ACCIDENTS, OFFENCES, ETC.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2367, 9 June 1892, Page 4

ACCIDENTS, OFFENCES, ETC.

Joseph Greenfield, an Oamaru publican, has been committed for trial at the sittings of the Supreme Court at Timarn for alleged rape on a girl 15 years of age. An Invercargill baker named Andrew Anderson was fined £lO for working a horse while suffering from shoulder and girth sores. The case was a very bad one. At ( Auckland on Tuesday a jockey named Dawson was jumping the racehorse Fishmonger over a hurdle, when he was thrown. The horse’s foot struck his head, and he was sent to the hospital with concussion of the brain.

While the Governor’s procession was passing through Manners Street, Wellington, on Tuesday afthenoon, a lad named W. Barnes, aged about 11 years, was run over by a tram wheel, which almost amputated one of the little fellow’s legs at the thigh. The lad was quickly taken to the hospital, but died about 5 o’clock. In the conspiracy cases at Wellington on Tuesday Mr Skerritt said that it would be shown that the defendant Whyte was the purchaser of what was familiarly known as scrip of two kinds, viz ; that •issued under the New Zealand State Forest Reserves Act of 1871, and its amendments, and that under the Naval and Military Settlers Act, of 1888. It was to Whyte’s interest to dispose of this scrip to the best advantage. Had he disposed of it to outside persons there would be nothing against it, but there were disadvantages against such a course. He proposed to adduce evidence showing that Whyte had made an arrangement with Baggot, the nature of which would be a matter of inference, but it would be proved that what was generally done was this : Whyte deposited from time to time with the Bank of New Zealand at Wellington, large quantities of scrip, with instructions to the bank to hand it over from time to time to Baggot in exchange for cash for its full value, less a small deduction which it would be shown was ju one instance at lea«t received by Baggot as commission. What Baggot did was this: When he had moneys paid to him in respect of the purchase of Crown lauds, and which ought to have gone into the Government account, and whoa Whyte had scrip lying at the bank, Baggot transfered the money he had received on behalf of the Crown and substituted in lieu thereof Wbyte's scrip. The inference was that these two persons had agreed to do exactly what ho described. As against the defendant Baggott he proposed to show that in four instances the money receiv-jd by him for Crown hinds was by arrangement with Whyte transferred to his (Whyte’s) private account, and scrip was substituted. The evidence against defendant Whyte was equally strong, as it would bo shown that there had been a systematic transfer of Government moneys to bis account. He had sold scrip at its full value to Baggot, and the latter had in one instance received a commission, Mr Skerritt proceeded to give instances of; alleged fraud, and said that in one instance £G(SI, which had been paid by Baggott into Whyte’s account, had been anticipated by Whyte in the purchase of a bank draft for a similar amount. These facts he proposed to rely upon for a prlma facie case against the defendants.