RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2378, 15 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. The charge preferred hy Mr M. S. Gleeson against Mr H. D. Maddock was withdrawn. Mr Maeasscy drew attention to a statement in tho Echo, that the defendant was allowed to stand on the floor of the Court, instead of being placed in the prisoner’s dock, as in Creagh’s case. He explained that this was no extraordinary privilege, as the offence with which Mr Maddock was charged was a misdemeanor under the Fraudulent Trustees Act, 18G0, and :.:ot a felony. The defendant was therefore entitled to stand or sit by his counsel, as is usual in such cases. Perjury is also a misdemeanor in law, entitling a defendant to similar advantage. REGINA V. GLEESON. M. S. Gleeson was charged, on the information of H. I). Maddock, with falsely, corruptly, and knowingly accusing him of converting with intent to defraud the sum of L 359 9s lid, the property of the defendant. Mr Macassey, for the prosecutor, said that Mr Maddock felt it clue to his character to clear himself of the charge brought against him of breach of trust. He could not conceive a heavier charge against a solicitor. Tho facts were that on the 29th September, 1868, Mr Maddock, it appeared, had been employed by Mr Gleeson to sell some property of his in Victoria to the amount of L 459 Is lid. The land was sold through a firm in Victoria, and the amount realised was received by Mr Maddock at different times, and placed by freed of trust in his hands for the education of two daughters of Mr Gleeson, who were at school at the Convent of St. MaryV, Wellington. At different times the sum of L3OO was withdrawn by Mr Gleeson himself, and on Mr Maddock becoming security to Power, Pantlin, and Co. for payment of some 700 sheep purchased by Mr Gleeson the remaining amount was held as security for payment of the bills. Those bills were dishonored, and Mr Maddock had to pay a sum largely in excess of the sum received by him. He (Mr Macassey) had no doubt that in a Court of ■ quity the daughters of Mr Gleeson would have bad good cause of action both against Mr Maddock and their father for noncompliance with the trust deed ; but nothing had taken place to justify such proceedings as Mr Gleeson had instituted, which he had no hesitation in saying was a monstrous abuse of the power of laying informations by private persons. The ■whole of the transactions were private, and had no connection with the firm of Kenyon and Maddock, w r ho, independently of them, had a claim against Mr Gleeson, as his professional advisers, for LIG3. Mr H. D. Maddock, in his evidence, confirmed the statements made by M r Macassey ; and went into a detail of the transactions between Mr Gleeson and himself. In reference to the balance retained as security for the payment for the sheep, it was agreed that a bill of sale should be given on them as security ; but it was never executed at the request of Mr Gleeson, who feared his credit micht be affected by it. Hofwiturss) had paid L 175 to Power, Pantlin, and Co.. on account of the sheep. He had also paid L2O 12s to Mr Gleeson to settle a debt due to Mr Isaacs, who was suing him ; and he also gave him LSO to pay wages with. Those advances ho consented to make, on condition that they iyere on account of the trust funds, it having been agreed that the trust deed should be destroyed, and that the balance should be held by him as security for tho payment of Power, Pantlin, and Co.’s bill. Declarations of insolvency were filed by Mr Gleeson in the mouths of August and September following. The trust deed was destroyed after his insolvency. In February last Mr Gleeson applied to him to send the prioress in Wellington LIOO. He replied, pointing out the arrangement come to when the advance of LIOO 12s was made. About a month afterwards Mr Gleeson called, and in consideration of his making that advance Gleeson promised to give a bill of sale over his crops on obtaining a lease from Macgregor, the purchaser of the property. After further consideration, he (Maddock) declined to make tho advance even on those terms. Two or three days prior to leaving Dunedin, on October 3rd, ho met Gleeson and told him intended leaving Dunedin for the Northern Island iu a few days, and the provision h3 had made for his liability to Power,’ Pantlin, and Co. The total of money prid hy him on account of Gleeson, was L 4.-6 2s. He bad never received on account of Mr Gleeson any other sum of money than L 459 9s lid. Those transactions were altogether distinct and apart from the business transactions of Kenyon and Maddock, nor did they appear in their books, except the receipt of the money. The payments had nothing to do with the firm, Mr Howorth, on behalf of Mr Gleeson, asked for a remand.

Mr Macassey did not object, but asked that Mr Gleeson should be subjected to the same conditions as Mr Maddock, and remanded under bail.

Mr Howorth could see no difference between the other cases, and therefore bail ought to be expected. Tho defendant was remanded to Thursday, at II o’clock, bail to be given, himself iu LIOO, and two sureties of LSO each.

PERJURY. The trial of the case against the policeman Hanlon was continued. A number of witnesses were called for the defence. Ihe Magistrate, in giving his decision, said he thought the evidence quite insufficient to form a prirna fgeie case to send before ano her tribunal. In the most material elements, comprising a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury, the evidence had entirely broke down. With regard to Kitchingham, ho had been living in open adultery with a woman, who, to say tho least of it, bore an indifferent if not grossly bad character ; and he himself had been a convicted thief, and was associated with characters as justified Hanlon in using the language attributed to him. Case dismissed.