SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1520, 17 June 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

TIMiRU—TUESDAY, JUNE 16. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] CRIMINAL BIITING. The half-yearly session of the Supreme Court at Timaru commenced on Tuesday last. In his charge His Honor congratulated the jury on the lightness of the calendar, only three cates beiDg set down for hearing. The Grand Jury returned True Bills in the cases of William James Creightou Imrie, forgery and uttering; P. Mosney, larceny as a bailee. In the charge against Riddle, for maliciously wounding a coW| No Bill was found. FOKGERY. William James Creighton Imrie was charged that he did on the 220 d May, at Timaru, feloniously, with iutent to defraud, forge, offer, utter, and dispose of a certain order for the payment of £6 5s he then well knowing the tame to be forged. Prisoner, who was undefended,Jpleaded Not Guilty. The following jury was empanelled:— Mr J. C. Knight (foreman), and Messrs W. Rutherford, J. Christmas, J. Hill,J. Hilton, J. Austin, M. Stack, D. Fyfe, R. Baxter, D. Shepherd, M. Mcßae, and W. Halstead.

John O'tfourke : I am a draper's assistant in the employ of Davies and Murphy, Timaru. On the 22»d May, prisoner came into Ihe shop and bought a muffler, a white shirt, and two collars. The goods came to 10s, and he tendered a cheque for £6 ss, drawn by u R. Hedger " in favor of "H. Avery." He Baid, in reply to my question, " I have always found these cheques all right." I asked prisoner to endorse it, aid he did ho, signing " H. Avery." I gave him £5 15s in change. The cheque was not paid. I went to the police station on the 26th May, and saw a muffler there, and afterwards want to Taylor's boarding house and in bedroom there found a white shirt and collars. They were similar to what I ■old to prisoner, and had the firm's private marks on them.

To prisoner : I remember you being brought into the shop by Detective Kirby on the 26th. The defective asked me if I knew you, and 1 snid 1 couldn't remember. Ido not remember Baying " This is not the naaD." I heard one Potter say "You're the man." There are miny shirts and collars marked similar to the ones I sold you. I could not have sold you similar goods a fortnight before the 22nd. It is only because the shirts aod collars were foudd in your possession that I think you are the man I sold them to. J. L. Potter: I was in the service of Davies and Murphy on the 22nd May. I saw prisoner in the shop about 8 o'clock on that day. First witness served him with certain articles. I have not the slightest doubt about prisoner's identity ; I am sure he is the man who purchased the articles. I had seen him about the town many times previously with his wife, walking hand in hand through the streets; not arm in arm. He thus specially attracted my notice. To prisoner: I saw you come into tho shop oa the 26fch M»y. In reply to Kirby I said «' It'* all right." I did not say " I would not be sure if he is the man." I did not take much notice of the man who came into the shop on the 22nd, I thought he had on a black hard hat and black coat.

D. Davies, of the firm of Davies and Murphy, deposed to taking the signature on the cheque for that of Mr Hedges, and to its being valueless. Sarah McOlatchie : I am a daughter of J. McOlatchie, hair-dresser, Timaru. My father's shop is near Davies and Murphy's. On the 22nd May prisoner came in bet ween 7 and Bp.m. I did'not then know him. In reply to a question I told him my father was busy. He then went out and walked to and fro in front of the shop. He came in again and asked for a ponn ad ink to sign a paper. I gave him blotting paper, pen and ink. He then wrote something on pink-striped paper a blank cheque. He blotted it twice on the paper, and I kept this paper. Witness continued : I put the paper away in my father's desk, and when I saw about the case in the papers I showed the paper to my father and he gave it up to the police. I have no doubt about the prisoner being the man who cam? into our shop.

[Tb« blotting paper was produced, and the marks oa it compared with the cheque.] E, A. Pigeon, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, and Detective Kirby wert also called for the prosecution. For the defence prisoner re-called Sarah McClatchie, who deposed that ho was dressed in dark clothes when he went into her father's shop, and Mary Ellen Taylor, a boarding-house keeper. She said she had been in the habit of going into prisoner's bedroom, and saw one shirt there, but could not say anything as to others. She saw his wife washing shirts and collars, but would not know them agaio. She thought he had a dark suit on the Saturday before the Queen's Birthday.

Prisoner, addressing; the jury, spoke of the weakness of the evidence given by O'Rourke, as to his identity ; said he had bought the collars produced from Davies and Murphy on the Bth, and tha white shirt on the Ist May, and the muffler at a draper's shop opposite the Ship Hotel, on the 22nd May. On the evening of the 22nd May he bought two sticks of tobacco at McClatchie'a shop, but averred that he had not writton out a cheque there, nor had he presented the cheque produced to Datiea and Murphy. Hit Honor having summed up, the jury retired and returned with a verdict of guilty. In reply to His Honor lospactor Broliam said, in Napier, on the 23rd June prisoner was sentenced to three months tor false pretencJfl, and on the 9th June, 1884, he got two years for forgery at the some place. His Honor sentenced the prisoner, to three years' penal servitude. LARCENY AS A BAIIRB. Patrick Mooney was charged with the larceny of a receipt, envelope, and a letter, the property of Thomas Neil. Mr Wilding appeared to prosecute, and Mr White, of Messrs White and Co., for the prisoner. The following jury was empanelled : Messrs George Finlay, P. O'Brien, 0. O'Connor, G. Newey, H. F. Hirts, J. W. Velvin, J. McKenzie, M. Loney, D. Anderson, W. H. Foden, J. Connell, and R. Tliyne. Mr W. H. Foden was chosen foreman.

From the evidence it appeared tout both prosecutor au.i prisoner are farmers at the Hook, and the prisoner obtained ut the Waimate Post Office a letter (containing a receipt) addressed to the proseoutor which he failed to deliver. There was a dispute between the parties as to nwney matters, and an arbitration was held, when the prisoner produced the receipt, alleging (according to the evidence of the prosecutor and Mr Hamersley) that he had paid the money for the prosecutor. The prosecutor deposed that he sent the cheque himself, and produced the block of the cheque sent in proof. The jury found a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. CITIL SITTING. Timabu -Wednesday, June 16. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] Toner v. Herring—Claim £2OO for malicious prosecution and £3OO for libel. Mr Wilding, with him Mr Rhodes, for the plaintiff, and Mr George Harper for the defendant. # , The following jury were sworn in : Messrs J C Knight, J W Velvin, A W Surridge and J Bennett. Mr Knight was chosen foreman. The evidence for the plaintiff in this case went to show that some months ago the plaintiff, a farmer, wanted some rickers for the pnrpose of thatching, and was recommenced by a neighbor to procure them from a pieoe of bush in the Alford Forest belonging to a man named Pye, who has left the district. He took this advice sod cut the rickers, and had put them on his dray when an employee of the Alford Forest Company came along and said he (Toner) had cut them on the company'* land. This Toner denied, but said that if he had done so, he believed Mr Herring (the Man»ger of the company) would not say anything, and took the rickers away home. The employee informed Herring, who went to the police, and Toner was shortly after arrested, by Constable Burke, He was brought up at Ashburtoa aud fined 40s and costs. After the plaintiff had been convicted the present action was started, and the bush was surveyed, whan it was found that the rickers were cut on land that.really did not belong to the Company, but to Tye, whose, trustee said he would have allowed Toner to cut the rickers, as the land was of little ralue —not worth fencing. The evidence for the defence was lengthy, and it was sought to prove that the timber was cut on the Company's land, and that the libel was justified. Counssl addressed the jury at length, and His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and after half an hoar returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £l5O damages. His Honor allowed costs on the lower scale.

The case occupied the Court till 7.30 p.m. The sitting will be resumed this morning.