The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24. 1869. SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IV, Issue 276, 24 November 1869, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24. 1869. SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Eiohmomd], This Day. Z.evin v. Beaumont. This was jin ad inn 1" recover £5000 <liima<ri-.s Jot ;l sl.'ilHUT alleged lU ll . VL* l>een proniuli^Hlfd by driendtuit, to the <ffrt i har plaintiff, who is a merchant living ai W.'lli!i»fon, had colluded with Joseph Dn-sser Teilcy, laie a sheepfiirrner in M?if!l>orou»ii, to defraud deiendunt and (I 1)<-IS. The Attorney - Gpnenil nn<l Mr. Bisiji'iou »p|. tared for tin* pwiint iflfj ami Mr. Coii'-liy, Mr. Hurt, nud Mr. Pitt for the def'fuiiiiit. A ppe'MJil jm-y was sworn in consisting of Missis. Kvoivtr, Bentley, VV. H. Turner, 3 lodd. j f r Bl.ickelt, C. 11. Brown, Hu<!<lh-stoii, Lowe, Pittoii, Mai-kuy, Lewis, invl Bennett, foreman. | The Attorney- General, having opened ihe case in u speech t)f over an hour in length, railed W. if. Ey<\«, Siip"rinf.en']pnt of Marlhorongb, who stated : I remember meeting the. defendant on board the Aire«h>le. In ;i eon versa tion which look pi iee net ween us he accused iir. Levin and Mr. Telley of having swindled i i i in . lie said he hud brought out certain moneys which liiid been invested by the advice, of Levin and Tetley, ia sheep on Tet ley's run, and that this money had been paid to Levin to liquidate T&tley's account with him. He said that he hud brought this accusation be'oru but hud since apologised, he now, however,' intended to withdraw the apology as he was convinced lh»t L u vin had acted in collusion with Tet ley. I fautioned against him speaking in this manner, ami he replied, he did notwish io make it a private or cotifidcniial chi verbal i»n but. hid !.<>i <l l-»ts of people nliva-iy and ilmfhe would rather like to have- nti action brought against him if it should cost him & few hundred pounds, as it would give him nu opportunity of making the whole affdr public. He s;iid lie liad aiso written to several influential people in England informing th>m of the whole transaction. He paid that he had come out. under Tetley's wing together \viih Mr. Pulleine, Mr. Wharton, and Mr. G-arfcrth. that they had all brought out money which was only to be invested by (he advice of Levin and Tetley, and that the whole of this money had gone to liquidate Tetley's overdraft with Levin He said Mr. Levin was g^iug to EagJand and that be would find it rather hot for j {rim on his arrival there. Nath'Miiel William Levin: I have been living in Wellington for 28 years, where I was in business as a merchant up to March 1868. The business is now carried on by Mr. Fhnmzyn, Mr. Johusou, and my eon. under the same title of Levin & Co. I knew Mi 1 . TVtley. He went to live in K>k= rangu in 1858. 1 heard from him two month-* a»o, when he sail he Was livio-.,' about 10D miles from Mome Video. 1 k i'iw Pull ine. vV..art<>n, Beaumont and Guff'»rih. Th-y cim^ nut in 1865 with l'< thv, who introduced tb-iii to me. Me said be . wished to tu k to tne ahour, them, if iid we arranged a meeting. We met, ami TVtley tod me he "had advis -d tiicrn io purchase sheep, and to leave them with him until they could procure couniry, and then these four were to outer into partnership. I sai^t I thought it was as good ii thing as they could do. I received a letter shortly after from B^iuuiont stating tint he and his companions lial purchased 70l)0 ewes from Teiley, and asking me to pay to Tetley's account tjie amount of £2,700 that I had belonging to him, Beaumont. I never heard oi' any conversation with regard to the lending of money by those gentlemen to Tetley. Wljarton brought me a letter of introduction in which I was requested to •. advise him as fcct. the, "investment of .his- ■moa^y. : ,In vPecetniber . 1863, after Xetley ? s^ departure T went to". Pic ton, and on ; . to Xekeritugu. I met. "Beaumont/, .1 ( leeeiyied from, liim a wrltteu apology for

statements he had made. In January he came to Wellinjrton and inspected all the accounts with reference to Tetley's affairs. He made no remark about the sheep agreement then, or with regard to the money paid for them. In February I heard from Mr. Eyes what Beaumont had beea saying about me and I then instructed my solicitors to commence the present action. Some time after I received a letter from Beaumont wifchdrawiujr his apology. When I first heard of these slanders I had made every arrausrernent for leaving for England. Cross-examined : I have purchased wool in Wellington siuce^ the year 1868, I trtjusacte'l \ha lujsiness in a private room in lh« tiuildin^s occupied by llie (inn. I. first bec.inie acqutiuie 1 with Mr. Teilt-y through >i Icltnc of in trod uct ion he brought from Mr. Weld. Mv cnine out as a Si- tiler. Some linle ii?ne afi«r lie arriv^il, I learned that he had liitle or no means. I have never hi-ard of his having been insolvent in England. I wa9 induced to make ntlvanci-s to him from ihe strong recomini-ndations he brought, and also from personal prepossession in hid fivor. Before I went to Ku^lasul in 1863 Tetley, who was considerably in our debt, hail executed » mortgage to our firm, over 6UOO acres lieloniiinj; to him. Th^ m'>rt>r:ig« was never registered. Ido not know why. We had not been in the hnbit of taking mort|jM<;es. Since my return we have always bad them punctually registered. I never saw ihe mortsjaii • from the time it wa-* signed uniil last January. I never told Beaumont al>i>ut Ihe time he wrote ilir leiter of apology «ha r , owin<; to the coiiri'lence I had in Mr. Tetley, the mortgage had been purposely left utirngist.fivd. Tlia morigjg • of 1862 was first, spoken of by me to B aumoiit in l^iiMon. L s.iil ihat I li'id one in 181)2. which «-a^ renewed in 1866, and that I took mi -thi-r in IS3S ovvin^ to an engaiemunt I ha 1 made on leaving the business. I remember telling Beaumont that such was my confidence in Tetley that, I never took a lien over his wool. In introducing the four young men Tetley ioM me. that they were to invest their money on his a-ni my r ■- commendation. I never recommended that they should li-n 1 Tetley tlieir money. In M-hvJi, 1864, Tet lev was in-| ( ->!>te.l to our lirmf 13 000 a.d in March. 1860 £|f>,0:)0. 'I^iis was after our lei-eiviim £670 ) hotn Brfautuuit ?in I his co'iipaui'itis. His pio-fn-rtv hal frequently been Value I t'» m^ hi £20,000. I'i 1 865 there w-re. about, 25.700 siieep on K -'keran^ u and Richmonl Bro"k runs, 17,500 >»f which wer«; - rented. In March, 1866, the balance against Tetley was 19, 8 'J0. In 1867 it was over £22^000, and the number of sheep 35,700 about 24,000 <f which were rented. In 1868 the balance against Tetley was £24,240. I looked upon it as a perfectly safe debt. When I saw Beaumant iti December, last I then fully believed that Tetley would be out again. Beaumont never charged me with having misled him. He never said that I must have known that Tetley was, tot illy uufit'to be trusted with the money of the young men, and that I had advised them to invest it knowing that it would fall into my hands. He made certain charges with reference to the mortgage, and ulso of my having'recommended him to Ir-nd the money to Tetley, which I totally denied. He complained of theAwatere property having been burdened with, the expenses of the Kekerangu run. I told him these expenses had been reimbursed by quarterly payments. As we were riding to Kokerangu I told him ihat I would not. ent-r into terras about tbe sheep- until lie liad retracted the i statements he hid ma.le asraiust me. ; lie th. *n wote «,tn letter of apo'ozy. I sent, copies of this letter, aud also of the one withdrawing ihe apology, to England. After examining the accounts Beaumont d dined to express any opinion at the time. The re-examination of this witness by the A'toruev -General had just cotumeuceJ when we went to press.