RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2516, 10 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R. M.)

Eegina, on the information of Henry Driver, v. Dick—Mr Macassey, with him Mr Smith, for the prosecution. The charge was the publication of a libellous placrd. The following evidence was taken : Jan.ci Carpbe'l, gener d dealer, residing in Dunedin, formerly of the Crown Ho‘c ! , in Rattray street, examined by Mr Smith, was acquainted with John Treweek, but was not acquainted with his handwriting. He knew Mr Driver. Mr Treweek occasionally stopped at his house when in Dunedin, He did not hold any letters belonging to Mr Treweek, nor any such letters as mentioned in the subpoena. He had a bundle of letters left by Mr Treweek which he brought to show Mr Leary, hut they were t <ken away. It was about eighteen mouths ago, (The rest of the witnesses in this and the following case were ordered to leave the Court) The letters were left in the bar and given to him (witness) by Treweek himself. Mr Trcweek went to his house one night about 8 o’clock. .Several persons were siit’ug in the bar, of whom A. M'Leod was one, and Treweek asked him to read some of the letters which he picked out, giving him a pocketful of litters at the same time. M’Leod read a few of the letters. Treweek left them in the bar that night, and took them away next morning. He asked witness to take care of them, and he gave them kick the following morning. Ho saw some letteis weeks or months after, hut would not swear they were the same. He had not seen the placard produced, nor a copy of it. He had read a copy of it in writing. He could not say whether or not lie had had in his possession a manuscript copy of the letter. He had never seen a manuscript copy of the placard. He could not swear whether or not he had ever received a letter from Trewcek deposited by him as security for money lent to him by witness. He did not toll Oliver Cooper that he had in his possession the original letter appearing on the placard which had been deposited with him by Treweek as security for L 3 odd, and that if he (Oliver Cooper) would call the next day, he would show it him. He told him something like it. On Saturday night, 25;h February, he met Mr Cooper in the Arcade, who walked up the street with him, and he (witness) asked him to go homo with him. While proceeding thither he began talking of Driver andTrewcsk’s case, and expressed the opinion that M‘l eod would he “ in for it in reply to which witness said he did not think so, as the letters would he forthcoming. He turned round and asked if he (witness) had any letters ; and, in a joke, he replied, “Oh, yes; plenty of letters.” Nothing more took place then. On Monday morning Cooper called before breakfast, and showed him a letter, telling him it was one of Mr Driver’s. He could not swear that he told Mr Cooper at that interview he had given the letter published to M'Leod. He would not swear he did not; but the whole thing was a joke. He was fooling Cooper, He had not the original of the letter in his possession within the last month ; nor any other letters purporting to be written by Mr Driver to Mr Treweek. He read none of the letters left with him by Treweek. He was told by M'Leod that he would telegraph tq Mr How orth for the letters. He was never fined for representing himself as a detective officer. He could not swear he did not represent that a young man with him at Saddle Hill was

one. He did not know whether he had been brought up in that Cburt under the Vagrant Act. M ‘Leod showed him a copy of the placard or a letter he had himself written. M ‘Leod asked him if he knew I iriver’s signature, and he said, “No; he could not recollect.”

Alexander M‘Leod called. He complained that, as he was defendant in the next case, he might not be called on this. His Worship ruled that the two cases had no connection.

Examined by Mr Mucassey : He was a commission agent. He had not in obedience with the terms of the subpoena produced letters purporting to be written by Mr Driver to Mr Treweek in 1867 or ISOS. He hud no such do uinents in his possession. He had a letter in his hand and read it, purp rtiug to be from Mr Driver to Mr Trewoek. lie referred to a letter, of which the placard was a copy. It was about eighteen months ago at the Crown Hotel, in the possession of John Treweek. He had not seen it since, nor did he make a copy of it at the time. He had a copy of that letter a long time after that —not six m mths ago. It mi"ht be about a month ago. It was . cut to him b t Mrs Croker fr.un the bands of Mr Low, manager for Mr Mercer, grocer. It was in consequence of application made by him to Mrs Croker herself. He knew Mr Driver’s handwriting. Ho did not think he ever received a letter from him. The letter from MrsCroker was in Mr Barton’s hands. Ir was a copy of a copy of Mrs Croker’s letter he showe I to Campbell, when lie asked him if he recollected hearing that letter read. He said he recollected a letter being read, and remembered many of the statements. Ho did not speak very positively. He never told Mr Booth, Mr Dick’s agent, that he had the original letter in his possession. He was told, and he’ieved it was in the possession of Mr Henry Howorth. He might have told Mr Oliver Cooper he knew where the original letter was, but had not seen it during eighteen months. The case was adjourned to Monday at three o’clock. Reid v. Craig —L7- 10s sd, for balance of account for rent and expenses of preparing lease. Judgment by default for the plaintiff, L7I 19s 3d, less Ll9 19s agreed to be allowed, L 52 Os 3d. JUDGMENT. His Worship delivered judgment in Campbell v. Turnbull and another, as follows :—“ln this ciso the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendents as trustees in the estate of John Griffon, the sum of L 54 18s Sd, being the net proceds of sale of 50 eases of kerosene, sold by plantdf to Griffon, and an acceptance taken in payment, hut in consequence of the insolvency of Mr Griffon during the currency of that acceptance, the plaintiff claims a right as vendor to stop in traimta the oil in qu -stion, which hud been stored in the k rescue bond. The circumst nces of tbi-: case seem to be very similar to that of Lorimer v. Cleve, cited by Mr Mac.vssey, but with this important difference, that whereas in that case the brandy appears never to have been transferred into Maurice’s name in the bonded storekeeper's book; the kerosene in the present case seems to have been trans f- red into the name of Griffon in the books of the kerosene bond, although there appears by the evidence of Mr Douglas to have been some irregu'arity in doing so There seems, however, to be no doubt from Iris s atement that he hold the oil for Griffon, and for him only.” [At this point of the judgm.nt Mr Macassey elected to take a nonsuit.]