CHRISTCHURCH.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1699, 29 July 1875, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

(Per Press Telegram Agency.) This day, Volunteer Encampment.

At a meeting of the Christchurch Artillery Volunteers, a letter was read from Nelson, asking members of the corps to attend the Volunteer encampment. Twenty Volunteers resolved to do so.

The Alleged Land Transfer Fraud. In the Supreme Court to-day the case against Mainwaring Johnson, land-broker, for having assisted in fraudulently obtaining a title to certain land under the Land Transfer Act, was concluded. After evidence had been taken the Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury, speaking half-an hour. Mr Joynt, counsel for the prisoner, followed, and spoke two hours. Judge Johnstone, in summing up, occupied one hour and a half. The jury retired, and, after an absence of one hour, returned a verdict of guilty. Justic Williams and George Hart (J.P.) were called for the defence, and gave prisoner a good character, saying they had always deemed him thoroughly honest prior to this affair. Judge Johnston then asked Crown Prosecutor what punishment he thought woud meet the ends of justice. The Crown Prosecutor said this was the first case under the Act and an adequate punishment should be imposed. His Honor said "Will not a fine be sufficient punishment." The Crown Prosecutor : .No, your Jdouor, I think this a case in which sentence of imprisonment is necessary. Hia Honor then addressed the prisoner at some length. He quite concurred with the verdict of the jury. The prisoner had previously borne a good character, but the evidence shewed that either he did not deserve that character or had lost it m a moment of moral weakness. There was some boldness and ingenuity in the offence. It was of great importance that the public should be impressed with the necessity of transactions under the Act being conducted in a most straightforo ard manner and that any kind of fraud practised upon the Department created under Transfer Act would be visited with exemplary punishment. Although this was the first offence under the Act, and probably the prisoner's first offence, and yet he (the Judge, was prevented from beiag so lenient as he might be lest dishonestdisposed persons should risk detection of the fraud of which the prisoner had been guilty of. He hoped, however, the Court would not be erring too much on the side of leniency in talcing into consideration the prisoner's previous good/Character, and making the

sentence one which might be considered too light for the offence, but should other persons not take warning by the punishment prisoner would receive it might be necessary on some future occasion to award more severe punishment. Be' thought the least sentence he could award him in this case was twelve months' imprisonment in Lyttelton gaol. The Court was crowded. The case has created great interest in Christchurch, as the prsioner was doing a large business and occupied a prominent position as a land agent.