LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1917, 27 November 1913, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

« <-<—- LOWER COURT. OPENING OF FRIEND'S LETTER, WOMAN CHARGED. THE CASE TO GO BEFORE JURY. Elsie Reynolds reappeared .for the resumption of tho hearing of tho chargo against her of having opened a packet ponied at Sydney, and addressed to Miss 1,. Galloway, G.1'.0., Wellington. Ohief-Dctectivo Broberg prosecuted, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath defended. Louie Galloway, quite a young girl, who, prior to her coming to New Zealand, lived at i'addingtosi, Sydney, stated that sho arrived in Wellington on September 19 by the Willochra. For n, time sho and her sister had stayed in tho same houso as Mrs. Reynolds. On October '22 witness was expecting a lotter from ono Sidney Puffitt, of Sydnoy. When witness went homo from work at a city laundry, Mrs. Roy. nolds said that there were no letters for her. Witness said, "That is very funny. I was expecting one from Sydney. 1 will go down to tho G.P.O. after tea, and see for myself." On her return from the Post Office, Mrs. Reynolds told her that there was a letter, and tho following wards passed between them:

Miss Galloway: Why didn't you giro it to mo this afternoon? Mrs. Reynolds: I liad a reason. Miss Galloway: What is your reason ? ' Mrs. Reynolds: That is my business. Miss Galloway: That letter was ad-., dressed to me, not to you. I shall not open it, but shall take it as it is to tho Post Office at 9 in the morning. Witness added that sho had not authorised ahyono to call for her mail, and that a written order produced was in Mrs. Reynolds's handwriting. Mr. M'Grath: Aro you single? Witness: Yes. Is the man you received this letter from married?—" Yes." Is he a rclativo of yours ? —"No; just a friend." Does your married sister know that ho is carrying on a correspondence with, you?—" Yes." Didn't sho object?—"No, not to me." Did sho make an objection to anyone else.?—"l cannot say." Docs Mrs. Puffitt knew that ho ia writing to youf—"l don't know." Did you inform her? —"No." Did anyono else?—" Not that I know of." Don't yon know that Mr. Reynolds wrote and informed her?—" No." Mrs. Reynolds used to get letters for your sistor?—"Yes." What is in that particular letter?— "I know only what my sister told mo, that thoro was £4 18s.'or £4 Bs. in it." Chief-Detective Broberg: If accused gavo an order for letters on October 8, it was not your written authority ? Witness: No. ; Mrs. Frances Rutherford, with whom her sistor (Miss Galloway) lives, said that she, too, arrived in New Zealand by the Willochra on September 10.After' her evidence in chief sho was cross-examined by Mr, M'Grath.

Mr. M'Grath: You and your sistor aro engaged at the laundry all day and cannot get away to get your letters? Witness: That is so. And has it not been tho custom for Mrs. ■ Roynolds to get tho letters for all of you when she goes.to get her own Sydney mail?—"No; only for mc". , Did you know that your votmijer sister was carrying on a correspondence with Mr. Puflittf— "Yes." Y r ou didn't approve, did you?—" Well, it was nothing to do with me." Just .answer my question. Did you approve?—" No." Did you complain of it? —"No, not to nly sistor." Did- you complain to anyone else?— "No; it was nothing; to do with mo what my sistor did." If I bring three witnesses to swear that you complained' to them will you still deny that you made complaint about your, sister writing to a married man?—"Y'cs."

Tho witness said that on tho evening of October 8 Mrs. Reynolds told her that she had a letter to Louie from "Sid," and that ft contained £4 l&s. or £4 Bs. Mrs. Reynolds wanted witness to read the. letter. Witness re* plied, "I don't want to read it. You navo got yourself into a nice fix now." Detective Andrews stated that when he arrested Mrs. Reynolds on November 14, she' said: "I did open it. I had a reason. I did not think/it was so serious. Thoy had been friends of mine for about three years."' Accused pleaded not guilty, and was committed to tho Supreme Court for trial.

MURDER CHARCE. THE' CASE AT EASTBOURNE. Margaret Ellen Seymour, the young woman who is charged with having in tho month of October, 1013, murdered tho infant Thelma May Davis, appeared on romand in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Chief-Detective Broberg asked for a week's remand, and Mr. T. M. Wdlford, counsel for the accused, consented. Chief-Detective Broberg: I may then ask for a further remand. Mr. Wilford: In the ease of a further remand being asked for I shall ask the polico to give some justification for their action in making tho arrest. It is the most serious charge in the criminal code, and some justification should bo offered. The Magistrate: That can bo gone into next Wednesday. '

OTHER CHARGES. THEFT OE THREE OVERCOATS. Thomas Lynch appeared for sentence on three charges of tho theft of over•coats. The three couta belonged respectively to Messrs H. r\ Wood, R. C. Calmer, and J. R. Hughes, and they wero stolen from tho Town Hall on a recent night while an orchestral concert was in progress. Tho polico stated that Lynch, who was a ship's fireman, arrived in New Zealand threo weeks ago. Nothing was known against him previously. On tile first chargo the accused wis fined £2, in default seven days' imprisonment. On tho other two charges lie was ordered to appear for sentence when callod on. SERIOUS CHARGE. Sidney Hall, a young man, appeared on two charges of indecent assault. Mr. T. M. Wilford defended Hall, who pleaded not guilty and was committed to tho Supreme Court for trial. ONE OP THE HOMELESS. Thomas Arthur was deemed uy_ the jiolice to he a rogue and a vagabond because he was found at 10.2') o'clock on Tuesday night in Hannah's Buildings, Lamblon Quay. The accused, who appears to lie very "young, elected to !>» tried by a jury, and he was remanded till December 3.

THE CIVIL SIDE. SUIT TO JtECOVEI! CHATTELS. Before Jlr. J. S. Evans, S.M., ,tho .civil action. .Wood v. Lewis was mention-

01! it! order that the evidence of a wltlii'ss from tho renistry might lie taken. The rase was one in which the recovery of chattels, etc., or damages, was sought, Mr. P. H. Putnam appearing Fur Wood, ami Mr. J. F. W. Dickson for Lewis. After Uio evidence of tho one witness had been heard, the liearius was adjourned until to-dav,

STORY OF A STRANGE DEAL, TONY * RECEIPTS. Tho case- in which Charles James Poppleton sued John Poppleton for tho return of a pony stallion, or for £50,_ was concluded yestcrdnv. Mr. Evans, S.M., was on the. Bench." Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Fitsgibbon for the defendant. 0, ,1. Poppleton's claim was to the effect that on June 5, 19.12, he bought the pony from John Poppleton for £8, and thnt on October 28 of this year, defendant entered tho stable and took tho pony ajvay. Defendant had refused to* return tho pony, and henoo the claim.

Plaintiff stated in evidence that he actually gavo £8 for tho 'horse, but defomlant had signed a. statement that ho had received £22. .This, ho said, was done at the smugest'lon of the defendant who intimated that if over plaintiff wanted to sell tho pony he would get juoro for it in consequence of the receipt. When called on Tuesday defendant eworo than he had signed a wrong receipt, and had since been informed that he hod done a dangerous thing. Ho declared that plaintiff had asked llim for tho receipt for the purpose of getting money from Mr. Nidd. of ths To Aro Hotel. Ho also stated that since he- was :i boy lie.had known plaintiff by several names. When tho case was resumed yesterday Detective Abbott deposed that lie know tho plaintiff as a man who did no work. Fred. Crossloy, veterinary surgeon, in practice in Wellington, valued the pony concerned in the case as from £o to. £11. If it was sold, by auction, ho doubted if it would fetch £6. There was no ( demand lor pony stallions. If it were'a gelding it might possibly bo worth £15. . The defendant, in evidence, said, that ho was 33 years of age. When he was sixteen ho went through a' "form of marriage" with plaintiff's mother with whom he lived in Duircdin for some years. Mr. M'Grath: Did you receive £8 from plaintiff for this pony? Defendant: No. Did you admit to mo a week ago that you did?—" No." Didn't you say so in the presence of Constable M'Kclvey ?—"No." Are yon married now?—" Yes.' 5 Your namo is Poppleton?—"Yes." _ And you wont through a form of marriage with plaintiff's mother?—" Yes. I was sixteen years of age then. I am not his father. " This boy's mother thought you wcro her husband?-—"I don't know." How long did you live with her?— "li'iyo or six years." Didn't ho look upon you as his father?—"No; ho lived with his grandmother." His grandmother's name is Banks?— i "Yes." . And you knew that yesterday when you said that lie had passed under tho name, of Banks?—" Yes," Mr. M'Grath also extracted an admission that Lo Mossery was a family name, and Baker the name of an undo with whom plaintiff had lived. Mr. M'Grath: His mother had you arrested in Auckland on a charge of bigamy?

Defendant: Yes, but it never wont noyond tho Lower Court; it was a farce, Mrs. Poppleton, wife of the defendant;, swore that the pony was hers. Tho Magistrate, in summing up, remarked that there was not any conspicitous honesty in tho story of either party. Ho could not accept as a defence tho statement that there was a deliberate attempt to defraud a third party. It was.difficult to say who to believe. He would not order the return of tlie pony. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £8, the amount he said ho paid for tho horse, and costs.