RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 212, 8 November 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, November 7th, [Before J. Poynter, Esq., R.M.] A. Hunter v. C. H. Enderby. Claim ,-19, the value of a gold watch and chain, paid for by cheque, which was stopped at the bank. Mr. Pitt for plaintiff, and Mr. Kingdon for defendant. The case excited considerable interest, as it was supposed to arise cut of a gambling transaction, in which plaintiff, defendant, and a number of other persons had been concerned. Mr. Pitt having briefly stated the leading features of the case, called the plaintiff, who stated — lam a watchmaker and jeweller in Nelson. On September 24th I supplied the defendant with ,i gold watch and chain, for £19; the watch £10 10s.. and the guard £8 10s. I received a cheque from defendant at the same time, on the Bank of New Zealand. Payment of the cheque was stopped by myself and deJendant next morning. I have not received notice from defendant since then that the cheque would be paid. * To Mr. Kingdon: leashed the cheque the same evening; I paid it away, and got the whole amount in full. It was in Mr. Everett's. I did not afterwards tell- defendant to stop the cheque. I told him I had been in company with a party who had not acted honestly with me, and that I wanted it stopped. He took it from me by unfair means. We were playing cards, and they were not genuine. I gave him the cheque in payment of money won from me with unfair cards, and because of this I got defendant to stop it. Mr. Everett cashed the cheque before we began to play. I told him it was a good one. I told Mr. Enderby, next morning, I had been robbed of it. The cheque was in Mr. Gough's hands at this time. I received it back from Mr. . Everett that evening. The gambling took place in Mr. Pratt's butcher's shop. I went into it with ' Messrs. Gough and Hudson. They induced me to play. I have not been in the habit of playing often, only occasionally. ~ T told Enderby I had lost the cheque by unfair means. He did not tell me I had no right to stop the- notice of it. . Murdock told me the money would be paid, and that I was foolish to have the cheque stopped. ' Itold Gough I was unfairly dealt with, and that I should not stop proceedings. The cards were dene up, with a solution of spirits of wine and resin, which enabled them to do what- they liked with them. A young man who knew how the cards could be managed, told me how it was to be done., .Gough.toreup.bis cards the, same evening. I paid cash for the cheque to Mr. Everett, and Gough got the money., I got the money to pay the cheque by gambling. The parties gambling at Everett's, were Gough, Murdock, Hudson, Mills, myself, .James, and others. John Lyell: I.. ain teller in.the Bank of New Zealand. ,On the. 25th September, .Messrs. Enderby and Hunter came to. the bank. The former requested a cheque for iii 9 to be stopped. . I produce . his written order. The cheque was afterwards .paid, by the instructions of defendant. I know not to whom. .-Mr. -Kingdon characterised the plaintiff" as a schoolboy wlio has eaten his apple and cries for it.. -It. was no part of the duty of defendant to follow, the cheque after he had parted with legal possession of.it..; If the plaintiff chose to gamble, he must put up with the consequences. He called — Edward Everett, who said: Ahout the 24th Sep-

tember- plaintiff. asked ine to cash a cheque for ,£l9 It was '"drawn' by Enderby. I did not cash it; Gongh did, I believe. I think it was cashed by him. Mr. Hunter received the whole of the cheque. He first received*' £6, and afterwards the whole amount in full. Edwin Gough: On September 24th I cashed a cheque for £19, drawn by Enderby. Hunter received the money and won it back again, and received it the second time. He cashed the cheque the same night, and it came into my possession. He received cash for it. I can't swear what helost. I paid cash in full the second time for it. The second transaction was at Hudson's. Hunter both won and lost. He won £30 to £40 of one person. We went to Hudson's to settle a gambling transaction. There Hunter lost the cheque and had to cash it. The game was blind hookey. He went into Hudson's of his own accord. I know nothing of a false pack of cards. I shall make Hunter prove that. I paid the cheque to Mr. Murdock; I did not lose it to him. To Mr. Pitt: I was playing blind hookey with Hudson and Hunter. I don't know if the hitter lost. I cashed the cheque because Hunter asked me, and whilst we were playing I did not see him use the money. I don't recollect telling Murdock about the cheque. D. H. Murdock .- On the 25th September, I received a cheque for £19, drawn by Enderby on Hunter. I received ic from Gough. I paid it to the Bank of New South Wales. I got a notice of dishonor from the bank. I went to Hunter after the cheque was stopped, with Enderby, and told him the cheque was dishonored. Defendant told plaintiff in my presence the cheque would be paid. I paid it tn -ijuj. hank about 10 in the morning. The transactionpok place at a raffle at Everett's. I was not at Hudson's. I neither won nor lost. To Mr. Pitt : I saw the cheque at Everett's, wben Hunter, Enderby, and Gough were playing. I saw Hunter get an advance of £6 from Mr. Everett. Gough asked me to cash Enderby's cheque. I knew he got it from Hunter, but I did not know the latter lost it in gambling, he did not tell me. I gave Gough notes for the cheque at different times. I can't say who was present. Mr. Kingdon contended that the defendant had paid full value for the watch and chain. If the plaintiff had been cheated at cards he should proceed criminally against the offender. Mr. Pitt replied that cash received for the purpose of gambling was not bona fide, and that there was no defence to the action. If the defendant lent him -elf to unfair proceedings, he deserved to lose the value of the cheque. The Magistrate said,' he would not comment on the bad taste of thus introducing the particulars of a gambling transaction, which from first to last, the present case .appeared to be, and the defence was not one that would hold water. The evidence showed that the parties had been mixed up in a series of gambling affairs, and the law gave the magistrate the power, the prestige of gambling attaching to defendant, to give judgment in favor of the plaintiff. He should therefore give judgment for plaintiff for £19, without commenting on the inconsistency of the law wbich was great. He had to deal with the law as he found it, and give judgrnent in accordance with it. The evidence disclosed the fact that gambling was carried on in this town on a large scale and by a class of persons that one would think would not lend themselves to it. It would be well if a closer police surveillance could diminish what was evidently a growing evil, but the secrecy of the operations put it out of the power of the police to take action. LAECENY. Jeremiah O'Leary charged James Harper, with stealing a watarproof coat of his from the passage of the Masonic Hotel, on the Gth inst. The prosecutor identified the coat. The prisoner denied having taken it with felonious intent. The evidence of the barman having been taken the magistrate discharged the accused. This Day. DRUNKENNESS. John Amery was fined lus. and costs for this offence. FALSE PRETENCES. George Alex. Simpson was charged by Mr. John Jervis, with obtaining the sum of £5 under false pretences, on the 27th October last. The evidence was as follows: — Mr. Jervis: I am a hotelkeeper in Nelson. The prisoner came to my house on the 27th October last. He asked me to cash a cheque, saying he had plenty of money in the Bank of New Zealand, but he would not be able to get it till Monday morning. I cashed the cheque for £5, which is now produced. I wrote the cheque and he signed it. On sending the cheque on the Monday morning, it was dishonored. I after•wards saw Mr. Watkin, wlio told me he knew nothing of the man ; Mr. Everett had introduced him as having money in the Bank at Dunedin, but he had no funds here! '. The man had a little drink, but knew what he was about when he signed the cheque. The prisoner said he wished to ask no questions, but whether he was sober or not, he had a little money left' yet, and Mr. Jervis might have his own way. The prisoner was informed that his question had already been answered. Mr. Jervis to ithe Court : I never saw. the man before. Martin Butt .- lam acting accountant at the Bank ■ of New Zealand. On the morning of the 19th uit., I saw the prisoner, who.has no account at our biink in -Nelson, that I know of. The ledgerkeeper would refuse payment of the cheque produced, tf it was pre- ; sented.

The Bench suggested .that the person who refused j payment of the cheque should be examined. Not being present he was sent for. Oliver Wakefield : The prisoner came to the bank and asked about money coming from the West Coast. He said he expected it. I don't think I saw the cheque now produced. I think it was presented to the manager. If I had refused it, it would have had my writing on the back. I believe it was refused payment, but lam not certain. No such person as this has any account at our bank. I refused one of this- man's cheques payable to De Silva on the 30th, and drawn for the same amount. Simpson has no account at this branch, and never had since I have been here. In reply to a question from the bench. Sergeant Nash said prisoner had been a digger at Collingwood. The prisoner was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. It was stated that Mr. Everett had a case against the prisoner, but at the suggestion of the magistrate it was resolved that it should not be proceeded with now, from the difficulty that would be found in obtaining witnesses from Dunedin. Should the prisoner escape on the charge for which he is committed, he will he prosecuted for giving valueless cheques to Mr. Everett and others. Mr. Sharp said he knew his handwriting well.