MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1440, 24 December 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—FRIDAY. (Before Major Steward, J.P., and Mr H. Friedlander, J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. John Connolly was charged with having been drunk while in charge of a horse and cart, Fined 20a and costs, with the alternative of three days’ imprisonment A first offender, for having been drunk in Moore street, was fined 10s and costs, with the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment. ALLEGED L.4BCBNT. Will Hall Zonch was charged upon information with the larceny of promissory notes for £SO and £42, the property of E. Rippengaie. Mr Caygill appeared for the prosecution, the prisoner was undefended. The following evidence was taken Edward Rippengaie, a farmer, residing at Ashburton Forks, said that about the 21at of December be wanted to raise a loan of about £BO. Went to the defendant because witness understood that he was agent for Mr Perceval, of Christchurch. Ultimately it was arranged that accused should raise witness a loan, witness to eive two bills, one for £SO and one for £42 to cover all expenses The accused said he was going to Christchurch on the following day, when he would get the bills discounted. Witness, who could not write, signed the bills by making his mark in presence of a witness, and they were retained by the accused. Witness got a receipt (produced) The receipt was road over to witness, but he did not remember the word “ October” appearing therein in connection with the data on which the proceeds of the bill were to bo paid to witness or his order, being mentioned. Witness gave the receipt to Messrs Matson, Cox, and Co. Witness got a cheque from ;K accused as well as the receipt this being a security to witness Witness had never received a penny of the proceeds of the bills On September 25 wit ness discovered that the accused bad not paid on witness’s account to Messrs Matson, Oox, and Co , as had been arranged, the sum of £SO. Subsequently went with Mr Curtis to the office of the accused. Witnes asked him what he had done with the bills, and he replied that they were lying at Christchurch, to be discounted, or words to that effect. Mr Curtis asked the accused when he could hand over the bills The accused said that he would do so t>n the following Monday. Witness gave Mr Curtis an order authorising him to get the bills. Accused gave Mr Curtis an undertaking to deliver up the bills on the date agreed upon. Witness believed the document produced was the one given. Witness’s order to Mr Curtis was o i the back of that document. Witness came down to Ashburton about a week subsequent to the date on which the foregoing arrangement was made, hut he iid not get the bills, nor had he ever got them, though he had tried many tiroes to do so About three weeks ago witneia got a letter from the Bank of New Zealand, Ashburton, informing him that his two bills for £SO and £42 were lying at the bank, and that they would be handed over to him on payment of £47. This was the first intimation witness got as ti the whereabouts of the bills. Witness had never rocelvedlany part of the £BO ff>m Zouch, and he had had to raise the money elsewhere. The bills given by wi-uess to accused were n->t given for any other purpose than to raise » loan for wtness. The acc ;- ■ed was not authorised to use them in any other way—By the accmea : Wit o ss was toll by accused h'mself tha r he was agent for Perceval Witness first saw accused some time In August but he could not fix tho date. The bills were given on September 21. The accuse, promised to pay to Matson, Oox and Co on witness’s account £SO, on the day but one after the bills were given. Witness had give a bill to Matson, Cox and Co which had matured prior to September 21 and bad been dishonored. It was not October II when Matson, Cox and Go’s bill became due. Witness did not present the cheque given hlmby Zouch at the Bank for payment, but be gave it to Matson, Oox and 00. The witness was crossexamined by the accused at considerable length with regard to points which had come out in the evidence with a view to establishing that the witness had overstated the security he could give when negotiating for the loan.—Henry Stephenson recognised the two bills produced, They bore witness's signature as attesting Bippengale’s mark. The bills were signed in accused’s office. —Alfred Curtis said that in September and October last he was in the employ of Matson Oox and 00. Remembered about the end of October waiting upon Zouch, in company with Rippengaie in order to try to recover possession of two bills which had b en given to accused by Rippengaie Wit ness on Rippengale’s behalf demanded the bills. Zouch said the bills were In Ofariatcharch and be thought he could get them back within two or three days. The accused gave him an undertaking to that effect. On (the following Monday, the date specified in the document, witness went fnr the bills but they were not returned, nor had they ever been handed to witness, nor had ho received the proceeds.—George Heese, accountant for M- Bowker, of Chrlatoh roh, said that on the 23rd of September the accused camo to B inker's (ffice to arrange a loan Ultimately a loan was arranged upon two promissory notes. Those produced ippengale’s bills) wi re the notes in question. The sum ■ f £44 was advanced to accused on the security of the bills - By the accused : Witness was not in the room In which the arrangement was come to between Bowker and the accused but he knew the sum of £44 was advanced because be saw the cheque ; that was all witness knew personally shoot the transaction. Ths cheque produced was tbe one ostensibly paid to Zouch.—By the accused through the Bench : Witness did not of hie own personal knowledge know what to<>k place between accused and Bowker. David Thomas said he was manager for Merars Ma son, Oox and Co. in September last, Rippengaie was indebted to the firm for about £SO at that time. An arran ement was made between Rippengaie and accused whereby the indebtedness was to be cleared off. Wit ness knew of tho arrangement, having been told by the accused and by Rippengale. When accused told him he said the money would be* paid on tbe following day, but it did not come nor had it ever been paid to the firm by accused. The accused had never offered witness on behalf of Rippengaie a sum less than £SO to clear the liability off. Witness bad seen the cheque for £BO. which was signed by Zouch. It was in Bippengale’a possession bat witness had had nothing to do with it. —By the accused; Rippengale’s bill which was to have been taken up by Zouch was for £56 3s 7d, and was duo on October 12.—Robert Mclntyre gave evidence to the effect that he had never received the sum of £3O, or any money whatever, from Zouch on account of Rippengaie.—By the accused : Witness had received a verbal guarantee from the accused about a month ago that the accused would pay witness £3O Blppengala was present at the time The guarantee was a promise to pay in two or three days—B. McOwen, manager of tbe Bank of New Zealand, Identified accused’s endowment on back of bll s and hla signature to the cheque produced. The date of the cheque was October 13 and there was not funds enough to the credit of accused to meet the cheque (for £80) at that date, nor had there been «1099* Witness identified a letter

sent by him to Bippengale— By accused ; he ch qaefor £BO had beoa tor payment, but not for Rome time after it was drawn It was presented by CsygiH sine* Monday last This w-a tho case for the prosecution*— Tho Bench after a brief retirement, decided that the case was one which should go to a jury, and the accused was committed (or trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court to bo held at Christchurch, Tho Court thee rose.