LITIGIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6989, 18 October 1890, Page 4

LITIGIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS.

THE INFOKMATrcWS DISMISSED. The following did not appear in last night's Star :— Stephen Powell, continued: On the Sunday before last I had a work of art sent to me, and called Mr George to see it. After looking at it he eaid " I've got something I want to tell you. It's a dead secret, and about the damage to tny studio. You remember my telling you that I thought that Gerstenkorn was going to turn Queen's evidence. He wants to geti62s out of me, and for me to give him a letter that I will not prosecute him. lam going to see him to-night, and I believe I will pull the whole thing off." Next day I saw George and asked him, "Well, did you pull ie off last night ?" He said "No bub I'm going to." Thomas Edward Taylor, accountant in i Hey wood and Co.'s : Eemembered the civil action Gerstenkorn v. George. Had conversations with Gerstenkoru afterwards. He did not express himself with any other feeling than ninety-nine men out of a hundred would, after being engaged in litigation. | Mr Stringer : It's a rather irritating process, especially when you lose. Witness -. He eaid he would be even with George, if it was twenty years hence. Mr Stringer said he was not able to discover any precedent whatever for thiß form of information, and that the charge would not possibly lie. It was no offence, under the sections of the Act relied on, for a man to destroy his own property in order to accuse others. The sections of the Act Mr Kippenberger relied on referred to the destruction of property in a man's possession, not his own. The case as alleged by the prosecution might be a cause of action for defamation of character, but he Bubmitted that there was no case at all to send elsewhere. If Mr George had himself done the damage, and afterwards had decided to fix the blame on others, that would be no offence, as the intent must exist at the time. Learned counsel canvassed the leading statements for the prosecution, submitting that there was nothing to show that Mr George had done the damage. He did not want them to take Mr George's evidence into consideration, but the case seemed to be a huge cloud of smoke raised up to make the Bench believe that amongst so much smoke there must be some little fire. They must consider the denial on the back of the letter with the admission on its face. Would any man be so foolish to write such an admission if he had done the damage. Mr George had told Messrs Pender, Powell, i and Thompson that he suspected Gerstenkorn was trying to entrap him, and Gerstenkorn's conduct showed that was so, i and no reliance could be placed on his \ evidence. Learned counsel submitted that Mr George's statements were much I more probable than those opposed to them, and concluded an exhaustive review of the whole case by submitting it would be a grave injustice upon Mr George to say that there was a case upon which he should go before a jury on his trial. Such a decision would do away with the value of a preliminary inquiry, which was to settle whether there was any case upon which a man should go to his country. Though his client might have done indiscreet things, there was nothing to incriminate him, and he would ask the Bench to dismiss the information. Mr Kippenberger said that his learned friend's^ contention seemed to be that unless it was possible to bring evidence that Mr George had been seen doing the damage the case should not be sent to a jury, and with a high-handed plausibility he had assumed that all the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution were folly and nonsense. He (Mr Kippenberger) submitted they were not, and that whenever a man had to bolster up his position by false statements and accusations, it was an evidence of guilt on his own part. The notion of trickery and entrapping had seemed to govern Mr Geoige's actions from first to last, and he could not complain if he were entrapped himself. What was his suggestion that a forged letter should be sent to Mr Manning but trickery ? Taking the defendant's own written admission learned counsel submitted there was a case to go for trial, If a man wrote he did so and so, could he excuse himself from the admission by saying he had done it at dictation? Whether for once George told the truth to get another man to tell a lie, or told a lie to get another man to tell the truth it was for the Jury to say. The frequent accusations against Manning, Meers and Gerstenkorn showed clearly his animus against them, and, with his damage of Mr Meers' pictures, was evidence of criminal intention. When George heard it said that he had done the damage himself, he had falsely said that the police knew the three men who did it. In the face of all the facts, were they not justified in inferring that George had done these things with a guilty mind ? Learned counsel submitted that George's evidence was given as off by heart, while Gerstenkorn's had the ring of truth about it, and, upon the whole, there was a case to go for trial. Their Worships retired to consider the matter, and on returning to Court, after an absence of twenty minutes, Mr Jameson said the Bench had had before them a deal of evidence, some of which it had pained them to listen to, and they had come to the conclusion that, before they could send the case for trial, they would require more evidence of the fact that Mr George had committed the act of which he was charged. The evidence was too weak to connect him with the destruction of property, though all through he had been extremely foolish, in fact, worse than foolish, while those with whom he had to do were equally culpable with him. They had Mr Taylor's evidence to prove that Gerstenkorn had said that some day he would have out of George something for the lo3s he had suffered in his action with George. The Bench did not think the evidence sufficiently strong to commit, and the case would be dismissed. Some slight applause followed the judgment. THE COUNTER GHABOK DISMISSED. Carl Gerstenkorn was then charged with etealing a letter, the property of Eden George. Mr Stringer said that if Mr Kippenberger would return the document he would withdraw the case. Mr Kippenberger said their Worships had all the evidence before them, and he would ask them to dismiss the case. Mr Jameson : That is what we will do. The case was dismissed, and the Court rose at 5.30 p.m.

' ■ I St John Ambuiance Association.; — Dr Hacon completed the second and third (medallion) examinations of male and female candidates on Thursday night. Before commencing he stated his opinion that it was not intended by the authorities of the Association that the ambulance examinations should be of a competitive nature, therefore he would pass the candidates or pluck them according to. their merits, but would make no distinction between those' who passed. Thirteen ladies I presented themselves for their final , examination,, all of whom succeeded in passing. Their names are as follows t — I Mesdames A.Appleby, A. Kaye, A. King, M. Lewin, G. H. Merton, G. Eoberts and F; G. Thomas, Misses Brett, I. Cuff, A. Campbell, H. C. Inglis, Pratt and C. Pratt, j Only four men presented themselves, viz., Mr C. H. Mathias (College Rifles), who paased his third and final examination, and is, as well as the ladies already mentioned, entitled to wear the medallion, Messrs C. Clark and J. Kennedy (both of the Christphurch Fire Brigade), and J. E. Touch, who passed their second examination. With regard to the ladies, Dr Hacon reports that he ia especially ploased with their bandaging, in which they had evidently been well trained,' and that he satisfied himself that they were all generally qualified to wear the medallion of the Association. If any of the successful candidates desire to have their medallions in gold or ailver instead of the bronze they should forward at once to tbe Secrei tary the extra coat, viz.. 5s 6d foi silver or I £2 8s for gold.