, Letford told witness that Murphy could only let him have £6O. In the hotel, Murphy said he had had a.valuer up, and the property was hot of so much value as he thought. He said he had taken up Mr Alport. No money was paid _tp Letford then. They went back to Mr M'Connell’s office, because there was a dispute about the amount to be lent. On either Wednesday and Thursday.it was after the deed was signed, witness saw Murphy and Letford come into Allen’s, the Golden Age, where witness was waiting. Murphy called for pen and ink, and. Mrs Allen brought them. Murphy was writing down what ho had paid in Mr M'Connell’s and what was coming to Letford. £8 he saidhe had paid Mr M'Connell for drawing up the mortgage deed; ‘ he said Mr M'Connell had put it on rather stiff, (Laughter.) He said £l2 10s he had stopped as due on the mortgage, and £lO for the money borrowed. Letford remarked that he only bad £B, and ivitness said to Murphy, “ You are warming him up pretty 'well.” There was £2 2s tor Alport, for taking him up. Murphy said he, had taken Mr Alport up in a cab, and brought him back, but had not charged anything for the cab hire. Letford objected; said he would’nt pay that. Murphy said he had paid Alport out of his own pocket, and wasn’t going to be the loser. There was also a shilling for the stamp which witness fetched. Murphy eaid he took Alport up to lookat the property —Letford’s property. Letford said, ‘‘You had better take the lot.” When all was balanced up witness said he saw some money counted out by Murphy and paid to Letford, some £27 and some few shillings. Letford picked it up. Witness said “You’ve bad enough out of him,” and Murphy said, “ Here’s half a sovereign, you shut up,” throwing the coin down on the table towards witness. Witness replied, “ I wan’t money bad enough ; I don’t wait blood money.” Murphy put the money back into his pocket, and asked Bill to shout. Letford did so, and then they went away. At this stage the Court adjourned for a quarter of an hour. James Swindell, in cross-examination, stated that he had not subsequently held any conversation with Murphy about the ease, or with anyone else. Letford asked Murphy why he did not give him a cheque for the balance due to him, and Murphy replied that ho thought the cash would be more convenient for him. Letford, when he got the cheque for £5, did not say that it was not enough. It would not pay him (Swindell). Witness did get Murphy’s cheque for £3 from Letford to get it cashed, and £1 of it was lent to witness because he was short. Murphy did not say that ho would have to pay Alport £2 2s, but that he had paid it. That was why he deducted tho money. Be-examined.—Was positive there was not a cheque given for the £27 odd. There was a £lO note, two £5 notes, and the rest in ones. The number of the odd shillings was not ten —from five to seven. There was no gold whatever. Herbert Edward Alport, auctioneer and estate agent, said he knew accused by sight. In the month of October last did not make any valuation whatever for Murphy, Knew nothing whatever of a man named Letford. Had never made any valuation for Murphy at any time whatever, and had never received £2 2s from him. This closed the case. Mr M'Connell, referring to the information, contended that there were two objections, first that the date had not been proved, and, secondly, that the evidence distinctly showed that Murphy did not obtain money. He all the time had the money in his own possession. He might have told a lie in saying he had paid the money to Mr Alport, but there was everything to show that he had not obtained money from Letford. Mr Deacon submitted that the point of law was one of a nature which might best be dealt with by tho Supreme Court Judges, and further, that there had been established a clear case against Murphy. His Worship remarked that if the evidence was tine, the matter appeared as gross a case of fraud as could well be imagined. Mr M'Connell did not think that fraud was a crime. His Worship thought it would be best to send the case to a higher court; for all he knew, there might be a perfectly valid defence, but as the matter now stood, a grosser case of fraud he could not conceive. M r M'Connell now asked that the case might be remanded for a few days, as he might then think it desirable to produce rebutting evidence. His Worship did hot see how this could now be done. Mr M'Connell elected to call evidence forthwith. William Lake, clerk in Mr M'Oonnell’s office, deposed that the two deeds now handed to him were dated Oct. 29 last. He attested Mr Letford’s signature to those deeds, and the business connected with the mortgage was settled in Mr M'Connell’s room, a cheque being handed to Letford for £27 3s. Witness was at that time clerk to M'Connell and Douglas, and the cheque was signed by Mr M'Connell for M'Connell and Douglas. The mortgage was for £6O. Mr M'Connell signed another cheque in the same way as the other one, for £l2 10s, and witness believed it was taken to Mr Dixon. Witness heard a conversation between Mr M'Connell and Letford about Dixon’s interest, and something was said—witness could not distinctly ramember what—about Mr M'Connell endeavouring to obtain a reduction of interest from Mr Dixon. He (Mr M'Connell) left the office, and on his return told Letford that the reduction had been obtained. Witness could not say that M'Connell and Douglas had moneys in hand on account of Murphy when that cheque was paid that was, so far as witness was aware. Was acting partially as bookkeeper at that time. Had recently made out an account of moneys received' on account of Letford, and moneys paid away. At the time the cheque was given, a calculation was made in pencil, and Letford heard the particulars, which included £47 13s received on his account from Murphy. Mr Deacon remarked that it might be admitted as a matter of fact that the cheque was paid as stated, to Letford; it could bo shown how Murphy came to have the cheque and cash it. James Swindell, recalled by the Bench eaid; He heard Murphy make the remark in the Golden Age, that he got the cheque changed, because Mr M'Oonnell’s signature was on it, and he thought the cash would be better for Letford more handy for him. William Letford, recalled, said : He never had the cheque referred to; Mr Lake did not give it to him. Mr M'Connell here produced the cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, which bore no endorsement; it was made payable to bearer. ■ The Bench remarked’ that it had passed through tho Bank of Australia. Witness resumed: He

had no cheque even in his possession, to the best of his belief , if it. could of course be proved where he cashed it. " handed that cheque to Murphy, that ho swore positively, and also that ho never saw a cheque pass between them. Fred Symes, ledger clerk at the Bank of Australasia (having been sent for in meantime) said Murphy banked at the Bank of Australasia. The cheque produced was paid in to Mr Murphys accountbyMr Murphy, and his account was credited with the amount. The Bench determined to send the case for trial, bail being granted, prisoner in the sum of £2OO, and two sureties in the sum of £IOO each. (Before G. L. Melliah, Esq., E.M., and G. Leslie Lee, Esq.) Violent Assault. — Thomas Caraher and Michael M'Carthy were charged with committing a violent assault on Henry Blewitt. Mr Neck appeared for tho complainant, and ! Mr Stringer for the accused. Mr Stringer called attention to an article which appeared in last evening’s issue of the Star, and whjch was garbled. In that article the whole thing was given in a grossly garbled way, the evidence being such as there was no attempt even to rebut. There was no Constable Gay, and his Worship was not even on the Bench. Besides that, the remarks of the Bench on the case had been altogether misinterpreted. Henry Blewitt identified his certificate of discharge from the ship Lady Jocelyn. He was staying at Thomas’ boarding house, in Tuam street. On the evening of Saturday, Feb. 7, he was going along Manchester street, between 12 and half-past, and Constable Caraher requested him to clear out home as soon as he could. Witness said he was going as soon as he could, and the constable then punched him in tho ribs, and pushed him into the road. When he was oh the ground, the constable kicked him. _ Another constable came up and knelt on witness, and they kicked him three times afterwards. (At this stage all witnesses were ordered out of Court.) A man who came up told the constables not to kick witness, and they threatened to lock him up. Was still bruised about the body. Was taken in a cab to the Dep6t, his ' body being on tho floor and his feet on the seat. M'Carthy sat on witness’ legs, and would get up and drop down on them again. Witness asked him not to do this, .and the constable then took hold of him by the throat, and told him he would knock his ! brains out. in cross-examination witness denied that he used any obscene language, that he made any disturbance, or that he was in Evans’ boarding-house. He farther asserted that he did not struggle violently against the constables, and that it was the darker of the two men who put the handcuffs on him. He was still sore and suffering from the bruises. William Mallard deposed that, on Saturday evening, when at his house in Manchester street, he heard a - disturbance. On going out, he saw Blewitt in the hands of two constables, and one of them, No. 97 (Caraher) was kicking him. The man’s clothes, except : his trousers, wore off him. The kicks were violent. The man seemed as if practised at them. Blewitt was struggling on the ground, but he was using no bad language. Saw them drag Blewitt along the ground. Asked the constables not to kick the man, and was told it was no business of his. In cross-examination witness said his place was-about 20 or 30 yards from the scene of the disturbance. Blewitt was not violent, only struggling a little. Did net see M'Carthy use any violence to the man at all; he was only holding him down. Walter lies deposed that in passing along Manchester street he heard a man cry out —he shrieked out. Witness saw that two constables had hold of him. Saw the dark constable kick the man two or three times when he was lying on the ground. He deliberately kicked him ; it was intentional, and the man shrieked out. He was dragged round into Tuam street, and witness believed it was M'Carthy who put the handcuffs on. Did not see anyone kneel on the man. Cross-examined: Did not notice whether the man was drunk or sober. In the struggle his shirt came off—everything but his trousers. One constable had hold of each arm. Mallard was arrested for asking the constable’s number; the constable said it was for inciting the prisoner. Witness heard what passed. Mallard asked the constable not to kiok the prisoner, and for his number. Charles Finlay, a litter, repeated in effect the evidence given by him on Monday. " He deposed that M'Carthy knelt on the man, and that the screams iff the man collected a crowd. Saw the dark constable kick the man deliberately. Blewitt did resist, but it was because of the way he was being used. Cross-examined : He made no disturbance while witness was there. Saw the constable deliberately walk after the man and strike him. Ihe man appeared to have a glass in him, but appeared to be well able to take care of himself. Did not hear any one called upon to help the constables. Did not speak to the constables ; he knew better than that. The man did resist a little ; he tried to get up again when he bad been thrown down. This closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr Stringer called attention to a technical objection. It was provided that, in accordance with the Act, every constable must have a ; month’s notice before any charge could be preferred. against him. This provision of the Armed : Constabulary Act, 1867, not having been complied with the case must fall through. Mr Neck considered that this referred to the civil actions only. For the defence : Constable Caraher deposed that Blewitt was making a great disturbance in Manchester street, opposite Evans’ boardinghouse, and-Using obscene language. On being spoken to he took off his belt, and stooped to pick up a stone. Witness passed on, and when he returned again asked prisoner to go away. Witness then proceeded to arrest him, and being obstructed in every possible way had to use some violence. They went down together, and Constable M'Carthy, who was in plain clothes, came up and put on the handcuffs, which witness had taken from his belt. The man also tried to bite witness, and put his hand into his trousers pocket as if trying to take out a knife. To Mr Neck: Was positive he did not kiok prisoner when he was oa the ground—not intentionally. Might have tripped the man when putting him down. The trip given might have touched the man in the ribs. WilSam Evans gave evidence of the disturbance created by Blewitt on the night in question, at the boardinghouse kept by witness. He was tinder the influence of drink, and made use of very bad language both to witness and his wife. He asked the constable (Caraher) to remove Blewitt, and the constable acted in a very manly way, endeavouring to persuade the man to go home. Witness did not see the subsequent arrest. Mrs Evans gave confirmatory evidence. Peter Carl, proprietor of the Southampton Eating-house, explained that he was a voluntary witness, and that he saw the arrest of Blewitt, who was dreadfully violent. After a struggle, the constables got the man as far as the corner of Tuam street, and there he either fell or was put down. He swore and struck out at the policeman, and witness believed he had a belt in his hand. After being handcuffed, he was kicking out right and left and swearing frightfully. _ Witness thought there was not enough physical force need to get Blewitt to the depfit, and that he might very well have been used more harshly. Did not see prisoner kicked at all. To Mr Neck: One would have thought by the man’s shouting that murder was being committed. Did not see a blow struck. Felt positive that tho reason the man was screaming out was because he was drunk. Ee-examined: The police several times asked the man to go quietly, and witness also advised him to do so. The cabman employed to convey Blewitt to the dep6t deposed that all the time the trap of his cab was open, so that he could see what was going on inside. Saw no ill-treatment. To Mr Neck: Heard no bad language; all was quiet. Michael Leahy, constable in charge of the watchhouse on the night in question, deposed that when Blewitt was brought in he was inclined to be rowdy, and that he Was a little the worse for drink. Sergeant Morioe deposed that on the morning following the arrest of Blewitt a complaint was made. Witness examined Blewitt, and could see only one little bruise at tho bottom of the ribs. There was no other mark on his body. Counsel

having commented on the Tha^oint after consultation, were clear on notable that there was no evidence M'Carthy; he could therefore stand asiue altogether. The Bench the losthis temper somewhat, an( * . man some sorb of a kick, certamiy not a severe or savage one, or there would be o mark to show it. The lose of temper was no doubt occasioned by the rowdiness of Blewitt, who certainly was 7 under the influence of drink, and did what ho would not havo done in his sober senses. Replying to the Bench, only one witness claimed his expenses, havi g lost a day’s work. The Bench decided to fine the constable Is, and costs 20s, TIMAEIJ. Wednesday, Feb. 11. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., 8.M.) Lunacy eeom Dbink.— Patrick Hanley was brought up and discharged. Indecent A ssaubt.— William Tait was charged with indecently assaulting two little girls near the Government Landing Service on the previous day. He was remanded till Saturday. .