RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume IV, Issue 94, 2 March 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMARU — Saturday, February 24, 1866. [Before B. "Woollcombe, Esq., R.M., and H. Belfield, Esq., J.P.] Mr. H. J. LeCren was charged by William Butterworth with, obtaining the sum of £129 12s from one William Walden, under false pretences. Mr. DOyly appeared on the part of Mr. Butterworth, and Mr. Cardale for Mr. LeCren. Mr. Doyly said : This was a charge brought by Mr. Butterworth for obtaining money under false pretences. About a year ago Mr. Bntterworth (who was the owner of the Opawa Accommodation House) sold it to Mr. William Walden, the payments for which wera to extend over a period of five years. On one of these instalments becoming due, Mr. LeCren, holding an acceptance of Butterworth's of about the same amount becoming due from Walden, went np to him and said "Here, I hold an acceptance of Butterworth's, and I crane to yon to pay over to me the amount due by you to Butterworth. About six or eight months after the sale of the house to Walden, Butterworth made a settlement of this property on his wife. Mr. Cardale drew lip that settlement, and there was no doubt as to its validity. Mm. Bntterworth therefore is the person interested exclusively to receive the future instalments. Mr. LeCren knew that the sum of £129 12s. would shortly be due to Bntterworth, and therefore went to Walden to anticipate the payment of this amount and presented the acceptance of Butterworth's for just the same amonnt. lam instructed that Walden did pay that money to Mr. LeCren. Walden was aware that Butterworth was agent for his wife. The acceptance had not arrived at maturity ; was not due for a week or more after Mr. LeCren presented it to Walden. Walden understood this acceptance was an authority for him to pay Mr. LeCren.

William Walden, sworn, deposed : lam a publican, and reside at the Opawa River Accommodation House. Have had no conversation with Mr. DOyly m reference to this case. I refused to say anything to him last night. ' He asked roe to walk with him to his office to have a few minutes conversation with him, which I also refused. I told him it was under no disrespect to him, as 1 was not bound to give information unless I thonght proper. I have had the property two years on the Ist February. I purchased it from William Butterwortb, the purchase money for which property was to be paid by instalments. The payments were to be made yearly until 1869, the amount of each yearly payment to be £129 12s. Mr. Henry John LeCren came to me towards the end of January last. He did not ask me to pay an instalment due for the purchase of the property, but produced me a bill of exchange signed by William Butterworth, which I took up and paid the money. I gave Mr. LeCren a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for the amount of the bill, amounting to £129 125., as my payment was to become due on the same date as the acceptance, and that is the reason why I did so. I did not know until Mr. LeCren told me a few months ago that Bntterworth had settled the property on his wife. I received a receipt for the cheqne [Receipt produced, and letter also]. Ido not

t

know the meaning of the expression m the lett'-r '"that should any dispute arise m regard to tlie payment, Mr. LeCren would be answerable." There was nothing said m regard to it. I paid the money to Mr. LeCren m order that he rniuht pay it into the Bank for Butterworth. Mr. LeCren did not place the acceptance before me with Mr. Butterworth'a name attached as an authority for me to pay the amount. Ido not know why he presented it. I had not endorsed my name to it. I paid Mr. LeCreu the £129 125., he having produced that bill to me. 1 understood from the words "on receipt" that Mr. LeCren would pay my expenses m case anything should occur m reference to this payment. Examined by Mr. Cardale : I have not spoken to you m reference to this case. I had a dispute with Mr. LeCreu the last time I was with him m his office. An agreement was made between Butterworth and myself that when I paid the amount for the purchase of the Opawa property he would haud me over the deeds. Butterworth told me a few months ago that he had transferred the property to his wife. This was since the agreement for purchase. I told him I would not pay his wife the instalments, but William Butterworth, he being the man I had to look to for the deeds. I went to LeCren's oflice with Butterworth m reference to my paying Mr. LeCren the sum of £129 J2s., on or about the 14th of February last. 1 wished for a receipt from Butterworth. He replied, "He would hand me over a receipt when he got the. money." He also said "If Mr. LeCren gave him pro furmn a cheque, he would hand the cheque back m half au hour, and would then give a receipt to me."

Re-examined by Mr. DOyly : I do not know the meaning of Bntterworth's expression m regard to a cheque being handed to him and lie would give me a receipt. The angry words spoken at LeCren's had nothing to do with this case. They v.-ere about private affairs. I believe they were made U3e of the same date as I asked for Butterworth's receipt. Butterworth said he would hand over the receipt when I handed over the money to him. By the Court : I thoroughly understand the charge against Mr. LeCren. Mr. LeCren did not say or do anything to induce me to pay him the money. I have thorough confidence m him as my agent, and that was the reason why I gave him the money to pay into the Bank for me. My wife was present part of the time. Mr. LeCren was with me, and also Mr. Teschemaker. I gave Mr. LeCren the cheque m the kitchen. Mr. Teschemaker might have hoard what was said. I never told Butterworth I had been induced to pay this money to LeCren. Butterworth merely said I ought not to have j«d<l it to Mr. LeCren. The Bank receipt was sent to me by post, I do not know who by. I I did not shew Butterworth the Bank receipt. I shewed him the letters produced m Court the same time he said LeCren ought not to have received the money. The Resident Magistrate here stated that m the opinion of the Bench there was not a shadow of a doubt m this case ; he considered it the most disgraceful one ever brought into the Court, lie should dismiss the case. [Before H. Belfield, Esq., .T.l\] William Butterworth was charged with )>crjury m the above case. Mr. Cardalc appeared for the prosecution and Mr. DOyly for the defence. Mr. Cardale stated, that m the course of his experience as a solicitor he had never heard of such a case as the last one brought into a Court. lie had hoped to have seen his learned friend Mr. DOyly throw down his brief and say he had been wrongly instructed. The case brought into Court was for obtaining money under false pretences. The only witness brought forward shewed that he had no communication of any kind with the solicitor, so that the information was laid solely by one man— Butterworth. The solicitor who advised perfectly relied on the word of that man. The information laid by William Butterworth m the former case states that the property belongs to one Emma Butterworth, although Mr. Butterworth was under conditions to sell to Waldeu. Butterworth without any reason assigns this property over to liia wife. Mr. Butterworth and his solicitor must know that a cheque m one man's pocket does not belong to another man until it is paid over to him. The Court has had one witness here who shewed two letters to Butterworth, both of which proved that Mr. LeCren paid 7uoney to Butterworth's account at the Bank. The possession of the husband is also the possession of the wife. He (Mr. Cardale) would not detain the Court except to point out that the Counsel on the opposite side refused to put Butterworth m the witness box, and only brought forward one man, whose evidence utterly disproved the charge. B«lHeld Woollcombe sworn, deposed : I am the Resident Magistrate of Timaru. The information produced is the original one signed and sworn before me by prisoner. William Massey, deposed : The depositions now produced are the original ones taken by the Court m the case of Butterworth v LeCren, for obtaining money under false pretences, and marked B.

William Walden sworn, deposed : lam an accommodation house keeper, living at Opnwa. I informed the prisoner that I paid Mr. LeCren the sum due from me to him. This was by the first mail after I received the hank receipt. I heard some time ago, but cannot say when, that prisoner had transferred this property to his wife Since I received the Bank receipt, I showed the prisoner the letters produced m Court m the former case. I recollect on the 14th February going into Mr. LeCren's store, on which occasion I wished to have prisoner's receipt. I asked for it, but could not get it. 1 recollect prisoner saying he would give me a receipt if Mr.LcCren would pi) forma give him a cheque, which he would hand over afterwards, but Mr. LeCren refused to do so. I never stated to any one that Mr. LeCren represented to me that that bill of exchange was his authority for my paying him this money. Mr. LeCren never said to me " Here T hold Butterworth's acceptance, and I come to you for payment" By Mr. DOyly : After I had been down to LeCren's and demanded a. receipt from him I came back to prisoner's house, and told him J had had a quarrel with LeCren about the affair. I mean it Mas prisoner's receipt. I said that the money was got from me by Mr. LeCren stating and producing a bill of exchange with prisoner's name on it, which I considered an authority for my paying over the money to Mr. LeLren. Mrs. Buttcrworth never told me I had to pay the money to her, bnt prisoner previously told me that he had made the property over to his wife. I said to Mrs. Bntterworth that I bought the property of her husband, and that I should pay him and him ouly. I do not remember her Baying it would do equally as well. By the Court: On or about the Ist February last 1 showed two letters to Bntterworth. The quarrel with Mr. LeCren had nothing to do with the last case. Prisoner did not make any remark when I showed him the letters. He said 1 was perfectly right m the payment, but that I ought not to have paid Mr. LeCren. Henry Cain, sworn, deposed : lam a merchant, residing m Timara. [ remember bein" present on the 14th February last at Mr" LeCren's store, Walden and the prisoner bein-r there also. I went down with them. I know about the dispute m regard to the acceptance. I also recollect Walden saying he had received a Bank receipt, and would like prisoner's receipt as welL The prisoner said if LeCren would give him a cheque to pass through his hands, lie would give a receipt and give the cheque back to Mr. LeCren again. LeCren refused to do it. Some few days previous I wanted prisoner to pay me some rent, and asked him to pay me out of the amount due from Waldeu. He said he could not do that, as he intended the money to meet a bill due to Mr. LeCren on the Ist February. By Mr. DOyly: I asked prisoner if he had

I given Mr. LeCren an order for the money, and j he replied that he had not. I William Mansfield, sworn, deposed : I am i cl;:r!i to Mr. LeCren, and recollect prisoner, i Captain Cain, and Walden being together m the store. "Walden wanted to g"t a receipt from prisoner, who stated he would not do sn unless Mr. LeCren gave him a cheque for the amount. ife would hand it back to Mr. LeCren. Ido not recollect prisoner making any remark about Mr. LeCren going wrongfully for money. 1 did not pay the amount into the Bank. By Mr. D'Oyly. The prisoner decidedly refused to give a receipt, as he did not receive the money. Mr. DOyly said he would make a few remarks. The prisoner's wife was here but would not be allowed to give evidence. Walden had said, " LeCren, when he came to me, shewed me an acceptance with prisoner's name on it, and I considered it an authority for paying him the amount." I would draw the attention of the Court to that fact, when you consider how close this is on the allegation made by prisoner, which was not false to his belief. We find Walden did make use of this expression. Mr. LeCren had no business to shew the acceptance to Walden. This information was not knowingly and willingly sworn to by prisoner. He relied upon what \wis stated to him by Mr. Walden m presence of his (prisoner's) wife. He (Mr. DOyly) did not know Mrs. Butterworth could have given evidence m the last case, or her evidence would have been brought forward. He hoped the Bench would hold the scales equally and see justice done. Walden had stated more than he ought to have done to prisoner, who should not have given credence to him. In the information the words "to the best of his belief" were left out. The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at next sittings of the Supreme Court. Tuesday, February 27, 18(56. [Eefore'F. Jollie, XT. Belfield, and G. W. Hail, Esqs., J.Ps.] McGjll v. Wilson. -Debt, £10. The plaintiff, m this case, sought to recover the sum of £10 alleged to be due on an I O U. Mr. Melton appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Mr. Cardale for defendant. Mr. Wilson stated he had put a set-off m the letter box of the Court, which, however, could not be found. Mr. Melton stated he appeared on behalf of McGill. On 3rd February hist, McGill presented an 1 O U of Wilson's to him, made payable on 10th February last. Mc(iill asked him to advance £5 which he (Melton) did. McGill stayed at his place until after the races, and his account against McGill amounted to over the £5, the balance due on the I 0 U. About the 11th February last presented the 1 O U to Wilson, who objected to pay on the grounds that he would not pay any one but McGill himself. A few days after he took McOill with him to Wilson's and presented the I O U again. Wilson objected to paying the amount as lie had a setoff against McGill. McGill denied the set-off, with the exception of 7s (id, which he (Melton) was prepared to take off the I O IT.l T . Mr. Cardale here stated that the paper produced being a promissory note and not an I O U, and also there not being a set-off m the Court, he could not do any more than advise his client to pay the amount. Judgment for debt and costs. William Ross, of the Ferry Hotel, Waitanci, was charged with not having complied with certain conditions of his License, uuder the Public House Ordinance. The Court, m consideration of the defendant building a new house, gave him until the end of May next for him to fulfil his conditions, and therefore would dismiss the case. Fopex v. Nines?.— Debt, £S 7s. Defendant not appearing, he was adjudged to pay debt and costs.