Untitled

Manawatu Herald, Volume i, Issue 51, 21 February 1879, Page 2

The charge of stealing a cheque, preferred against William Langley by Te Whiu, a native, has resulted in the accused being committed for trial. Notwithstanding the able and ingenious defence made by Mr Stait c, the Bench have acted in a perfectly proper manner, we think, in sending the affair to a jury for decision, as without doubt a prima facie case was made out against the prisoner. Looking at the evidence adduced, the affair looks rather black. Te Whiu undoubtedly had the cheque at Langley's place on the 20th January (Monday), and Mr William Smith, who drew the cheque, deposed that it was paid at Foxton on the 25th ; it must therefore have come to Foxton from Wellington on the 24th (Fri-

day), as the Bank closes at 3 p.m , and the mail arrives after that hour, and letters f eceitfed af er hours are of course entered tin next day's list. To reach Foxton on Friday, it must have been posted at Wellington on Thursday, and therefore it must have been paid into the Bank of New Zealand at Wellington before three o'clock on that day. The affair is reduced, then, to this :— Te Wbiu was at Mr Langley'a house oil Monday evening with the cheque, and some time before 3 o'clock on the Thursday, Mr Langley paid that cheque into his account at Wellington. Whether the cheque was actually paid in by himself does not matter. We can narrow the time still closer. The coach does not reach Wellington till 5 p.m., and therefore the cheque could not be scut down by Thursday's mail, as we have showed it must have been paid in before 3 p.m. on that day. Therefore Mr Langley (who fully admits having cashed it) must have sent it either by Tuesday Or Wednesday's coach, oi by a special messenger, as it is extremely improbable any one would leave (Jtaki sufficiently early in the morning, to present the cheque at the Wellington Bank by 3 p.m. The whole of this evidence would amount to nothing if Mr Langley could produce or identify the man for whom he cashed the cheque. This, however,- he states his inability to do. TTpon^his^phase we will not comment ; but .certainly with the pre sent grave charge hanging over his head, it would be ■ to his interest, supposing the cheque was cashed fur a native, to leave no means untried by which that native can be dis«. covered. In the present article, we i have simply placed the f cts before our reador§ as they appeared !in the evidence", leaving thorn to draw their own conclusions. We simply remark the'ro is on the face of the case sufficient evidence to j us* tify Mr Ward's decision