RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.—(Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq.,R.M.) Alleged Larceny as a Bailee.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1361, 22 March 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, HAMILTON. Yesterday.— (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq.,R.M.) Alleged Larceny as a Bailee.

Samuel Pascoe on bail was charged with the larceny as a bailee of the sum of £8 11s 6d entrusted to him by one Arthur Connelly for the benefit of one Craig. Mr O'Neill appeared for the prosecution, Mr Hay defended, and asked that the case should be withdrawn. The case arose out of one of those mistakes which are common in business. He understood that the other side was willing to withdraw the information. Mr O'Neill had no objection to withdrawing the information. He was of opinion that a prima facie case would be made out, sufficient to send the case before a jury; but whether there was sufficient to get a conviction before a jury he could not say. j His Worship did not think the case could be withdrawn. At the hearing of the case Craig v. Connelly, he had remarked that Pascoe would hear more of it. He did not say, in the absence of the evidence now to be brought forward, that he would be warranted in sending the case before a jury, but it would have to go on. Mr O'Neill having opened the case, called Arthur Connelly, who deposed that he gave the accused a promissory note for £8 12s on the 27th September, due on the 30th October last. He understood that this bill was to be given to some other person until he paid Pascoe. On the 3rd October he paid Pascoe £8 11s 6d. He told Pascoe that he depended on his honor to return the promissory note. Pascoe promised to get the bill from Mr Craig, but failed to do so, and witness did not see it again till he saw it in the Court during the hearing of the case brought against himbyMrCraig. Hehadheardpreviously that the bill had been dishonored. He showed the letter conveying this intelligence to accused, and asked him to get the P.N- back. Pascoo said it would be all right. Afterwards, he got a lawyer's letter, which he also showed to accused, with the i-ame result as on the former occasion, accused promising to get the P.N. tip from Auckland. He was summoned for the amount of the P.N., and judgment was given against him. Cross-examined — I am sure that I received Mr Craigs letter, intimating chat the bill was dishonored before I paid the money. I asked the accused to get the P.N. immediately. Previous to this transaction, the accused owed me some money, but I will not swear that he did not pay me before. I will not swear that I paid the £8 Us Gd all in money, and not partly in articles equivalent. W. Tonks, Accoutant in the Bank of New Zealand Hamilton, deposed that the P.N. was duly sent up to the Bank for payment, and returned marked "no acount. Joseph Craig, an agent residing in Auckland, deposed that he had received the P.N. from the accused in the ordinary course of business, and had not been paid yet. In the course of this, witnesses evidence, it came out that Pascoe had collected money for him on several occasions, and had in fact acted as his agent. The Counaol having addressed the Bench the Magistrate reserved his decision till this morning.