RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2049, 29 August 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, August 28th.

(Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq., B.M;)

Squaring It. — Benjamin Harvey, alias Benjamin Fox, was charged, on the information, of John Flanagan, with having -stolen L7. The complainant said that he was with the prisoner'rat the previous day in a hotel in Walked streets He got drunk and lay down, and when he awoke he missed his money, which he had had in a matchbox in one of his pockets.. He (the witness) got very reticent, and said that he "could not say that the prisoner took the money. He did not.know "no mores than the dead." He denied that he had felt the prisoner put his hand into his pocket, although he admitted that he had told the police so. "It was'nt right," he said, and he withdrew the statement. The Commissioner of Police said the prosecutor had given information to the j police, which had been, supplemented; by other evidence obtained by "the~m,\j6» establish the case, and now he backed out of what he had stated. He was unwilling to come to Court at all; had. a particular objection to the witness box j and, indeed, to any part of the building^ for he had been convicted himself. MrCooper said that a few days aga the prisoner rented a. house" front him. He said he had no moneys $od asked to, be trusted for, the rent until Saturday. On'the day the money was stolen, the prisoner said he had "met a friend, and got some money," and he paid a month's rent in advance. The Magistrate, remarking that he had a. strong suspicion the case had beeit "squared," remanded the prisoner "until Monday next. CIVIL CASES. Howard arid Co.—Mr Smythies applied on behalf of the plaintiff for a re-hearing of this case. The plaintiff had sought to recover damages for the non-delivery of a parcel addressediio the care, of a MrPaterson, Oamaru. A witness for the defendant had sworn that the parcel had been, delivered to Mr Patersoa and. that the latter had stated that neither the plaintiff nor anyone else had called for it. The application was nowmade on a letter received from the plaintiff, who had gone to Oamaru. ife stated that Mr Paterson had never received the parcel until the day after the hearing of the case.. The. Magistrate granted the rehearing, which, was fixed forMondaynext. .".'. . /S .""......

; Bethune i? John Allen, claim L4 ss, forwork done. Mr Wilson (for Mr Ward), appeared for the plaintiff. The defend ant could only say " that he didn't think he ought to pay the amount," and this he repeated whenever he was asked a ques.««> tion or called upon to plead. It wais clearly proved, however, that the money was due, and judgment was given for i&e> amount claimed,, with costs. James Gibson, as assignee in the estate, of M'Leod and Gibson, v. David Sorley. This was a claim for goods supplied- Ths. defendant pleaded that he had passed, through the Insolvent Court, and that the* debt had been included in his scheduler He produced his discbarge in Insolvency, but not the schedule, and he had failed. t<* give proper notice to the plaintiff of hiss.

intention to plead the deed in bar. Ultimately, the plaintiff consented to withdraw the case, upon the defendant paying costs. Same v. James Gebbie—Claim L3 13s lid, for goods supplied. The defendant admitted that he had incurred the debt, but said that he had worked for the plaintiff until his wages amounted to L3 17s, and the one amount had, as he ■understood, been set against the other. The matter had, he thought, been settled three years ago. He had omitted to put in a set-off, and judgment was given against him; the Magistrate telling him that the only course open was to sue the plaintiff for the wages. Isaacs and Marks v. Peter Grant.— Claim LlO 9s, the amonnt of a dishonored ■^eque. Mr Wilson, on behalf of Mr Ward, appeared for the plaintiffs, and ~ Mr George Cook for the defendant, who that the cheque was a forgery. Mr Wilson, in opening the -case, said that it was a very peculiar and complicated one. The plaintiffs had given to a Mr Campbell, value for a cheque purporting to be drawn on the Bank of New South Wales, by Peter 'Grant, for Peter Grant and Sons. That cheque on presentation was returned marked "no account." The defendant was written to, and two letters were received from him, stating that not having a Bank of Australasia cheque in the house at-the" time-he had given one to Mr Campbell,upon the Bank of New "South Wales, and instructing the plaintiff to cross out the words, New South Wales, and substitute the name of the ; bank in which his account was kept. This was done, but payment of the cheque had Jeen refused at the Bank of Australasia. It was a case either of perjury or forgery. The following evidence was given:— Wolf Isaacs : I am one of the plaintiffs. On the 6th instant, I received the cheque .for LlO 9s. It is drawn in favour of James Campbell, by Peter Grant, upon the Bank of. New South Wales.' The person who presented it said that he was James Campbell, and it had been given to him by Mr Grant, of Granton. The cheque was presented, and returned, marked no account. We received the letters produced. (The defendant was put in the box, and he admitted having •writtenJthe letters.). -Mr. Isaacs's examination resumed : The cheque was •altered as directed in the letters, and was then dishonoured. On Saturday-I and Mr Brown, a bailiff, went to the defendant's house, and served the summons upon him. He said' it was a mistake, and he would come into town on Monday and settle it.. We showed Mm the cheque. He never said that it was. not signed by inm. His father said that he would not liave had it happen for LSO. ■:,: r-. By Mr Cook : I gave the person who presented the cheque goods t® the amount r«f L4. 9s, and the balance in cash/ He -was detained in town four; days by the police, -pending inquiries! I very often take strange; cheques from strangers. When I and Brown served the summons, only the defendant and his father was present. The defendant said' it would be all right. He did not deny the signature. He did not refer to his chequebook at all.

Charles Brown, Private Bailiff: } I the summons. I showed the defendant the cheque. He said he drew it, and had written the letters. He said "the money-would be paid, that there had been a £ mistake. : His father said Jie would cot have had: it happen sfor LSO, -and would have' paid the money then, but had not got so much in the house.

~■ Mr Coot said that the defence was,: the •cheque was a forgery. In the middle of July last two of the defendant's servants asked their master to pay an account they, owed to one Allen O. Campbell, who had carried on the business of a tailor in the district, but who had some time "before left the district for the Balclutha. Campbell had authorised aMr Robertson to collect his, .debts'. 7 The defendant had not a cheque-book in the house at the time, and he sent to a neighbor for a cheqtie, and obtained one of the Bank of New South Wales. He filled up the cheque,'and hearing that '•Campbell was on a visit to Bobertson, gaveit to one of the men, and sent it to Mm. But Campbell had left, and Bobert■Bon received the cheque, giving. a receipt Jfor it. That cheque,' which was for LlO 15s, had been cashed by Bobertson. The defendant was lying ill at the time -lie gave the cheque, and the amount was riot entered in the cash book. When the plaintiff wrote to him—he believed that the cheque he had given, was the one they referred to—hence his letters to them; and the instructions to change the name of the Bank. The following evidence was given :— ; ■

Peter Melville Grant": I am the defendant, and am one of the firm of P. Grant and Sons, farmers, West Taieri. In July, two persons in pur employ, applied to me _to pay a" debt they owed to A./C. Camp"befi, a tailor who had left 'the district, hut, w:hp w^as .at the time.visiting in the •neighborhood." I was ill at the time;,and I had no .cheque forms in the house. I sent to a neighbor; and r obtained a form of the Bank of New South Wales." The cheque now shown me for; LlO 15s is the one I. gave.-'-'-It ■• is drawn in favor of J. C. Campbell. 1 thought W the time that the initials of Mr Campbell's 'name were J. C. They are A. C. When I received Me first letter from the plaintiffs, I thought the cheque I had given was still floating, and 1 wrote the letters which have been produced. I did It on the spur of the moment. When TVEr Isaacs and Mr Brown came to the "house last Saturday, they served the •summons upon my father. I said that I thought that I should have been served,. as I had given the cheque. They pro-' duced the cheque, and I said, "Thatis not our cheque, I never : signed it." I said, " We never sign Peter Grant for P. ■Grant and Sons." Our signature is P. Grant and Sons. Brown did not pror -duce.. : the cheque until some time after he had given: the summons. "The cheque .now shown me is not in my handwriting. The writing of the endorsement is like the signature. Mr 'Campbell is about 45 years of age, and is lame. I was at Balclutha at the date of that cheque, end for some days afterwards, Mr Campbell was there in the employ of Stuart and Gow, and could not have given the' cheque to the plain-

By Mr Wilson : I was under the impression that it was J. C. Campbell. That was my mistake. Both the cheques were on the Bank of New South Wales forms, and both are altered to Bank of Australasia. I mentioned the amount of LlO 9s in my letters to the plaintiffs, ■because I had asked one of the persons, at whose request I gave the cheque for Llolss, what the amount was, and he had said LlO 9s. My father, myself, and three brothers, constitute the firm of. P. Orant and Sons. My brother David and I transact the. cash business, and we only sign cheques. The cheque for LlO 9s is not in the handwriting of any of my family. . .

Peter Grant, senior, said rtliat his sons Peter and David managed the business, and he never interfered with the banking account. He had never signed a cheque

since he had been in the Colony. He was rather hard of heariag, but he thought he had heard most of the conversation between the plaintiff, Brown, and his son. Hi* son had denied that he had given the cheque. He was in great trouble about it, and thought his son had made a mistake, and feeling annoyed that such a thing had happened in his family, he had said he would rather it had not occurred than LSO. He believed his son had mentioned the word forgery. Joseph Robertson, storekeeper, West Taieri, said he had received the cheque for LlO 153, from one of the defendant's servants. He had presented it at the Bank of Australasia and it had been honored. Francis Hickley said the cheque for LlO 9s had been presented at the Bank of Australasia, and payment refused. The firm of P. Grant and Sons had an account there; but the drawer of the cheque had not. The signature, "Peter | Grant, for P. Grant and Sons," was never used. Mr Isaacs, recalled by. Mr Wilson, said that the defendant never said the cheque was not signed by him. He did say there is : some mistake, referring, as the witness thought, to the name of the Bank. _ * Brown was recalled, and he also denied that the defendant said the cheque was a forgery. There was something said about the cheque not being that of the, firm. -■•■•'• ■ •- ■ - ■■■■■ • ■.- .- . ■ The Magistrate said that he thought Allan C. Campbell should have been produced as a witness. Upon comparing the cheques, he had found that they were not written by one and the saimr person. The whole character of the signatures was different. Moreover, a person so long resident in the district, and one tolerably educated as the defendant was shown to be by his handwriting and his letters, would know how to spell the word Taieri. But in the cheque upon which the action was brought, the %ord was written Tairee, "with an accent over the first e. ' He could come to no other conclusion, than that the cheque was a forgery,) and that it had been-forged by. some one r having a full knowledge of the facts which had been adduced in evidence. It was not the cheque of the defendant, and he could not be made liable upon it. Judgment for the defendant. ; ' Mr Wilson asked that the costs might not be charged upon the plaintiffs, as they had been misled by the defendant's letters. . The Magistrate agreed, and ordered each party to pay their own, costs. The cheque in dispute was impounded, the Magistrate saying it was a ease for further inquiry. „ . ' V. John Toddl (as collector for the West. Taieri Road Board) V George Little.— Claim, Lll 5s for assessment upon land. !Mr Harris appeared for the plaintiff, and the latter . proved, i that he was the legally appointed Collector of the rates, and that the defendant had been assessed for the amount claimed. The defendant put many questions to the witness, some of them referring to the notice of assessment, and others to the amount of the assessment,—The Magistrate said that the defendant apparentlyj would not understand what he had been several times told —that any objection to the amount of the assessment should havebeen raised J>efore; the Commissioners approved of by the General Road Board as to hear such objections; and that the question of amount could not possibly be raised in Court.—William Lamberton, a laboring man, was called to prove that, about the end of January, he served ;a notice on the defendant. The paper was given to him by Mr Todd ; but he (Lamberton) did not read it, and could not now identify the notice he served, or a copy of it.—The defendant was called by Mr Harris ; and he eventually produced a notice" which he admitted he received some . time before February, or during that month; -He urged, however; that the document which he produced did not agree with that which Todd produced as a copy ; the discrepancy being (he said) as to the year.—The Magistrate held that proof of notice before demand had now been given.—The Defendant: I still say, though, .that I am unjustifiably and unequally assessed, for a mill to which there has not been a road, for seven years.—The Magistrate repeated that he had nothing to do with that matter.-^-Judgment for Lll ss, as claimed, and; L5 lls, for ex;penses, including those 'of witnesses.—ln reply to a question whether he would pay the witnesses subpoenaed by himself (their allowances being included in the L5 lls, the defendant saidj " Certainly I will, your, : Honor; and I would willingly pay rates, too, if they would only give me a road."

George Carruthers v. Charles White.— Claim L2 10s, for .firewood supplied. Mrs .Carruthers appeared to support the claim. The defendant wanted to know by what authority he had. been brought before the Coxirt. Mr. Carruthers was, he believed, but of the colonyj certainly he was npt in the Province," [and he (the defendant) wanted the power of attorney authorising any one else to sue tp be produced. He was compelled to take the objection as hehada'contra account. The plaintiff's wife said her,husband, who was in Oamaru, had authorised a collector to get in the moneys due to him. The Magistrate said that in the face of the defendant's objection he could not proceed.

Samuel Bird v. Birmingham. Claim Ll6 17s; the amount of an 10 U, and for rent. The defendant said he could not dispute the lOU, but he wished to ask the plaintiff a few questidns. In answer to him the plaintiff said the lOU was obtained for a grocery account. There might be something in it for grog, as he (the plaintiff) had a bottle license. Upon being pressed, the witness admitted that some of the grog had been supplied in nbbblers, but; added that the defendant had during his absence got supplied by his boy. The Magistrate tried to make terms for the defendant. The latter admitted that he was earning LlO a month, but said he could only pay Ll a month. -■ The plaintiff refused to accept '. The Magistrate was about to fix the monthly amount at L2 10s, but the defendant still said he could nbt ; pay. it. An unconditional judgment was then given.

Charles Hannon.u Robert Wilson, Trustee in the estate of Lee3 and Crowther.—Claim L4, a week's wage . as woolsorter. Mr Harris, for the • defendant; said he was surprised that the plaintiff had brought the action! He was, under the2l7th section of the Bankruptcy Act, entitled to a month's wages, as a pref erent creditor, and had recently been paid for three weeks. It had then been explained to him that the balance would be.paid to him if there were funds to do so. Mr Wilson had' yet two months before the trust was closed, and could not tell what other claims would come in. He therefore could not pay him, in justice to other creditors. The case was adjourned for two months.

In the following cases judgments were given by default for the amounts claimed, with costs :—Whybrow v. Farrel—Claim L2los6d; Ferguson-a. 1 Allen, Ll(>. The case Marshall and Another v. Hardy was dismissed'for non. : appearancei. - ..-r