SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3489, 11 June 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TIMARU-YESTERDAY,

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) FALSE PRETENCES. E. H. C. Plowden was charged with obtaining money and goods to the value of £4 on the 24th and 25th March from R. Glass, of Geraldine, by falsely representing that ho was in receipt of an income from Home, and that he was expecting a letter with money from Mr Joynt, of Christchurch. Mr White appeared to prosecute, and Mr Wm. Tosswill for prisoner, who pleaded “ Not guilty." The following jury was chosen:— D. N. In wood, T. Mercer. J. Watts, F. Hooper, H. Squire, W. P. Binskin, A. J. Thomson, D. Oharteris, A. Bennett, W. Sweet, J. Goodall, W. S. Padget Mr Goodall was chosen Foreman.

After hearing tho evidence of Messrs Glass, prosecutor, and T. J. Joynt, and counsel’s address, the jury found tho prisoner guilty. His Honor sentenced him to three mouths imprisonment with hard labor. At the close of the proceedings, the prisoner Littleoott, convicted in the morning of forgery and uttering, and in whose case sentence had been deferred pending the arrival of his father, wag sentenced to 18 months’ hard labor, his father not having arrived as expected to give evidence in his favour. THIS DAY, embezzlement. David Taylor was charged with the embezzlement of the sum of 7s fid, the property of his employers, Messrs Siegert and Fauvel, on November 29, 1883. Prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty.’’ Mr White appeared to prosecute, and Mr Hamersley for the defence. The following jury was empanelled : —MessrsT. Kelly, J. Scanned, J. Watte, J. King, F. Hooper, T. Williams, W. S. Padget, G. Phillips, T. Mercer, E. Mitcbell, 0. Kelly, and Henry Squire. Mr T. Williams was chosen Foreman. For the prosecution, the following evidence was heard:— Julius Siegert, of the firm of Siegert and Fauvel, general storekeepers at Temuka, said there were two depart* ments in the store, grocery and drapery, divided by a wall and archway. Accused was a drapery assistant at the beginning of August 1883, at a salary of £2l7s fid per week. His duties were to sell and receive money for the payment of sales, to be handed over to the bookeeper. Accused was authorised to give credit to people ho knew. On Oct. 19, witness told him that as business was slack, he would have to reduce his wages from £2 17s fid to £2 10s. Witness remembered seeing a customer named Mrs Fenton on November 9 in the grocery store. She made a purchase to the amount of £2, and then went into the drapery store. About 10 or 12 minutes afterwards she came back into the grocery store to make another purchase, and asked that her grocery and drapery parcels should be sent up to her house. In the meantime, seeing Taylor did not bring any money into the grocery store, witness went to the drapery store, and found Taylor had gone to dinner, having locked the door. In the book witness found the last entry to be three yards of dress stuff with no name. When Taylor returned witness asked if Mrs Fenton bad been in the store. Prisoner replied “ Oh, no.” Witness said she must have been in the store because she took a drapery parcel into the grocery store. Prisoner replied “ Yes, I forgot all about that, she bought three yards of dress stuff,” showing the book to witness. Prisoner then added that Mrs Fenton had also taken some goods on approval which he had neglected to enter. Witness afterwards saw Mrs Fenton, and also Mr Uprichard. Prisoner subsequently told witness that Mrs Fenton had paid him 4s fid in all, but witness, having learned from Mrs Fenton that she had paid 7s fid, requested prisoner to accompany him to see Mrs Fenton, when he confessed that be bad taken 5s to lend to a friend. Witness discredited the story and said so, as prisoner could not give the name of his friend. Witness then told prisoner be felt sure he must have taken £IOO or £l2O during the time of his being in tho employ of the firm. Prisoner asked to be allowed to retain his situation on condition of his making restitution but witness at once refused the request. On examining the books witness and his partner found alterations in prisoner’s hand-writing. To Mr Hamersley—Prisoner was in Mr Mondelson’s employ for nine years. I have quarrelled sometimes with him. Tho entries were not in the book at 4.3 G o’clock of that day. At this time we owed prisoner a good deal for wages and he had applied for payment thereof. He would not accept the reduced wages and summoned the firm. As soon as we received the summons we brought this charge. He had sometimes spoken of starting an opposition business. T. Fauvel, (partner in the firm of Siegert and Fauvel), gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness. In cross-examination, it was elicited that one of the partners informed prisoner that unless he paid £SO, they would prosecute. He did not pay the £SO and the firm did not prosecute till after the summons had been served on them. Harriet Fenton, the customer referred to by the first witness deposed to being in the store on the date specified, and purchasing drapery from prisoner amounting in value to Bs. She paid prisoner 7s fid, that being all the silver she had at the time.

To Mr Hamersley—lt was about noon when I visited the shop. There were other customers present at the time.

E. Whitehead, clerk and cashier, to the prosecutors, identified the cash book produced, and the entries of money received from prisoner on November 29. No one sum of 7s 6d had been received from prisoner during the day, but sums amounting in the aggregate to more, were received.

To Mr Hamersley—l know thistrans. action occurred on November 29. W. E. Upricbard, commission agent, said prisoner on November 29 informed him that he had left Siegert and Fauvel’s employ on account of some dispute concerning goods bought by Mrs Fenton, and asked him to say that he (witness) had received a loan of 5s from him. Witness refused to make any such statement.

To Mr Hamersley—l was in Yelvin’s employ some years ago. I was not discharged therefrom. I left of my own accord. I was never discharged from any situation in the colony. lam quite sure of it. I saw no entry in Siegert and Fanvel’e book made on November 30 “ Mrs Fenton, 55.” This was the case f r iho prosecution. For the defence, Mr Hamersley addressed the jury.

His Honor summed up and reviewed the evidence, after which the jury retired to consider their verdict.

[Dp to the time of our going to press (5 o’clock) the jury hud not agreed.] CIVIL CASE. The civil case Emerson v. Stevens was adjourned by the Court till ten o’clock to-morrow morning. The following jurors were sworn in : Messrs J. Ord, J, Lewis, W. McKibbon and I). J. Inwood—the remaining jurors being discharged.