LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9164, 20 September 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.— Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles, K.M.] Drunkenness. — Three persons were punished for drunkenness. Alice Murphy, for a third offence, was fined £3, with an alternative of twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Alleged Forgery. — Edward Murphy was charged with having, on the let of June, feloniously uttered a certain promissory note for the payment of £22 8s 2d, knowing the same to be forged. Mr. G. M. Johnston appeared for the prisoner. William A. Murphy, farm labourer at the Avondale Asylum, and son of the accused, deposed that lie did not sign the promissory note produced (which bore the signature " William Alexander Murphy"), but he had authorised his father on several occasions to sign promissory notes for him, when he was in any way stuck in money matters. Accused, however, had never signed witness' name to promissory notes ; nor was he specially authorised to sign the note in question. Witness' authority;to hid father had been given twelve months! or two years ago, and he had always said that he gave his father this authority. Witness did not tell Mr. Maxwell that his father had this authority ; but when Detective : Walker saw witness at the Asylum j on Monday, he stated positively to the detective thut he had given his father authority to sign his name. By Mr. Johnston : Witness and his father had done business at farming at Bombay, and had therefore numerous money transactions together. From the general authority which he had given to his father, he considered that accused had authority to sign the present note, and he (witness) considered himself bound to pay any note to which his name was signed, and also the present note. The witness was examined by the Bench as to the documents signed by his father in his name, and in reply he stated that he had signed receipts several times. James Maxwell, settler, residing at deposed that about the end of May he put bailiffs in possession of accused's place at Bombay under a bill of sale. Accused saw witness in town on the Ist of June in reference to the matter, and wanted the bailiffs withdrawn. Witness said that if a bill of sale held by Wyllie were met he would withdraw the bailiffs. "Witness had yleo a bill of sale for about £60, but he wished that Wyllie's bill would take precedence to remove difficulty. Accused tried to raise the money, but could not do so, and he then gave a promissory note to be met by his son. Witness agreed to take this note, and gave Mr. Oliphanb instructions that when it was signed the bailiffs were to be withdrawn. Inspector Broham went on to ask evidence as to a conversation which Maxwell had had with the first witness at the Asylum. Dr. Giles ruled that this evidence could not be heard, as the accused was not present. Mr. Broham said he wished to show the reasons why the case had been brought into Court. If the previous statements of the first witness had not been materially different to what he had stated in the witness box, the case would not have been brought into Court. Mr. Johnston proceeded to cross-examine the witness with reference to the mortgage held by him and Wyllie over Murphy's property. Dr. <riles asked whether the questions were material. Mr. Johnston said he would afterwards show that they were material. Dr. Giles said he did not wish to stop Mr. Johnston, but he could not see the necessity for the questions. It seemed to him that the case had broken down altogether. The evidence of Mr. P. Oliphant, solicitor, was then heard. He deposed that on the let of June last he drafted the bill of sale produced in the presence of Mr. Maxwell, and the accused. The prosecutor stated then that if the son would sign a promissory note, witness was to give an order for the withdrawal of the bailiffs from his house. Murphy said he would have to go to the Asylum to get his son's signature; and he returned in the afternoon, and presented the note, which was then signed, saying that his son had signed it. The accused endorsed it, and witness kept io in his safe until it became due. Witness's clerk then presented it at the bank when it was dishonoured. Witness wrote to accused's son, %vho subsequently wrote a letter to witness. Dr. Giles ruled that this letter could not be admitted as evidence. Inspector Broham said that it would contradict the testimony of the first witness. His Worship a?ked whether the Inspector had any more witnesses to call? Inspector Broham replied that he would not proceed further in the case. Dr. Giles said in that event there would be no need to cross-examine the witnesses. There was clearly nothing to warrant him in sending the accused for trial, though nobody who had heard the evidence would consider that the case was quite free from suspicious circumstances. The accused was discharged.