LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1340, 18 January 1912, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

9 MAGISTRATE'S COURT. BUSINESS MAN SENT FOR TRIALWHOSE NOTES OF HAND? BELATED AIiRHST AT KIHIKIIQ. 'At the MiisMrateV Court yesterday, before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., Granville Hunt was charged with forging two pruniissory notes-uiie for .£ll2 Bs. 10d., and the other far Jt\h9 7s. fld.-nt Wellington on July 211. It was alleged that these purported to be signed by W. U. Nash, ami tiuil tliey were tendered to Wright, SUphcn-on and Co. Accused was represented by Mr. T. SV. ilis.op. Thomas Gray, Wellington manager for Wri_nt, Stepnenson ami Co., staved that une of the directors of the firm (Mr. J. A. Johnstone) held power of attorney for William Walker, Ltd,, leatho- nieruiaiits and manufacturing tanners of Whitehaven, Ellwand. Wright, Stephenson and Co. collected money m New /.ealand lor Walker's, and the accused Hunt also had dealings with them. Indent's for leather were sent Home by accused, and these orders were executed by the manufacturers, and the invoices wmt to Hunt, who was responsible for payment. The bills of lulling usually went to Mr. Johnstone. In the course of business these- documents were handed over to Hunt, and he dealt with the leather—that is, he saw that it was delivered to the various buyers to whom he had sold it, and Wright, Stephenson and Co. collated the nionev from Hunt on behalf of Walker's. In July, 1910, Hunt was indebted to Walker's to the extent of something like c£SOO. On or about July 29 witness interviewed Hunt at his residence, Kelburuo Parade, ■ in connection with the debt. As far as witness could now rcincmljcr lie told Hunt that lis wanted something on that day, and Hunt promised to let him have some hills from Mr. Mash, leather merchant, Wellington, as 'part payment of Walker's account. He knew at tho lime that Hunt did considerable business with Mr. Nash, and the hitter's bills had previously been accepted lor a similar purpoM?. in tho course of the interview, Hunt also stated that he would oljfain some bills and post them that evening, „iid he specially asked that the bills should not be discounted—they should be held until they matured. A similar request had heeri'made in previous cases. Next day his received through the post'two bills—one lor ,£ll2 Bs. 10d., and ono for cCIS!) 7s. 9d.—each bearing the signature "W. H. Nash." The envelope continuing the bills had been addressed by limit, and the endorsement was Hunt's; also, in his opinion, the hand-1 writing in the bodies of the bills was Hunt's. Subsequently the firm became aware that there was something wrong with the bills. To Mr. Hislop: The signature "W. H. Nnsh" oil' the bills was very like Mr. Nash's signature. Char'ies Stiart Black, accountant for Wright, Stephenson, and Company, deposed that his firm had pressed Hunt lor payment of the debt of between t £SOO and .£OOO. In July, 1010, an envelope containing the two prjinissory notes produced was received by the firm, and though thero was nothing to show as to who the bills came lvom, the address was in what l.e took to be Hunt's writing. Also, the,writing in the bodies of the promissory notes- was, he considered, Hunt's, and the endorsement "G. Hunt" was taken to bo his also. Subsequently, however, it came to his knowledge that there was something wrong with the bills. William Henry Nash, leather and grindery merchant, of 19 Farish Street and 125. Cuba Street, Wellington,; stated that'liis 'acquaintance with Hunt covered a' period of about six years. He had not given the two promissory notes- produced. He judged the writing on tho bills to 1» Hunt's. Detective Andrews stated that, on .-UigU.s,t,G, 1910, a warrant was l issued.,{pr Hunt's arrest and this was effected at Kihikihi on December 10, 1011, He charged Hunt respecting tho alleged forgeries, but Hunt uindo no reply. Hunt pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.' "TAKEN DOWN." ON HOLIDAY FROM COUNTRY. A charge of the theft of ,£2S.was made against Henry Hay. The money was said to,bo the property of Robert Buchele, a , farm.labourer -from- Hawera. '. Tu tho box Buchele stated that, on December 30, he arrived in Wellington on holiday. On January 1 lis met Hay. They'met again on January 2, and they went to tho Foresters' Arms Hotel, and had some drinks. Witness then had about .£'2B in his possession—five £5 notes, £3 ill, gold, and some .silver. He handed the five «£5 notes to the. barman to keep till licit morning. Hay suggested that he should get the money back, and witness did so. Shortly afterwards Hay and witness went to bed, occupying scparato beds in the ono room. Witness awoke at six o'clock next morning, and found that Hay had gone. Witness's trousers, which were under his pillow when he went to sleep, were then lying on the floor, and-the .£2B was missing. Detective Andrews said that he arrested Hay at Palmerston North on January 5. He told the accused what he wanted him for. Hay replied, "Yes, I took his money, and I will be branded as a thief now. I have been driving about the country shouting drinks for everybody I met. I have spent it all but about ,£3." Hay formally admitted his guilt, and I was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Detective Broberg asked if the money found on Hay could ,bo returned to Buchele at once. His Worship: s"'Oh, yesi Only I did not know that there were such liig fools in the world. He comes down from the country, picks up with someone in the I street, and takes him about shouting for him. The man suggests that he should get his money back. Whv, with anv common sense at all, he should have known the. fellow was thero to do him! And I don't know whether the other fellow is not a bigger fool than'ho ishe gets the .£2B, and goes all round the country, spending it on this, that, and the other."