MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 407, 16 January 1909, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. (Before Messrs. J. M; Richaidson and P. R. Russell, J.lVs.). CHARGE OF .FORGERY. • E. J. SEARL COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. : 'Edward John Searl appeared in answer to a charge that on or about September 15, 1908, at' Wellington- lie did forge the name of: ,\V. T. Gilbert to "a .certain document, to ,wit, j, a cheque-for i £7, on the Bank of Australasia, Napier, with, intent that tho same_ should; be, .acted upon as genuine. ; Chief : Detective ■; M'Grath conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Dunn appeared, for the.defence./, John Holman Kingdon, settler, residing at .Lower Hutt, deposed that he was the owner of somo house property in Willis Street, and •knew the ■aceused-.Searl,- whose wife, Lily 'Searl, was .. a" tenant ,of his;. Accused some- ' times paid;; the. rent of the property. In September .'last .Mrs:- Searl 'was behind with the. rent, and witness asked accused for it. Accused gave a ; little; now , and then, and £ut>witnes6'*off," but'.at length gave him the chbque (produced), dated September 15,1908, in favour-of E. Pointon and L. Searl, or order drawn on- the - Bank of Australasia, Napier,'for £7," and signed by W. T. Gilbert. The cheque was given by accused on or about; September.-IS.. Searl said it had to be en"dorsed'_ by ; tw'o, his wife being, one, and witness' left ,'tho cheque with him to get "his wife's', endorsement. .■ Next day the cheque was, returned endorsed by Mrs. Searl: On making inquiries, witness, found no Mr. Pomton.; -who-'would ..endorse the cheque. Witness communicated with a person of the' name of Pointon. . Witness had received a cheque for £37 for the rent. Witness did not know who WAT. Gilbert was. When witness'could not get the cheque endorsed he did not tender it at the_ bank, as it would be useless. When he received tho cheque be believed it to bo a, genuine' one, and gave'. accused credit for it.

• /.To Mr, Dunn: Witness did notgive a,,receipt.'."He' did'not start .the proceedings. The cheque was-handed over to the detectives by witness's lawyer some months ago, and witness could not say why proceedings had been delayed. , Mr. Toogood did not act for/witness. His , solicitor was Mr. Stafford, jun'. The'cheque waß not endorsed by Mrs..iSeafr.'.wliqn -witness first received it. Witness, never intimated to Searl that thecheque was not.:gonuine, or applied to Searl or Mrs. Searl to meet it. Dp to October 1", when Searl gave,up possession of the Willis Street property, witness could have .communicated with' him, • but he expected to get nothing out of it., ,He had given up all hope of getting anything. • 1 :'.:Mr. .';DunnThen ,you were not deceived by'tho cheque? ' • ". . ./■'Witness/ continuing, said that before the police had the cheque he knew that Gilbert i had no account in the Napier bank. As far ; as he : was concerned, he did not think that he told Searl there .was anything wrong with the cheque. .. Re-examined by Chief Detective M'Grath: He ; accepted the cheque as genuine, < and after' inquiry i made up his mind he would r get ;nothing for it. He was. deceived in; so far as he accepted the cheque as genuine.; Wm. Taylor Gilbert, employed on a station m.'thej.Gisborne.districtj; stated that he was a;'.b^other-ih-lawlof. the accused, and [the only .brother-in-law'of 'the same name accused had. Witness had an "account in the Bank of New South Wales,- Gisborne, but had heveri had one at the Bank of Australasia, Napier,' and had never drawn a cheque' on that bank. Tho cheque (produced) was not •signed- by ..witness, - and . he had never.authorised' anyone s.to/sikn a cheque on '.the .'Bank .'of "Australasia, ''Napier, witness had been in the Gisborne district for three years, andi'had'not been in Wellington during that time/ He last saw accused about four years ago, and had had no communication withhim since then. ; Witness knew no other < To Mr,. Dunn: Witness had had ! transactionswith 'Searl, and- had given/ him cheques on various occasions previously, and would probably have given": him the money if hehaa ask&tfor.it; "Witness was working about, eighteen .rnilfes out of Gisborne, 1 ana had his letters r<haddressed from Napier.' He had had' accounts in the Bank of New South ■ Wales,'Napier;.'National^Bank .of/ New. Zealand, Napier, and the Bank of New Zealand, Dannovirke. v -;.;The,signature;on the cheque. 1 produced'. resembled signature. .• Winston ' Barron,' 'accountant in tho Bank of Australasia,; Napier; stated .that there was no account in the bank in the name of W. T. Gilbert, and there liad not been one. in September! ilast., > P,;The.' cheque produced, if presented at.witness's bank would not be even if it had the endorsement of Mr. E. Pointon as. well .as L.. . Searl. It would still be a- valueless cheque: . , Angus Turner, hairdresser,'. Willis Street," knew the accused,'. who called at witness's shop on day between September 15 and September 21,; and;, asked witness if he could oblige .him with a/blank cheque. Witness gave, accused the cheque form, which was the-same as .-the cheque; produced, the num.' the block iof witness's'cheque booli. " . Constable? Jones, of Akaroa, stated that Re arrested acciised on the. present charge on January 7.'; After the arrest witness. cautionedaccused, who then said: "The cheque referred'to was given ; to me by my brother-in-law,W.-T.'-Gilbert'a few: day a before! handed it to Mr. Kirigdon. He was keeping an hotel at Makotuliu, but 1 do not know where he is now." On arrival at the polioe station later accused said:"This charge brought against'me, is-nothing but-a spite ■by some oftho''police,-and is & pay mo out i : for;prDsecuting^onei;VCbnstable. ffiivelock for i perjury." ■ - To .Mr. Dunn: Accused had £14 odd on lum.when.'arrested. >. V;' ■■■

This concluded the case* for the prosecu•tionr '■<■ Mr. Dunn said tho charge was one capable of a, very simple answer, but. a material wit-ness-for. the defence ;was not present, and accused? would; therefore,' reserve his. defence and bring.it out before a jury in the Supreme Court. ,/.... pleaded not guilty, and was committed; to-the Supreme Court for trial. 'Bail thesuitfcof £100 and tw6 r ßureeach'." One bondsman offered to deposit £100, and this was. accepted in lieu of the fixed bail.

A FEMALE WANDERER,

. Three charges as follow were preferred against' a young woman named Lizzie Griggs: (1) habitual drunkenness, (2) being an. idle, and disorderly person within the meaning of the Police Offences Act, 1908, in that-she'has insufficient lawful means of support; and (3) wilfully damaging a window valued at 205., the property of Charles Cunningham. Accused pleaded not guilty to tho second., charge. ' •' Evidence. was given' by Sergeant Stewart that ho had 'seen accused wandering about the city at all hours of the night; "She is the worst woman of her class in this town," concluded the sergeant, she 'does,' perhaps, a couple of days' work per month. Constables Hodgson and M'Kelvie also gave evidence as to accused's wandering habits and avoidance of work.

■ Station-Sergeant Darby informed the Bench that accused had 85 previous convictions against her name. She wont into Mr. Cunningham's for a meal, but her presence [was'-not .desired, and she was ordered out, but refused to go. When she was put out sho deliberately broke the window. . A sentence.of three months' r imprisonment was entered on each of the first two charges, and a sentence of seven days' imprisonment was imposed on tho third charge, tho sentences to be.,concurrent.^.

OTHER CASES,

An old man named Frank John Lawler pleaded guilty , to a charge of stealing six pairs of stockings valued at 95., the pro'perty of Martha: David. '/ . ' ■ ; Darby'' informed the flench that accused went into Mrs. David's shop in Tory Street, and, finding no one in the shop, went behind the counter and took the parcel of stockings. Sentence of one month's imprisonment was imposed. ■" One first offender for. insobriety who failed to apnoar was convicted and fined 10s., in default 24 hours' imprisonment,

BY-LAW CASES,

Guisteno do Stafano, who failed to ■ apf e! 7i-\ n i.r lm ? °l lar 20 of furious driving, in Biddiford Street, was fined 10s. and costs i ii i , I. 06 , was ■ S'ven; by Constable Taylor that defendant drove down .the street at a gallop, and would ,not pull up when called on to do so. ' . .■.- ■ . A fine of ss. and costs 7s. were imposed on Wm. Hedges for riding a bicycle in lliddirord Street without a light:

HORSES,

SERIOUS NUISANCE IN THE SUBURBS. James J. Mooro did not appear in answer to a charge of . allowing seven horses to be ri on Queen's Drive. Oty Inspector Doyle stated that a- great deal or-annoyance and damage was being caused in the outlying districts by wandorinS k°rses, e ' c -j and; notwithstanding the ,f act that fines totalling £113 were imposed ?-ii • )reac hes last year, the offences stiu l continued. The council-received complaints from ratepayers alleging neglect on the part of the council's officers, and, further, damage, was done to the'. gardens, footpaths, and streets. He would nave to ask for a substantial penalty in future cases such penalties as .would stop the breaches. A conviction and fine of £3 and costs 7s. were entered. , Charles Nelson was - fined ss. .and costs 7s. for allowing a horse to wander on the Queen's Drive.