LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7301, 13 April 1885, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Suasions. Sattjbdat, Afbil 11. Hie Honob took hiii aeat at ten o'clock. FOBGING AND UtTKRIKG. — Eichdrd Hathat was charged with feloniously forging and uttering a certain valueless cheque. Prisoner pleaded not guillty. Mr. H. Williamson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Madden appeared for the defence. —Edward Cox, ostler at the Royal Mail Hotel, Hamilton, deposed that prisoner came to the hotel on January 24th and asked him to write out a cheque for him. On his declining to do so, prisoner pulled a chequebook from his pocket and esid he wonld show him how. He then filled in the cheque as prisoner directed. Prisoner stated that his name was Robert Douglas, and that he had plenty of money in the bank. The prisoner also said that he had a bad hand and could not write.—William Murphy, groom at Waikato Hotel said that he remembered prisoner hiring a horse. When witness asked for payment the prisoner gave him the cheque (identified) for the amount of £2. Witness «sked if the cheque waa good enough. Prisoner answered yes, and said that if it was not good enough he would write out one. He gave th<> cheque to Mr. Gaudin, proprietor of the hotol, who deolared it worthless. Mr. Gaudin then instructed witness to tell prisoner to come for the change of the cheque himself, or that if he gave him 7s 6d, the charge for horse hire, he weuld give him the cheque back. Prisoner offered witness a silver watch if be would get the cheque back, but he declined to take it. In the dining-room of the hotel prisoner said that he could not write, but he thought the cheque was all right. Prisoner subsequently came into witnesa'o bedroom, and next morning the bank book and cheques (produced) were found under his bed,, Witness had seen these in prisoner's pousession about a week previously.—Frederick Gaudin, proErietor of the Waikato Hotel, corroorated the statements made by William Murphy. Prisoner told witness thai; he had received the cheque from the proprietor of the Royal Mail Hotel, in change for a £5 note.—Robert Douglas, butcher, deposed that prisoner had been in his employ, as worker on the farm. He identified the bank book and cheques as his., He gave no authority to prisoner to take them. The books were missing -the day before he discharged prisoner.—Constable Murray said that when arrested, on February 5, the prisoner said, " Ah, well, it's all up now."— John Baird Hobarfc, ledgerkeeper of the Bank of Mew Zealand, Auckland, recollected receiving a oheque on January 31, but it was rejected, as there was no account. The signature did not at all resemble that of Mr. Douglas.—John Hackett and Thomas Hackett (father and brother of the prisoner, respectively) gave evidence to show that prisoner, aa far as their knowledge went, had no means of becoming acquainted with the purport of a cheque, and was devoid of all business capacity.—The juiry, afteir a brief deliberation, returned a vordiot of guilty of uttering a forged cheque onty. They recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of his youth and ignorance. They thought the oonduot of the witness Cox in this transaction ought to be severely reprimanded.—His Honor said, he would give effect to the recommendation of the jury, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Shooting with Intent tq Mubdeb. — John Brown, charged with shooting with intent to murder one Thomas Brown, was brought up to receive sentence. Mr, E. Xieaketh a ppeared on behalf of the prisoner. —Prisoner, on being asked if there was any reason why sentence should not be passed on him, Raid that when Thomas Brown raised the stick to strike him he took the pistol from his pocket and tired, all the while keeping his eyes fixed on the stick, and not aiming at the prisoner. He again fired in the direction of Thomas Brown, but only with the view of keeping him running. —His Honor said that the prisoner should be thankful- that the shots did not take effect, for then he would have been arraigned on the more serious charge of murder. He strongly commented on the reprehensible practice of carrying revolvers, and said that it must be suppressed by strong measures. In the present case there was no evidence to show the cause which led to the use of the revolver, nor to show that it was purchased for the purpose of performing the deed, or else the sentence would have been severe. The sentence of the Court was seven years' penal servitude. The Court then adjourned until ten a.m. on Monday. • ' BANKRUPTCY (Debtob's Examination). Geo. William Whitcomb (Baker).—This debtor was examined on oath by the Official Assignee on Saturday. He had been in business as a baker in Auckland for four years, starting with a capital of £20. Last May he purchased an allotment at Surrey Hills for £572, the terms being one-fifth cash, balance at any time on mortgage at 7 per cent. He paid a deposit of £10 on the day of purchase, And a second payment of £54 Ss on the 28th June. Besides these payments he kept up interest Heborrowed £50 of the purchase money from Mr. Moore, his father-in-law, without any conditions of interest or security. He made three payments for interest, amounting to £26 13s 3d. He borrowed, on the 27th July, a further sum of £21 from his father-in-law. When he made his last payment for interest the Secretary of the Surrey Hills Estate told him the balance of the onefifth purchase money muist be paid within three months from February, ISSS, and Mr. Moore undertook to get the money by that time, and he (Whitcombe) offered, if he did, to make over the property to him until he could pay baok what he had advanced or might advance, and they told Mr. Boardman of this arrangement, and he drew up a fresh agreement in the name of Mr. Moore— cancelling the first one. The debtor erected a bakehouse and oven, and commenced a stable on the property, expending about £150 on the buildings. He valued his interest in the allotment at £200, and his other assets — including stock-in-trade and book debts— brought the total up to £521, against an indebtedness of £672 3s 3d. The principal cause of his indebtedness was a loss of £150 by fire twelve months ago, and consequent loss of time and trade. He had a -good paying business now, but pressure from three of his creditors compelled him to file in order to protect hiei other creditors. Through his friends he was prepared to make an offer for the business, or make a composition, as they might consider best.. POLICE COURT.—Saturday. [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., B.M.] Drunkenness.—Alexander McMillan, who was suffering from delirium tremens was remanded for a week for medioal treatment, and Jane , Bevege was fined 10s and costs or 48 hours' in default. » Pawning a Watch.—Chariest Maok (a youth) was charged with unlawfully pawning a watch, the property of G. H. Evans, at Wellington on February 27. Sergeant Pratt explained that the accused bad been arrested on a telegram from Wellington, and he applied for a remand for eight days in order that the accused might be sent to Wellington. Remanded to Wellington to 19th inst. False Pretences.— A. Ross (a respectably dressed young man) was charged with obtaining, by means of false pretence— a valueless cheque—£3 11s, and board and lodging Sβ, from Henry Hay don, Dunedin, on March 20. He was further charged with obtaining £1, by means of a valueless cheque, from William Black! or, Selwyn, on or about January 20. Sergeant Pratt explained that the accused had been arrested the previous night, on a description contained in the Police Gazette (produced). The warrants were lying for his apprehension at Dunedin and Selwyn, and he (Sergeant Pratt) applied for the accused's remand to Dunedin for eight days. His Worship remanded the accused to April 19, to await the arrival of the warrants. ' . ■■■ "v - - . Destitute Child. — Thomae Meadows (eight years) was committed to the Howestreet Industrial School until ho is fourteen years, of age, and to be brought up in the faith of the Roman Catholic Charch. ' ' ,Suj?pobt of Wife and Family.— Aspinall, stonemason, was charged with failing to provide adequate means of support for his three children. Mr. E. Mahbny appeared for the" plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. A considerable amount of evidence, purely of a.domestic character, was given, from which it appeared that arrangements had been attempted to be made. Hie Worship declined to make an order, considering it a dispute between hue- , band end wife. A second information, for desertion, was withdrawn on the application of plaintiffs counsel. ''~'.. _- ' SUPPOBTO?A Child.—Riohaird Anderson, car] nter, watt charged with being of sufficient ability to contribute to the support of

his son, six yean of age. Mr. Theo, Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, Mm. Anderson, who applied for 20s per week to be ordered. An arrangement was come to, and order for 5s per week to be paid was made