MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2956, 15 September 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARTT—THIS DAT.

(Before B. G. Stericker, and His Worship the Mayor.)

( LAEpENYAS A BAILEE;., John James was charged with cdnverting to his own . use certain monies, £9, the property of J. J. Daily. Mr Forster appeared forthe prosecutor, and Mr Hamersley for thede* fence.

The following evidence was taken . John Joseph Daily, storekeeper, Stsaid he had agreed to supplyaccused with stores, on: or about 20. The accused had certain work tc do at Pareorq Station. , Ho took the* goods to where accused was working, Mr A. Macpherson was the manager for; the .Company; The goods were; groceries and general stores, and an account was delivered 'for- them; Tt was for £9 7s, delivered to accused by his (accused’s) partner, William Tutt. The Bench said that a copy of the account ought to be forthcoming. An account was here made out and handed to the Court. Examination continued—The acc6unt produced was delivered on August Bth. (The understanding, between accused and witness, had been, that. as witness might probably be giving up business, he would only allow the account to run to about £9. This arrangement was! made about June 20th, and 1 the extended to August Bth. Witness then demanded the payment, through accused partners, agents or servants. • Witness did not know which they were. He could not produce : the' order given by prisoner on the manager, of the Pareora Station. He now recognised, the order (produced) as the one referred to. It was not signed in bis presence. It was brought to witness by an agent or partner, ho did not know, which, of .. accused. It was Ipft at witness’ place to be presented to Mr' McPherson. It was presented to Mr McPherson, who hesitated. Witness asked if he would honor it, and Mr McPherson promised to keep it till the work was over and then pay as much as possible of it. Ob’ August 20 witness sent a full receipt,to accused for the amount. of the order- ' looking upon it as then due by Mr McPherson. This is"the receipt (pro-, ducoilj* • ■ ■

After giving the receipt, witness con’ tinned supplying jrpoda ns before. The supply wns to John Jnines nnd Co, On September il witness mot Mr McPherson at St Andrew* and asked him for a cheque as' h'e had ,noticed the accused and his coadjutors walking ahout as though they hud finished work. He asked accused, in the presence of Mr McPherson, where tho money for the order was, that Mr McPherson find given him. for witness. Accused said he bad spent it. Witness then said if he. did not find tho money quickly he (witness) would see the police about it. Accused said witness could do what ho liked, as he (accused) held a receipt for the money. There was no other receipt, except the one produced. Witness told him that .was a receipt for the order, not for the money. Witness had never yet received the money. To Mr Hamersley—l had, given accused credit before, last year.’He was in the habit of doing contract work at station and other places.! Alexander McPherson, : manager of the Pareora station, said he knew the prosecutor and accused. Mr Daily came to witness with, an order signed by John James; the order produced is similar. Daily asked if it was good ; witness said he could- not tell till the fences were measured. It was between the 10th and 31st August' that the

order was brought. The fences were measured by witness’ instructions about the beginning of September.. On September 8. witness made up the various amounts, accused being present. The amount came to £3ol3slid. A deduction was to be made from this, of, .tho amount of a previous order as . well. He recognised the-' signature of accused- The nett ampunt due accused was £l9 18a lid. Witness gave up to accused, the order, on the understanding that lie would pay Daily. Witness at that time thought accused was ..to he trusted to pay it.\ Witness got a receipt for amount of I the l cheque, £l9 18s lid. The receipt was at the Pareora station. Witness remembered the conversation at St. Andrews, a few days ago. Daily asked accused why he had not paid the amount, whereupon accused said he had; no money to pay it with, or words to that effect. Witness asked accused if be' had not promised him (witness) to pay Daily.' Accused admitted this,- and added, to Daily, that he would pay him in time. .

To Mr Hamersley—l did not accept the order. I gave accused his money, to which he was entitled. He could have sued me for that amount. It beirig accused’s own debt to Daily, I let him settle it. I cannot swear to this signature on the order, as James’, it is shpilar. Austin Kirby, detective, said he knew accused and prosecutor. When arrested accused said he .was not guilty. Subsequently he said ho bad had the money and was sorry he had spent it. This was the case for the prosecution. The Bench dismissed the case, the

evidence being, in’ their opinion, insufficient. Mr Stericker observed that pri- ,■ sonerhad better take care of himself for the future. His Worship the Mayor added that he strongly disapproved of the conduct of. Mr McPherson in retaining the order and paying the money to accused. In his opinion Mr McPherson was morally, if not legally, (responsible‘for the money to Mr Doily. The accused was therefore discharged.