ALLEGED THEFT OF A POST LETTER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7484, 25 February 1885, Page 3

ALLEGED THEFT OF A POST LETTER.

At the E.M. Court yesterday, before E. Beetham, E.M., and H. J. Hall, Esqs., Donald Macdonald was charged, on remand, with stealing a post letter containing a cheque on the Union Bank, Christchurch, drawn by W. J. G. Bluett, for ,£4l 6s Id, the property of the Postmaster-General of New Zealand. Mr Eussell appeared for the accused. Inspector Pender, in giving an outline of the facts the police would endeavour to prove, said that there were two charges—one of stealing a post letter, and the other having reference to the cheque it contained.. On Friday, Feb. 6 last, Mr Cunningham, of Brookside, posted a letter at the local Post-office, addressed to the manager of the Union Bank of Australia, and covering a cheque for .£4l 6s Id to be placed to his account at the Bank. This letter was duly placed in the letter bag by the lady in charge of the Brookside Post Office, and this bag was received in due course at the Christchurch head office. When next heard of, the cheque was received by Mr J. O. Sheppard, of the .City Hotel, on Saturday, Feb. 7. It came, to him in a letter, signed "George Bernard," and requesting him to. cash the cheque, forward the money to Burnard, and Tieep £5 for ' his trouble; Mr Sheppard placed the cheque to Mrs

Hadfleld'a credit at the Bank, - and .the following Monday received a telegram from Lyttelton, signed "G. Bernard, requesting that the money might be sent as requested' in the letter. Mr Sheppaid sent Mrs Hadfield's cheque for .£3l, addressed "G. Bernard, P. 0., Lyttelton," and also telegraphed to the same address that he had done so. On the Wednesday following (Feb-lj, 11) prisoner came to Mr Sheppard at the hotel with the cheque for .£3l, and said he had advanced a man •£lO on it. The police would endeavour to show that prisoner and Bernard were the same man; that prisoner had calked at the Lyttelton Post-office and received the letter addressed to Bernard; he had been .employed as messenger for the Bank of Australasia, and cleared the Bank's private box at the post-office. The only way in which the prosecution could account for Mr Cunningham's cheque coming into accused's possession was that the. letter from Brookside had been placed by mistake by a post-office clerk in the Bank of Australasia's letter-box instead of that of the Union Bank, to which it was addressed. ,' Inspector Pender then called the following witnesses: — John Cunningham, farmer at Brookside, in the Leeston district, said he got the cheque for .£4l 6s Id (produced), from Mr Bluett's clerk on Feb. 6, at Leeston. He £jtled up a paid-in slip, and crossed the cheque, and left them for his son John to post. He had never received any acknowledgement of the receipt by the bank. John Cunningham, a boy, son of the last witness, deposed, that on Feb. 6, he addressed an. envelope to the Union Bank of Australia at his father's request. He saw his mother fold up a cheque and a printed form, and put it in the envelope he directed; he" then gave the letter to Juris, a boy in his 'father's employ, to post. Witness only saw the back of the cheque. Harry Juris, a boy of about twelve years, said he took the letter to the: post-office at three p.m. and gave it to the girl Granger in Mrs Granger's presence. The girl put a stamp on the letter and put it in the letterbox. Mrs Granger kept the Brookside post-office. He could not read writing generally, but he finew "Union Bank" was on the letter, because it was John Cunningham's writing. At Mr Beetham's request the boy Cunningham wrote " Bank of Australasia " and:*' Union Bank of Australia" on separate pieces of paper and the witness distinguished between them. 1 ''Martha Granger, wife of Michael Granger, •blacksmith, at Brookside, deposed that her husband'was post-master, but she managed the post-office. She remembered Juris bring- • ihgaletter addressed to the Union Bank of Australia. It was made up with the other letters (14 in all) and placed in the letter bag, which was tied with string, sealed over the knot, and stamped with the stamp supplied by the post-office. Gave the bag to the mail boy, Charles Lummis, to take to Irwell railway'station. Sent the usual waybill with the letters. Cross-examined: I was making up the mail when the boy brought the letter/ and I put it in the bag at once. The letter was never in the box at all.

Charles Lummis, a boy of 14, deposed to, giving the mail bag to the guard of the down train to Christchurch on Feb. 6.

James Robert Ferguson, cadet in the post-office,- Christchurch, deposed that he received the mail from Brookside on Feb. 6, and initialled the way-bill as correct. .He did not sort the letters, but he knew they were sorted that night. "Mistakes in sorting happened sometimes. A letter might be put in the wrong letter-box. The Union Bank and the Bank of Australasia each had a private box. \ Francis Latter, a clerk in the Union Bank of Australia: Since Feb. 5 it had been his duty to clear the letter-box and open letters received from the Post-office every toorning and midday. On Saturday, Feb'. 7, he went to the private box and 'cleared iy* Brought the letters away in a bag, which he .looked, and he could not have lost any lettar on the way. Opened the letters. There was none from Mr Cunningham. The cheque for .£4l 6s Id, sjgned by Mr Bluett (produced) was not received that day, 'but came from the Bank of Australasia on Feb. 9. ,' .

Joseph Oram Sheppard, manager of the City Hotel for Mrs HaSfield, stated, that he received the letter produced through the post on Feb. 7—Saturday afternoon. The cheque in question was enclosed with it. The letter purported to be signed by " G. Bernerd." He had destroyed the . envelope, but to the best of his belief it only bore the Christchurch postmark. The letter contained a request to cash , the cheque. On the Monday following witness paid the cheque into the Bank of Australasia to the credit of Mrs Hadfield's account. On Tuesday, Feb. 10, received a telegram from Lyttelton signed " G. 8.," stating that the sender had only just arrived, and wanted some money. Filled up a cheque for .£3l in accordance with instructions in the letter (cheque produced), and Mrs Had- ■ field signed it. Witness wrote a note and 'enclosed it with the cheque in an envelope,addressed "Mr George Bernerd, Postoffice, Lyttelton." Witness' note was to the effect that he had posted cheque for £3l, as it was not safe to send notes, but "Bernard" could get it changed if he called on Mr Haxell, hotelkeeper, in Port. Sent a telegram to the same address, advising the despatch, of the letter and cheque. About a couple of hours after, witness received a notice from the Telegraph Office to the effect that the telegram could not be delivered to George Burnard —no such person ■ could be found. On Tuesday evening, about 8 o'clock, a man came to the City Hotel, and gave witness a letter (produced), signed' "George Brenard," the "r" being before the "e." Witness gave the man the notice he had received from the Telegraph Office, with a note in blue pencil endorsed on it to the effect that he had sent a cheque because notes were not safe. Addressed this memo to Bernard, and gave it to the bearer of Bernard's note, whom witness did not think, he would know again. It was not prisoner. On the following day prisoner called at the hotel and presented witness' cheque for £3l, saying he had cashed it for some gentleman that morning, that he had been to Port and could not get it cashed. He asked witness to give him cash, or else get it changed for him. After some few ; remarks, witness questioned prisoner as to how much cash he paid for the cheque. Believed he answered £lO. Asked him to go to the Bank of Australasia, and ask if there was a dishonoured cheque on Leeston for £4l 6s Id. Prisoner went away and came back, and said there were no dishonours. Witness then took the cheque prisoner had brought with him, endorsed it "Please stop payment," and gave it back to him. The first time prisoner he called showed witness the notice from the Telegraph office, which he (witness) had sent by the man who came as a messenger from Bernard. ■ On the next day (Thursday) witness! went' to prisoner's house with Detective Neil. Prisoner gave an account of how he had obtained witness' cheque for £3l. He said he had given a man £lO for it in Cathedral square on the Wednesday at 7.30 a.m. On Thursday witness received a letter.bearing 1 the Christchurch postmark, and containing a receipt for the £3l cheque, signed by George Bernard. This letter contained a statement that the writer was glad witness had not changed the cheque for the man he had met in the square. l Witness had not mentioned • what prisoner - had told him about changing the cheque to anybody. . In cross-examination; Mr Shepjard said' he did not know Bernard, and could not say, he recognised the man. Knew Mr Bluett'stsignature quite well, and that the cheque for £4l 6s. Id, was reliable. Sent the £3l in accordance] yrith Jthe terms of Bernard's first letterj-which requested this .and stated that Jtne" Writer -had to leave town early that morning for Akaroa, and

had no time to wait till the Bank opened. 'Suspected something 'was wrong from prisoner's mariner and sayings when he called arid wanted to" change Mrs Hadfield's cheque. Mr Russell informed witness subsequently that he had instructions to sue for Mrs Hadfield's cheque for £3l of which witness had stopped payment Witness said he would not pay, as the cheque was not endorsed. Albert Joseph Miller, cadet in the Post and | Telegraph-office, Lyttelton, deposed that he knew the prisoner as G. Bernard. Saw him on Tuesday, Feb. 10, in the afternoon at the Telegraph-office, Lyttelton. Prisoner asked if there was a letter for him. There wus no letter at that time. Told him there was a collect telegram for him; showed it him enclosed in the envelope, and told him he would have' to pay Is on it. He did not pay; did not receive the telegram, and went away. At 8 a.m. on Wednesday prisoner called at the Postoffice and asked for letters for Bernard. There was a letter addressed in mauve inkpencil " G. Bernard," and marked "Immediate "in the corner. Witness gave prisoner this letter. On Friday last witness identified prisoner from among nine men.

Frank Haxell, son of the licensee of the Empire Hotel, Lyttelton, said he lived with, his father. He first saw prisoner on Wednesday, Feb. 11, in the morning, at the hotel. Prisoner came in and produced a cheque for .£3l, signed by Mrs Hadfield, which he wanted cashed. Prisoner also produced a telegraph form with the corner turned up, and writing in blue pencil in Mr Sheppard's hand, to the effect that it was unsafe for him to send such an amount in notes, and requesting Mr Haxell to cash the cheque for JB3I. The telegram on the form was signed G. 8., and was to the effect that the sender could not wait any longer, and required the money or cheque at once. Witness would not cash the cheque, and prisoner left, saying he would go through to Christchurch and get it cashed.

William Robison, bill clerk at the Bank of Australasia,. stated that prisoner had been messenger at the bank for many years past, and lived on the premises. Prisoner .almost always brought the letters from the post-office. Witness was in the bank rather late on Feb. 6. Prisoner came in about 10 p.m. Did not think he had been to the post-office. He was supposed to go every night beforcthe post-office closed. Witness left the bank about 10.30 p.m. Prisoner stopped witness as he was*' going, and wanted to know if a cheque wag payable to a Bank in a certain man's:name, whether anyone else could obtain payment et the Bank. Witness told him that He could, if the cheque was endorsed by the person it was made payable to. Letters were" sometimes placed in the wrong box at the Postoffice. ~.',.'

Detective Thomas Neil: Recollected going to prisoner's house on Feb. •' 12. Mr Pender, Mr Sheppard, and prisoner and his wife were there. He said, in? answer to enquiries, that he had met' mari with a moustache, that the man 'told him he had had breakfast at Mrs M'J)onald's, that he presented a .£3l cheque to prisoner, and asked, him to advance some money on it. Prisoner ' said that the man showed him a telegraph form with the corner turned up and a note on it, which said that cheque could be changed at Mr Haxell's, in Port. Witness asked him if he had that telegraph foim ? Prisoner replied that he believed he had it in the pocket of an old coat he had been wearing the previous day. He appointed to meet witness at the City Hotel the following day. When they met there, prisoner said he could not find the form. Prisoner also said that he had paid a man £2 on Mrs Hadfield's cheque. This concluded the oase for the prosecu-: tion. ,•■■■•■ The accused reserved his defence; and was committed for trial at the next criminal sessions. , ; In answer to Mr Russell, the Bench said they would require substantial bail, and fixed the amount at .£3OO for the accused, and two sureties of .£3OO each.