RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 995, 27 March 1891, Page 16

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THE DUMMYISM CASES. MR COLEMAN PHILLIPS COMMITTED. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court oh Friday morning, Mr Coleman Phillips appeared to answer certain charges formulated by the Minister of Lands in regard to alleged dummyism in the Wairarapa. Mr H. W. Robinson, R.M., presided at the enquiry. There were two imformations, the substance of which was as follows : That Coleman Phillips, of Dry River, Featherston, did, on the 23rd of October, 1889, falsely and wickedly solicit and excite certain persons viz., Rose Joseph, Jenny Samuel, Hannchen Samuel, Richard Joseph, E. IC. Samuel, J. F. W. Mills and E, C, E. Mills—to wilfully commit a breach of the provisions of the Land Act, 1885, by obtaining lands disposed of by perpetual lease not exclusively for their own use ; farther, that he did, on various dates, falsely, wickedly and unlawfully solicit and incite the same persons in statutory declarations required under the Act to wilfully declare something which was false, which was that they were purchasing the leases of the laud referred to in the said declarations solely for their own use and benefit and for the purposes of cultivation, and not directly or indirectly for the use and benefit of any other persons whomsoever. The second information charges the defendant with aiding and abetting the persons named in committing breaches of the Land Act. Mr Gully, with him Mr Jellicoe, prosecuted, and Mr Travers, with him Mr Chapman,: appeared for the defence. Mr Gully opened the case for the Minister of Lands at considerable length, and. than called the following evidence : G. Wright, clerk in the Land Office, produced certain applications for lands on deferred payments and perpetual lease from the defendant for 1000 acres in the Dry River District, from W. J. Nathan, for 457, 680, and 772 acres ; from Rachael Joseph for 517 acres ; from M. K. Samuel, for 550 acres; from T. K. Samuel, for 1000 acres; and Rose M. Joseph, for 88S acres. Witness recognised the handwriting of the defendant on several of the applications, and Mr Phillips had also written an authority on Mr W. J. Nathan’s second application for the latter to aet for him as agent. All the applications had been taken np with the exception of Rose M. Joseph s. The land in Dry River was opened for sale on August 15th, 1887, and Mr Phillips made several enquiries concerning it, but witness could not say for certain whether the Mills Brothers or E. K. Samuels did so, although the latter came to the office several times. When the payments become due notices are issued to the tenants, and application made for the money. This was dona in the present cases, but witness wa3 unable to say whether any these notices came into Mr Coleman Phillips’ hands. Something was said about this at the Land Board, but witness could not say for certain whether defendant was present. The notices were sent on June 20th, 1890. Saw defendant from time to time after the applications had been put in. and he spoke of taking up another section and wished it to be opened for sale as soon as possible. A letter was received in reference to that section signed “E. C. E. Mills and R. Joseph, per C.P..” stating that this land was necessary to work the property, and asking that it be put up for sale either on deferred payment or perpetual lease. Recollected one interview with the defendant, about the same time as the date of the letter, in the Provincial Government buildings. Mr Phillips spoke of the necessity for having Section 3 for the purpose of working his land, and the Commissioner asked him what he meant by ‘‘his land.” He said he was speaking as an agent, and the application would be bonS, fide. (Several letters were put in from the defendant, pointing out that he required

the section in order to work his land properly, and asking for it to be put up for sale). Rachel Joseph, examined by Mr Jellicoe, deposed that she was not a member of the firm ofv Joseph and Phillips. . Mr Jacob Joseph, of that firm, was witness’ uncle. Remembered giving evidence at the Land Hoard in December last, when the defendant was present. The signature to the declaration produced was hers, but the name at the top was not her handwriting. There was no other portion of the document in her handwriting except the name. "Witness declined to say whose writing it was for the reason that she was not sure about it. - Sighed her name m her uncle’s house where she resides, Mr Wright being present, but she had forgotten who el.se was there. Declined to answer where she got the paper, as it might tend to criminate herself. Pressed fora reason, witness said that she did not know what might be brought against her. Mr Jellicoe asked that the Court should rule that the question be answered and quoted authority to show that the mere statement of an opinion was not sufficient to prevent a witness answering a question. His Worship decided that the reason given was not sufficient, and the witness must reply. Witness still refused to answer. His Worship explained what the consequences would he. Mr Chapman said that his client had no objection to the question being answered. Miss Joseph then said that Mr M. Samuel, Mr .1 oseph’s private secretary, gave her the document. She could not remember whether it was filled up at that time, and she signed it without knowing what were its contents. Was quite sure the defendant was not present, and she did not at any time previously see him about the document. Had sepn Mr Phillips’ writing before that time, and identified it as the same as was in the body of the document she signed. Mr Samuel also gave her the declaration, which she signed in ignorance of its contents. The same evidence was given in regard to the other documents. Witness said she had never paid any money as deposit or otherwise on the land to the Receiver of Revenue, nor had she authorised the defendant to make payments for her. Had never any idea of becoming a settler, nor did she intend to go bush-felling. Made no application to take up hind in Dry River nor anywhere else Is-st year, and never thought anything about it. Witness refused to answer, whether she had taken up any land in the Puketoi district for the same reason as before, and on the Court insisting, she said she did not know anything about it. Rose M. Joseph, wife of Jacob Joseph, gave evidence as to the signing of a declaration in connection with the Puketoi Block. Like the previous witness she declined to answer certain questions until compelled to do so by the Court, and her evidence was virtually the same as that given at the Land Board. Jane Samuel, wife of M. Tv. Samuel, said she was not a member of the firm of Joseph and Phillips. Believed that some notice did come from the Land Office, but was not aware of its nature except that it asked her to go somewhere to sign something. Never paid the Land Board any money, nor authorised anybody to do so. The signature produced was hers, and it was written in Mr Joseph’s house. Witness went to the Land Office alone and signed some papers there, but could not say what was on them. Did not give the matter any thought at all, hut just signed the paper in Mr Joseph’s house and went away. Her husband asked her to sign it, and she did so. Never had occasion to ask Mr Phillips to transact, business for her, nor had she asked him to take upland for her. Did not look to see if the paper was filled in when she signed it. Hannchen Samuel, daughter of Morris Samuel, repeated the evidence given before the Land Board. She admitted that she received the documents she signed from her father, but she did not read it. 15. K. Samuel, son of Morris Samuel, deposed to having signed an application in Mills’ office, but could not say if his father asked him to sign it. Charles John Hickson, cleik in the Wellington branch of the Colonial Bank, deposed that the firm of Joseph and Phillips had an account at the Bank. He produced certain cheqnee signed by the defendant in favour of the Receiver of Land Revenue. At 5.10 p.m, the Court adjourned till Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. The casewas continued on Tue day. M. K. Samuel .secretary to Mr Jacob Joseph, said he was aware of the existence of the firm of Joseph and Phillips, but all he had to do with the books was to audit them occasionally, the last time being about two years ago. The partnership accounts related to the Dry River run ; could not say if the vouchers showed any payment connected with the Puketoi Block. First saw the application produced of Rachel Joseoh, or one , similar to it,, about the middle of 1890., Examined as to the signatures to the other applications witness said he could not recollect them being made, and knew absolutely nothing about the matter at all. Recollected going towards the Mills’ office with his son, but could not say if he (witness) went in. Received application produced (that signed by E. K. Samuel) from the defendant, but could pot recollect on what occasion or whether it was given singly or not. Mr Coleman Phillips asked witness to get the application signed by E. K. Samuel, hut he did not trouble himself about the matter much, and could not say whether it referred .to the Puketoi Block. Personally witness knew nothing about it, and

relied entirely on what defendant had said about family settlement. At this point the witness refused to answer a question as to what he had done with the application after he received it, on the ground that he might incriminate himself. Mr Gully strongly protested against these parrot-like refusals to answer, which were evidently not bonit fide. The witness said that he might he charged with aiding and abetting, and after argument His Worship said that ho did not think the witness should answer.

Examination continued : Could not recollect whether he lodged the application in the Laud office or not. The applications from Mrs and Miss Samuel were signed in Mr Joseph’s house, and witness received all the forms from the defendant, but he could not. say if they were given at the same time. Witness could not recollect what was done with them after they were signed, so far as he was concerned. Was not aware that the Dry River run was taken up under the Act. Witness declined to say whether he had anything to do with taking up the Dry River land. Mr Travers contended that the question had no relevancy to the charge against his client. His Worship ruled that the question was relevant. . Witness said he got several application forms for allotments in the Dry River signed. They were handed to witness by defendant, and he was asked to get them signed by Mra and Miss Joseph, Mrs and Miss Samuel and E. K. Samuel. Declined to say whether the signature in the application form was his, as it might incriminate him. Could not remember what became of the documents after they were signed, and declined to answer . as to whether he had lodged his own application or whether he had paid anything to the Land Board. 1 . .. His Worship ruled that his present opinion was that the question need not be answered, but on further thought he might insist on a reply being given. To Mr Travers : The witness said he was sure he received the forms from Mr Phillips and not Mr Joseph. , George Baggett, Receiver of Land Revenue for Wellington district, gave evidence that applications for land were brought into his office, and were initialled by him when the deposit was paid, After being initialled they are handed to the chief clerk. The. receipts were generally forwarded to applicants by the witness. The butts of the receipts were produced. Witness could not recollect any ladies coming to the office to pay deposits. The receipts were addressed to the applicants, “ care of Nathan and Co.’’ Mr Phillips had come to the office in 1889, and had paid money on account of the Puketoi land, and had given instructions that the receipts should be sent care Nathan and Co. To Mr Travers: Money was .often paid on behalf of agents, and it was not an unusual thing for applicants to appoint agents. J. R. Gibbons, of the Evening Post and A. E. Mansford, of the New Zealand Times, produced copies of their respective papers containing reports of the proceedings in the Land Court, and gave evidence as to their correctness. The transcript of Mr Mansford’s verbatim notes of the evidence was put in. E. C. E. Mills gave evidence that he had attended at the Land Office, but did not lodge any application far land on deferred payment. Witness declined to answer whether he had made any payments on land, on the ground that he might be charged with conspiring with the defendant. Mr Travers again raised the point as to the relevancy of the question to the present case. His Worship upheld the witness’ objection, on the ground that his answer might tend to criminate him. Examination continued : Never attended the Land Board in company with Mr Phillips, except on the occasion of the inquiry. . Could not say if the signature on the application produced was his, and declined to say if he made the application. Refused to answer, hecause he was really afraid of being prosecuted, and he would also not say if the defendant was his agent. . Mr Gully pressed the question, but the Court did not insist on its being answered. On another question being put, and another refusal given, his Worship said he was not prepared to rule on the point except provisionally. Mr Gully replied that he could not accept that as it meant that all a witness had to do was to refuse to answer any question that may be awkward, simply on the ground that he might criminate himself. It was only to explain that the answers were not made bona fide. He wanted his Worship’s ruling on the point at once, as otherwise he could not go on with the case. His Worship said he would therefore rcla that the witness need not reply, and the latter left the box. Prank Allen, Justice of the Peace, identified his signature to the declaration signed bv last witness. Knew Mr Mills prior to the date of the declarations for soma years. To Mr Travers : Did not examine the contents of the document, but simply witnessed the signature. J. P. E. Wright, J.P., said he was a partner with Mr Joseph in the Island Bay estate, but had nothing to do with the firm of Joseph and Phillips. Had known the defendant for some years and had seen him several times at Mr Joseph’s house. He asked witness on one occasion to attest a declaration for young Mills. Went to Mills’ store and found Mr John Mills

with the document ready for signature, and he (witness) took the declaration produced in the usual way. Saw Mills write his name, and knew it related to land. The document was filled in. Recollected perfectly taking the declaration of Miss Joseph, which took place in the diningroom. The defendant was not there on that day, nor did he see Mr Samuel. Believed that the acreage was filled in when the declaration was taken, and Miss Joseph declared the contents to be true. The same evidence was given in connection with the declarations of Mr Joseph and Miss Samuel. Witness was surprised now to find that there were blanks in the declarations, as he thought they were filled up and in proper form. J. P. W. Mills deposed that he saw Mr Wright in company with Mr Phillips on one occasion in E.' W. Mills and Co’s premises. One of them produced a document, but he could not say who did so. He was asked to sign it, but he refused to say if he had done so. Witness thought he did not keep it, and that it was not taken away by Mr Wright but by Mr Phillips. Witness did not lodge it at the Land Office, and refused to say whether he paid anything on account of the laud. Ross Gore, clerk of the Australian Mutual Provident Association, was called, and was asked by Mr Gully whether the defendant had made overtures to him concerning taking up land. Mr Travers objected, as such evidence could not affect his client after conviction, and had nothing to do with the present charge. After argument, his Worship said he would admit the evidence for what it was worth, Mr Travers’ objections being noted in the depositions. Witness said that the defendant spoke to him about taking up land about two years ago. Nothing was said about the district, and the conversation was of a general nature. Mr Jellieoe said that Mr Jacob Joseph had been subpoenaed to produce the books of the firm of Joseph and Phillips. That gentleman was, however, unable to attend, bac it would be sufficient if Mr Samuel would produce them. Mr Samuel was placed in the box, and he said that the books were not in his possession. Mr Joseph could not give evidence on the ■ point. Legal argument on both sides followed, and in the course of this Mr Travers said that he would have to look through the books to see if there was anything to imperil his client’s case before advising whether they should be given up. Mr Gully remarked that this meant that if the books were of no use they could have them. He had, however, sufficient evidence on the point, and would not press for the production of the books. This closed the case for the prosecution, and the further hearing was adjourned till next morning at 11 o’clock. The case continued on Wednesday. Mr Travers, as counsel for the defendant, said he would content himself with a few words on the case. There were two separate classes of offences disolosed .in the information, and he would deal with them separately. The first was a charge that Mr Phillips bad aided and abetted certain persons to break the law, but there was no evidence ta show that this had been done. The leases had been cancelled by the Board, but not under the provisions of section 30 of the Land Act, and for all the Court knew to the- contrary the leases are still subsisting. These leases confer an absolute title on the lessee under the Land Transfer Act, which gives an indefeasible title that could not be disturbed unless on account of nonperformance of the conditions. There was nothing to show that Mrs Joseph is not now the absolute owner of the land, or that she is holding it for the use and benefit of any other person but herself. If his (counsel’s) contention was right, the manner in which the land was obtained disclosed no offence. There was likewise nothing to show that any agreement had been made betweeu Mrs Joseph and the defendant antecedent to the application. In regard to the second charge, namely that of inciting to break the law, Mr Travers quoted an authority to show that the party incited must be proved to "have aware he was incited, but this was clearly not the case in this instance. There might be some slight evidence that the Mills Brothers may have been approached by Mr Phillips, but it was certainly not so with the Joseph and Samuel families. In conclusion, be asked His Worship to dismiss the information, as there was no evidence before the Coart to show that the land was not for the use and benefit of those people who took up the leases. Mr Gully said there was no need to reply to his learued friend’s argument, as it was no part of the duty of that Court to deal with intricate points of law. Whatever there might be In Mr Travers’ contention could bo argued in the Supreme Court. His Worship agreed with Mr Gully, and said that he bad made up his mind not to deal with the case on his own responsibility. This Court was only a mere stepping stone, and the matter should be determined by the Supreme Couofey He would commit the accused for trial, allowing bail, himself in £2OO, and one-surety for a Bimilar cum.

Heury Drennan, who had been arrested on the previous night on a charge of having disobeyed orders on board the Invercargill, was brought before Mr Robinson, yesterday week. There was no appearance of the captain, who had laid the information, and Mr Coates, who appeared for the accused, said that, according to his own story, his olient had been very badly treated. Both the captain and the first mate had assaulted him, with the result that his shoulder had been dislocated. His Worship discharged Drennan, and it wa3 understood he would go into the Hospital until he had leoovered from the effeot of hi 3 injuries. SergeantMajor Ramsay pointed ouc that the police bad incurred £2 9s fid expenses, including Dr Collins’ fee for attendance, and he vvonld like to know who was to pay thi3 amomit. Mr Robinson said he could not deal with that under the present oharge, but he would allow £1 la cost 3 against the captain of the ship. Duviug the afternoon a -ummons for £SO damages was issued against Captain Muir, but it appears that he took time by the forelock, and set out to sea before it could he served. The ship left for England at 5 o’clock, and from all appearances Drennan will have no redress for the injuries he has sustained. As some misunderstanding appears to have arisen in regard to the effect of the Captain of the Invercargill having leEt for England before the day fixed for the hearing of the summons taken out against him by Henry Drennan, it may be mentioned that Captain Mnir has property in the Colony which can be attached for the purpose of meeting any expenses for which he may be adjudged liable. Mr Coatee, the counsel for the injured man, has decided to take steps in this direction. G. Goldstein, draper, of Willis Btreet, appeared before the Comt on Tuesday in answer to an information charging him with affixing a stamp that had been previously used to a receipt for £3, and with failing to cancel a stamp after affixing it to a receipt for £3. Mr Levi, who appeared for the defendant, said that the offence had been committed unknowingly. His Worship, Mr O. C. Graham, R.M. ,took that view of the case, and dismissed the first information. In regard to the charge of not having properly cancelled the stamp a nominal penalty of 5s and cost was inflicted, the Magistrate remarking that it was important that people should know that the cancellation of a stamp by pencil was not sufficient, and rendered the offender liable to a fine of £lO. Two other informations against the same defendant were withdrawn. Judgment in the Hutt Borouah Council eloctiou petition case was to have been given by Mr Robinson, R.M., on Friday, but on taking his Beat on the bench he stated that he had been served with a notice of an iDSended motion for prohibition, and under the circumstances he would withhold his decision. Mr Gully, who represents Mr J. Wilkins, whose election is appealed against, is moving for prohibition on the followiug grounds : —l. That the said petition was not filed as required by section 48 of The Regulation of Local Elestions Act, 1876. 2. That the said petition did not sot forth the ground of objection to Henry Davies O’Callaghan therein mentioned, but merely stated that he was not entitled to vote. 3. That it was not proved upon the hearing of the said petition that the said petition was signed by six eleotois or by a candidate and two electors. 4. That upon the said hearing the defendant-did not accept the burgess roll produced as conolu* sive, but allowed praof to be given as to the manner in which the said roll was made up by the Returning Officer, and the grounds upon which he acted in so doing. 5. That the fact that the person purporting to sign such petition as candidate was not proved upon the hearing of the said petition to have been duly nominated. 6. That upon such hearing as aforesaid, no proof was given as to who the other candidates were. Three firemen belonging to the B.M.S: Coptic, named Thomas Putt, Francis Lyons, and Thomas Poulter, were charged before Mr C. C. Graham, R.M., on Friday, with having stolen an accordeon, value 255, the property of Jacob Frankel. The complainant, who keeps a second-hand shop in "Willis street, stated that the accused came into the Bhop on Thursday afternoon for the purpose of selling some clothes. He went over to the Britannia Hotel to change a pound notß, in order to pay for the articles, and when he returned he missed an accordeon, which one of the prisoners (Lyons) had been admiriDg. The instrument was subsequently discovered in the possession of Lyons by Coustable Cameron. Lyons informed the constable that he had purchased the instrument from a man who had gone away in the Jubilee. One of the other prisoners corroborated this statement. His Worship gave the accused the benefit of the doabt, and dismissed the . case.