SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2397, 7 December 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) OBTTAININCi A HORSE UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Win. Roberts was indicted for this offence. Mr Macasscy defended the prisoner. The facts of the case are shortly these : In September hist prisoner purchased a horse for L'Jt from one Hall, a cordial manufacturer, at Nascby. At the time of the purchase he represented that he had money in the Bank of Otago, at Dunedin, sufficient to meet the cheque which lie drew, and on the strength of that representation Hall agreed to the sale. On the cheque being presented at the Bank at Dunedin it was duly dishonored. It appeared that for some months previous the balance to the prisoner’s credit had only been 10s 6d, and that he had been repeatedly informed of the fact by the Bank officials. For the defence the following witnesses were called A. Mee, proprietor of the York Hotel, George street, who spoke to the general character of the prisoner. He said lie had always known him to be strictly honest; and Reid, ledger-keeper at the Bank of Otago, stated that the largest balance to the prisoner’s credit at any time was when he opened his account. JR was L7O. On the 17 th August the balance was LI 10s Gd. He then paid in LG, and afterwards drew a cheque for L 7, leaving a balance of 10s 6d, which balance had remained ever since. Between that time and October some dozen cheques drawn by the prisoner had been dishonored.

His Honor, in summing un, said if the prisoner drew the chetjue under the firm and genuine belief that he had money to meet it at the time he drew it, and in which belief he had been mistaken, it would be sufficient to relieve him from the consequences of his act; for the gist of the offi-nee rested entirely upon his intention at the time. Every person having an aciouut would he liable to overdraw it, and it would he hard indeed if a person who overdrew should be accidentally charged with issuing chequ s with a false pretence. The defence reresolved into this : Some time before the 17th Sept, the prisoner wrote to his friend Holmes, asking him fur an advance of money ; there was no stated amount. It would have been more satisfactory had that appeared in the letter written at the time. The testimouey of Holmes was that it was about L'JO. On the 17th, Holmes wrote to him that he would let him have the money. So far ns that went, probably from tlieir relations with each other, having lived together for some tune, and Holmes having lent him money at various times, as much as L3d on one occasion on the face of it, it was sufficient to justify him in the belief that the mor»y would he paid to his credit. It was no doubt a moral duty upon him to hj ivc ascertained whether he had the money to his credit; but a man was not to be punished for neglect of a moral duty. The jury must still go hack on the question of the prisoner’s intention. There was a circumstance very much against the prisoner, viz , that he drew a number of cheques when he must have known very well the state of his account. His Honor concluded by pointing out that the prisoner had received a good character from Mee.

The jury, after a short retirement, found a verdict of “.Not guilty,” The same prisoner was indicted for obtaining goods from Messrs Maude and Bee by means of a valueless cheque. The circumstances were very similar to those of the previous case. In September he attended an auction sale at Oamaru, by Messrs Maude and Bee, and purchased a quantity of cattle, for which be paid by a cheque on the Bank of Otago < t Dunedin and a promissory note. As in the firmer case the cheque, on Jaeiug presented in town, was returned marked “N.S.F.” The jury returned a verdict of “ Not guilty.” The Crown Prosecutor offered no evidence on the remaining charges, and the prisoner was discharged. Joseph Dods was indicted for obtaining money under false pretences from one llohert Anderson. Mr Turtou defended, The jury returned a verdict of ** Not guilty.” SENTENCES.

,Tunics M‘Donald (42), for uttering, was sentenced to four years’ penal servitude ; Oeu. (T. M'Ewen {25), for horsestealing, two years’ imprisonment ; dames Hutchings(l(3), for bestiality, sk calendar months’ imprison? ment.