SUPREME COURT.—CIRCUIT SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5548, 9 January 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CIRCUIT SITTINGS.

Wednesday, January 8. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and juries of twelve). JURY DISCHARGED. In Sweete’s case the jury, who had been locked up all night, intimated that they had not arrived at any conclusion, and were not likely to do so. His Honor ordered their discharge, and It was intimated by the Crown Prosecutor that he wished to take the case again when the other cases on the list were disposed of. SENTENCE. Charles Schmidt, convicted of larceny, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SELF-DESTRUCTION. Kate Dawes surrendered to her bail, and was brought up charged with having attempted self-destruction. ■ Prisoner pleaded guilty to having gone into the water. His Honor said that was no offence. Prisoner must plead guilty or not guilty to the charge preferred against her. Ultimately she pleaded guilty, and was liberated on Mr. J. P. Margetts entering into recognisances to bring her up for judgment when called upon. FORGERY, James Allen Maokio was indicted for forging an order for the payment of £IBOO. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr, Izard prosecuted for the Crown, Mr. Buckley representing the Bank of New Zealand ; Mr. Forwood defended the prisoner. ||The evidence in chief given was similar to that taken in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and recently published by us. In cross-examination Mr. Mabey said : On one occasion I went to the bank and prisoner said—“l should have forwarded £3OO to Murray’s account at Nelson., Will you give me a cheque for. it.” He said, “I expect it down from Murray to-morrow morning or next day,” 1 gave him.my cheque as requested, and ' the money was subsequently repaid me. I first heard of this transaction on the 28th De- ’ cember. I saw him in the gaol on that day, also on the following Monday. On neither occasion did I complain that he had exceeded my authority. I did not complain to the Eolice or attempt to lay an information against im. I did not go to the bank and repudiate the matter. I tried to get bail for him in a £IOOO. I was willing to go bail on Saturday and Monday, but not on the Tuesday. I was willing to recoup a a portion of the money on Christmas morning in order to get prisoner ont of his trouble, Mr. Forwood; Your account is not affected by this transaction. Witness: No,

His Honor: Well, I don’t know; it has been held that if a person gives a blank cheque, and it is filled up for a larger amount than the drawer wished, and it is passed on to a third person and cashed, then the person foolish enough to give the blank cheque loses the money. Mr, For wood: Yes ; I am asking witness what his belief is irrespective of law. His Honor: Very well, Witness ; I understand my account Is not affected by this transaction. Mr. Lawrie gave evidence as to the discovery of the forgery (as reported in our columns previously). Prisoner at first received £l5O, and allowances £SO ; in April last his salary was increased'by £25, and the allowance continued. Hahad rooms found him on the bank premises, and also a railway ticket supplied by the bank for travelling between the Upper and Lower Hutt. On examining the books at the Lower Hutt everything appeared right, but on arrival at the Upper Hutt to count the cash, Mackio said he had bad news. The cash would be found to be £l3lO short. He said he had hone of it left; it had all gone in driblets. He said he was in debt when he left Wellington, and being pressed he had helped himself. ■ Mr. Forwood, for the defence, called no witnesses, but addressed the jury. Ho urged them he very careful to be 'fully satisfied' of the intent to defraud before they convicted prisoner, and thus blasted for ever the character of a young man whose conduct hitherto had been irreproachable.' He put it to the jury that Mabey the principal party here had not been defrauded, and by his action in making no charge, and wishing to find bail and to raise the money to assist prisoner, he ratified the transaction., The evidence showed that there was some authority delegated to prisoner, and all that ho had done was to exceed his authority, of which Mr. Mabey did not complain. Whatever the jury might do, the fact of the bank paying so small a salary would relieve the prisoner of moral guilt, because of the great temptation placed in his way. Pis Honor confessed inability to see apy prbofof ratification arid explained that apcprqr lug to Jaw the facts sworn to were sufficient tp support the Indictment, provided the jury were satisfied with the truthfulness of the witnesses.' That was a question for_them to decide. The amount of a man’s salary had nothing to do with crime. The jury retired, arid after an hour’s absence returned into Cdurt with a verdict of guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his ybuth, the apparent negligence of the bank authorities in the lax inspection, and the insufficiency of the salary paid prisoner to maintala the position he occupied. ■

Prisoner was then indicted for stealing £l3lO, the property of the bank, and pleaded guilty. He was remanded for sentence on both charges. The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. next day.