AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 243, 15 November 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Nov. 12

(Before W. B. ToaswiU, Esq., J.P., and

his Worship the Mayor.) Civil Cases.

Moore v. Keegan.—Claim, £100. Defendant admitted the claim. Judgment for amount claimed with coats. Plaintiff applied for immediate execution, which was granted. Haines v. Cruickshank. —Claim, £5 Bs. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed with costs. In giving judgment, the Bench stated that, had the

claim been disputed, they would have had no option but to disallow such portions of it as were for drinks supplied.

Same v. J. Berland.—Claim, £5 Os 9d. Mr Nal d ci; ap pea red. for the defend ant, who had paid £l Is 9djnto Court, and pleaded the "Tippling* Act-*' against the balance of the .account, which was for drinka supplied. Judgment : for amount paid into uoijrt,with costs.' . MARRIED iWoMEN'S PROPERTY PROTECTION '',/j ;; ■ x ,' \ 7 Margaret '■Nixcn/ applied "«£or an order 'pjotedtipg" her- ■-jjarninga ag&in,st her husband, John Nixon,.on "the gijbund of his dissipating her earnvngs in drink. Protection order granted to apply to applicant's earnings from date. ; The Coui't then adjourned. •" -

Wednesday, Nov. 13. (Before his Worship the Mayor.) DRUNKENNESS. An inebriate was discharged with a caution.

FALSE PRETENCES. A. K. Harlock, on a charge of this nature, was remanded till the next day. ■ The Court then adjourned.

.Thursday, Nov. 14

(Before E. C. Latter and W. B. Tosswill, Esqs., J's.P.)

DRUNKENNESS.

A first offender was fined 5s for this offence.

FORGERY AND UTTERING.

A. K. Harlock, on remand, was charged with forging , an acceptance to a bill of exchange. Mr J. S. Williams appeared for the accused.

Sergeant Batnsay conducted the prosecution.

John Nixon, tailor, deposed that about the beginning of August, accused called upon him and asked if he had any cash friends. Witness replied that he could get supplied. Accused offered to endorse him a bill for £100. Witness said he did not require that amount. Accused then offered to give him one for £40to help him on in business, so that he could buy his goods ready cash. This conversation took place at different periods. Accused said he would, perhaps, require a little of the £40 himself, about £15, as there were times when he was short of cash I agreed to accept the £40, and he asked me into his house. * It was about the 16th August; thought it was on a Friday. Accused laid a bill on the table ready made out, :ind asked me to sign across the face of it. Saw two dates on the bill, 23rd August and 26th November. Did not understand what they meant. The amount of the bill was £40. " Witness signed that bill. At the same time he shoved another bill over, of the same dates and amount, and asked witness to sign that also. Witness signed it, thinking it a duplicate. Accused did not make any remark when asking me to sign it. Asked accused when he thought witness would get the money. Mr Williams objected that all this evidence was immaterial to the charge of

forgery. Sergeant Eamsay stated that he must show fraud as well as forgery.

The Bench would allow the evidence to go on, but would take a note of the objection. Witness went on to state that Harlock did not furnish him with the money, b-it offered to back him to the extent of £80 for goods. Wrote to Dnnedin for £25' worth of goods. Was refused on the ground that Harlock's name was not good enough. Next day went to accused and said : "If you don't give me the money or the bills, I'll explain the matter in the Akaroa Mail, and see Mr Nalder. Accused said he would give back the bills with pleasure. Went with him to his house. Accused closed the door and laid two bills on the table. Taking up one bill he said—"This I put in to get discounted but was refused. You will see Gutberlet's name on the back of it." Witness saw the face of the bill just as he signed it. He held it in his hand and recognized his signature on the face of it. Accused said— " This other bill I did not put in." Saw the face of that too, and recognized his signature also. Accused tore both bills up. He had only signed the two bills for accused. Distinctly swore that the two bills he had signed were torn up in his presence. The bill that was the subject of the information was then placed in witness' hand, and he was asked—" Is that signature in your handwriting ?" Witness —" That's a fixer. The signature is fearfully like. How can it be when I saw the two torn up ? I would be as sure that the signature was mine as I was of the two torn up."

To the Bench—(After inspecting his signature to the information.) " I swear that the signature to the bill is not mine." By Mr Williams—Could not remember whether he or accused posted the letter to the Mosgiel Factory. Eeceived the letter produced about the 16th September. It was after that that witness went to accused and asked for the bills, and that they were destroyed. It was impossible for the accused to have destroyed anything but the two bills.

Cross-examined by Mr Williams—Did not nndertake to get one of these bills discounted, when he signed the two. Nothing was said about accused backing a bill to the Mosgiel Factory. Signed the bill to get the money. Had not received any money. Accused told him goods would do as well. Accepted his offer. Do not know whether accused wrote a letter which witness

signed. Mr Williams—How did the existence of that acceptance come to your knowledge ?

Sergeant Ramsay objected to the question, and the Bench declined to direct the witness to answer it.

Charles Alger, tailor and clothier, residing in Akaroa, deposed that on the 16th October last accused came into his shop and said—"What do you think of that d d fellow Nixon ? He stuck me up in front of Armstrong's, and accused me of discounting his bills in town. I told him that I had not, and if he would come to my house, I would give him the bills or tear them up before his face. What more does the fellow want?" Accused also stated that he had presented Nixon's bills at the Colonial Bank, and they had been refused discount.

By Mr Williams—Was not present when the bills were torn up. F. J. Kobertshaw, telegraphist, deposed to having had a conversation with accused about six weeks ago. Accused stated that Nixon had been saying that he (Harlock) had been trying to swindle him ; that he had two bills for £40 each signed by

Nixon ; that he had torn up the bills in the presence of Nixon himself, and that he would see him— bad word —before he would have anything to do with him. Told him twice the bills were destroyed ; last time on the 21st October.

By Mr Williams— Was not present when :he bills were torn up. \

Edward Withers,-, accountant in the Colonial Bank of New Zealand, Christ - church, gave evidence that the bill;produced had been received into the Colonial Bank by letter fronj accused. It was forwarded fur discount, but; not discounted. It is held, with others, by the bank as security for an- overdraft of £80. The letter enclosing , the bill for discount was produced. It was dated the 24th August.

By Mr Williams—Could not say whether the bank held any other bills.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr Williams asked the Bench if they considered any case had been made out against accused to warrant his commitment? If so, he would ask for an adjournment for half an hour or three-quar-ters to enable him to review the evidence. The Court then adjourned till 2 p.m. On the Court resuming, the Bench asked whether Mr Williams intended to call any p.vidence. Mr Williams stated that he had no such intention. . The Bench stated that in that case they had decided that there was sufficient evidence to commit upon. Mr Williams urged that there was no evidence on which the Bench could commit. The whole balance of evidence was to the effect that the genuine bill was the one sent to the Bank. The Bench did not attach the same weight to prosecutor's hesitation that counsel did. It was direct!}' sworn that the bill before the Court was forged. Under these circumstances the Bench felt that they would not be doing their duty unless they committed the accused for trial.

Accused was then asked the usual question, and committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court.

FALSE PRETENCES,

The same prisoner was then charged with having obtained tha signature of Patrick Keegan to a promissory note by false and fradulent pretensions.

Mr Nalder appeared for the prosecution and Mr J. S Williams for the defence.

Mr Nalder applied to have the information amended, by inserting two promis sory notes, instead of one.

Patrick Keegan, dairy farmer, residing at the Kainga, deposed that he had known accused for sixteen or seventeen years. About two years ago accused applied to him to sign a bill for him. He said he wanted to buy some furniture. Witness did so to oblige him. There was no promise that witness should receive part of the money, nor had he ever received any consideration since. Paid for his children's schooling, partly in produce, and partly in money. Might have signed sis or seven bills. They were all for three months, except the last which was for two months. When fresh bills were brought to him for signature, he was told by accused that the old ones were settled for. had signed two bills at a time. Accused assured me that it was the custom to sign two, and that only one would be used. On the 29th July witness signed two bills, mentioned in a note from accused (note produced). On 10th August, witness signed the last two bills. Accused came to witness on that day about dinner time. Pulling out two bills, he said-r-" Those are settled for, and I want you to sign another one for two months only," That evening I signed two fresh bills. Witness understood all the eld bills were settled for, or he would not have signed them. Did not know the difference between a bill and a promissory note. Ne\er signed one of either before in his life. Accused had told him to tear up letters received from him. Had told accused he never had a shilling in the bank. Had been served with a copy of writ (produced) from the Colonial Bank for a bill due on the 29th July. Never received any money or any other consideration for any of the bills. Would not have signed the last ones if he had not thought the others were settled for. By Mr Williams—Signed these bills to oblige him. Might have owed him a trifle at the time. The most was £4 12s. Had been giving these bills for about two years. Had never been called upon to pay any of these but the last. Had signed the bill produced during the month. (Bill put in to show that it had been paid by accused.) Witness' wife received £2 on one occasion. That was all the money he had ever received from accused. Had not received a cheque for £5 16s, nor a bill for £30.

Alice Keegan, a child of the prosecutor, ten years of age, recollected accused coming to her father's house. Could not say how long ago. She saw accused tear up a paper and throw it on the ground. Her brother Pat put his heel on it.

Sarah Keegan, wife of the prosecutor, deposed that she believed her husband had signed six or seven bills for accused during , two years past. On the 29th July her husband told her that he hf»d signed two bills for him. On August 10th accused came to her house, and said that he had not made use of the last bill he had received from Keegan. He produced one all over ink, and said the cat had spilt the ink bottle over it. Accused asked if her husband would sign two other bills, which he produced. One was for a few pounds more than the other. Witness sent her daughter Alice up into the bush to find the pieces of paper as described in the child's evidence. She brought some of them down. Did not find them all.

By Mr Williams—Had put the pieces together. Saw hei husband's name on them. Believed they were part of a bill signed by her husband. Had had some conversation with accused since he was out on bail. Accused stated that he would pay these bills.

By Mr Nalder—Accused had told witness' husband in her presence that it was the custom in the old country to sign two bills together.

James Daly deposed that he was the holder of a bill, which he produced, drawn on 26th August accepted by Patrick Keegan. One inducement to him to take it was its having Mr Keegan's name on it.

Edward' Withers, accountant of the Colonial Bank, stated that his bank were the owners of a bill for £35 14s accepted by Patrick Keegan. Could not produce the bill, nor allow it to be produced. It would mature the following day.

. Mr Nalder applied for an adjournment to enable him to produce this bill.

Mr Williams objected to the adjournment. His learned friend had not disclosed any case of intention to defraud. He quoted Roscoe on Evidence to support his contention.

The Court adjourned for fifteen minutes,

On resuming, the Bench stated that they had decided that the evidence of Keegan, who stated that he had signed the bills on the 10th August on the assurance that the bills dated 29th July had been settled for, left them no option but to commit prisoner for trial.

Accused was then formally committed for trial, reserving his defence. Bjiil was allowed in the same amounts as before.

The Court then adjourned.