RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2374, 10 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT. Margaret Rumsey v. Eliza Jones was a charge of assault arising out of a neighbor’s quarrel. Complainant’s children and those of defendant appear to have boon quarrelling in the first instance ; the parents interfered, some hard words were exchanged, and the dispute culminated in the defendant threatening to split the other’s skull with an axe. The magistrate considered that it was six of one to balf-a-dozcn of the other, and required both to find a surety of L 5 to keep the peace. ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. Henry Dyer Haddock, solicitor, was charged on the information of Michael Sherlock Gleesnn with havjng on the 17th Oct., he being trustee of a certain trust fund, unlawfully and with intention to defraud appropriated to his own purposes the sum of L 359 9s lid, contrary to the provisions of the Fraudulent Trustees Act, 18(i0. Mr Macasscy appeared for Mr Haddock, who wa# allowed to stand on tho floor of the Court. When the case was called on Mr Glceaon applied for a remand for a couple of days. He stated that he bad only just arrived from Wellington, and had not yet been able to obtain professional assistance. Mr Macasscy opposed the application. He apprehended that the ordinary rule would have to have been followed, that some evidence of the charge should be given sufficient to justify a remand. He was in a position to state that Mr Glceson was in Dunedin for a considerable time before he laid the present information, so that it was no excuse to say that he had recently come from Wellington. He need hardly point out the great inconvenience, if not gross injustice, that would he done to Mr Haddock were the application granted. He was in a position to state that he was arrested at Auc ■ land without the slightest vestige of authority ; no warrant was presented ; he was arrested simply upon the authority of a telegram forwarded to the Commisiouer of Police at Auckland by the Commissioner of Police at Wellington. He must say that he never hoard of such a proceeding, aud ho had no hesitation in declaring it to be a gross outrage upon tho administration of justice. On Mr Haddock’s behalf he objected emphatically to the remand. He would bo able to show most clearly and conclusively, by documentary and other evidence, that tho charge was without a shadow of foundation.

His Worship quite agreed that the arrest was a most extraordinary proceeding, and he did not know how it could have been dono.

The Commissioner of Police observed that the warrant had been returned to him as having been duly executed. His Worship: The warrant appears to have been executed iu due form.

Mr Maoassey could only say Mr Maddock 1 wa« arrested upon a telegram and no other authority. When he demanded the production of the warrant, the detective said he had none, he was acting merely upon instruction* received by telegram. Mr Glceson intimated that he also wished the remand to enable him to get some important documents bearing upon the case from Mr Kenyon’s, which at present Mr Kenyon refused to give up. Mr Maoassey said he was anxious that Mr Gleason should bo placed in the box at the earliest moment, in order that the public might see how utterly ungrounded the charge was. Documents which be held in his hand would show conclusively that there was not the slightest ground for the prosecution. His Worship having ruled that some evidence in support of the information must be given, Michael Sherlock Gleeson, the prosecutor, aed into the box. He said : —I am a eman. About thirteen years ago, I purchased some property in Eichmond, Victoria, for my st child, and about three years ago, as it was not proving remunerative, I authorised Mr Maddock, who was proceeding to Melbourne, to sell it, which ho did through some Melbourne solicitors. The proceeds were to be devoted to the education of the two children I had at the time. Mr Maddock acknowledged tbc reccigt of L 459 9s lid, as the proceeds of that sale. About a year and nine months ago, I wrote to Mr Maddock asking him to send LIOO to Wellington, where my children were being educated. He wrote mo back he bad scut the moucy about a year ago, 1 asked him where the remainder of the money was. Ho said it was in the bank at deposit interest, ho did not say in what bank. I have made inquiries at all the banks in Dunedin, and no money belonging to the trust fund has been lodged in any of them. The reason I have taken these proceedings, is simply that the money for the education of my children is not where it was stated to be ; and is not forthcoming in any way. There are some papers which bear more strongly on the case in' Mr Kenyon’s office, which I cannot get, because Mr Maddock left Otago without giving me notice that he intended to do so. By Mr Macassey: I will swear that Mr Maddock informed me that he had received the sum of L 459, and of that amount only LIOO had been spent. The signature to the letter produced aud the direction at the back [the address of the superioress of St. Mary’s Convent, Wellington], are in witness’s Handwriting. [The document was dated Feb, 15, 1869, and read as follows Mr H. D. Maddock, Dear Sir,—l hereby acknowledge the receipt from you of LI 00, on account of my children at school in Wellington, and I have to request you to forward to the address on the otherside, the sum of LIOO, when received by you from Melbourne. ’] I swear only LIOO on account of the trust fund has been paid. I received a bill for LIOO from Mr Maddock, but that was not on account of the children, neither was it paid in anticipation of the money to come from Melbourne, but on account of money I expected from Home. I wanted LIOO for my own purposes, aud asked Mr Maddock for the money. He offered me his cheque, but I said his bill would do, because I expected to receive some money before it became duo, and take it up before it matur&d. T state distinctly that LIOO had nothing to do with the trust money. X have offered to

pay that LIOO bill, and am ready to pay it now. Neither the bill for LBO nor the L2O cheque produced were received on account of the trust fund ; I swear that distinctly. [Witness was here asked a number of questions relating to business transactions with Messrs Power, Pantlin, and Co. Mr Maddock, it appear*, endorscd*a bill for L 350 given for sheep supplied, which was dishonored, and afterwards paid by Mr Maddock. Witness denied that it was arranged that Mr Maddock was to retain the trust money as security for the payment of that bill. About the time that bill was given, witness asked Mr Maddock to let him have some money out of the trust fund, but he told him he could not do so. ] At this stage of the proceedings Mr Gleeson renewed his application for an adjournment. Mr Macassey intimated that a counter charge was about to be laid against Mr Glecsou. The case was adjourned until Tuesday, the accused being admitted to bail—himself in a surety of L4UO, and two sureties of L2OO each ; Messrs Turton and Colman Burke entering into the necessary bonds. [Left sitting.]