Police Court.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 6498, 28 April 1888, Page 2

Police Court.

Saturday, April 28th. (Beforo R. Ward, Esq., K.M.) PALSB PBEIENOES.

John McDonald, charged with obtaining money under false pretences, pleaded not guilty.

Sargeant Anderson stated that Mr A. C. Bruce, of Rangitikei, had sent a cheque intended for Mr Hugh McDonald for services of a mare, but this got into the hands of tho accused, who cashed it with Mr C. R. Laird.

Mr A. C, Bruce, having affirmed, said ho lived at Turakina. He had sonfc a cheque payable to John McDonald. With the cheque ho sent a letter referring to a mare he had sent to McDonald's horse. (Accused whon asked for tho letter said ho hnd torn it up, but there was nothing in it.) He did not think anyono could make a mistake on tho receipt of tho letter ns to whether it was intended for him. Tho accused liad done saddlere work for him many years ago at TuraMna.

By the accused— Hnd no recollection of 30s being due to him for saddlery. By the Bench— Had had a conversation with the accused sinco the letter was posted. Accused admitted having recoived the cheque, and baid ho believed it came from a person named Andrew Barr, of Wellington, who owed him 30s.

Charles H. Laird, licensee of the Commercinl Hotel, Wanganui, deposed that accused had produced a cheque of Mr Brucc's for 30s wliieh witness cashed. It was not anything that accused said that induced him to cash the cheque. Ho would havo cashed Mr Brucc's cheque in any case. Constablo Crozior, who had arrested the accused stated that when arrested, accused said he had got tho cheque from Mr Ban- of Wellington.

Sergeant Anderson cited the case of Reginsi v Storey to show that presenting an order for payment of monoy was obtaining money under false pretences. Accused hnd no witnesses to call. His Worship said the case was a peculiar one. It appeared that Mr Bruce had sent a cheque to Mr John McDonald, Okehu, paj able to bearer. It appeared to have been ■wrongly delivered to accused who cashed it but it did not appear thnt payment wn3 induced by representations ot the accused. He did not bolipvo tho statomont of the prisoner that he thought tlio cheque his own As to tho case Reg v Storey, His Worship said thnt in thnt case the order was payable only to Storer, mid tlio judges held it was a false pretence, Storey personating Storer. Another part of the decision went to show that it was by presenting himself at the Post Office as Storer, that tho f also pretence was committed. In this case this had not been done. Tho cheque wns mode payable to John McDonald, or bearer, and was cashed by lum without question. Ho thought in this case the offence was not one within tho meaning of the statute, and accused was therefore discharged. In somo eases tho charge might be considered ono of larcony, but ho did not think that this case could be considered one of larceny. He cited Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, page 486, wliieh showed the difference between goods taken by mistake, nnd goods or property delivered by mistake. In the latter case no subsequent appropriation of tho goods would amount to larceny so long as they nero in lawful possession of the articles. A ease wns cited in which one person procured a letter intended for another, and though he discovered tho mistako and cashed the order, it was held not to bo larceny, and ho (Mr Ward) did not think this case could bo considered larceny. AKDBGED BBBAOIt OF THE LICBKSIfTQ ACT.

M. Folcy, of tho Prince of Wales Hotel, charged with allowing a barmaid to appear in his hotel after 11 pm., pleaded not guilty.— Mr Barnicoat appealed for him.— Sergeant Anderson stated that at 11.50 p.m. on the 21st he saw Miss Siddle, barmaid at the Prince of Wales, in the bar serving liquor«, defendant being present. Had cautioned accused twice before about the same thing.— For the defence Alice Siddle, barmaid at Mr Foley's, stated that on Saturday night she was in the bar when Sergeant Anderson camo in. She left the bar at 11, and after that was in the Bittingroom off tho bar. She asked some friends to have a glass of wine, nnd was in tho bar getting it when Sergeant Anderson camo in. That wns all she did in the bar that ni°ht after 11. °

M. Foley, licensee, stated that on Saturday night Miss Siddlo left the bar at about 1 1, and he went into it himself. It wns not on his oirfers that Miss Siddlo came in at tho time of Sergeant Anderson's visit. Mr Barnicoat cited tho Act to show that permission was necessary on the part of tho licensee.

His Worship did not think there was sufficient evidence, and tho charge was dismissed.