RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3617, 25 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, September 25. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., 8.M.)

Drru^kenness.— Michael Sullivan and Vlary Anne Sullivan, his wife, charged with this offence, were let off with a caution. F uaud. Charles Brodie Cooper was c larged on remand with having, on August 2i), obtained from Samuel Jacobs the sum nf L 3 by means of false pretences, with intent to defraud him of vhe same. The following evidence was given George Hindle, glass and chinaware dealer, residing m Princes street, said that accused paid him by means of the cheque produced for some goods on -ugust 15. it was-, drawn by Charle? B. Cooper, for the sum of L 5, on the Bank of New’>pijitli Walts. It was returned marked ‘‘ N.S F-” Jnofc sufficient funds). Witness afterwards sued Copper for the money, and obtained judgment Johu Horsey, lelger-keeper at tho Bank of New South Wales, and that accused had had an account in their bank, that that he still had one. He remembered the cheque produc d being presented for payment, on the 17 th Aiquust, by last witness. Witness re urned it marked ■■ N. S. F.” At that time accused bad fis 9d to his credit j aud nothing had been paid in since then. The same balance (6s 9d), had remained fortwelve months. The cheque produced for the sum of L 3, signed by Chas. tJrodie Cooper, made payable to self, and endorsed by Mr Jacobs, was presented for payment on August 29, and returned “ N. S. F. Samuel Jacobs, fancy goods dealer, carrying on business in Princess street, Dunedin, said that accused c died at his shop on the night of August 29th last, and asked witness if he would cash a cheque for himself for L 3 He did so. The one produced is the same. After witness had cashed the cheque, abcused remarked th|t he bad received money from home by the mail 3, day or two previously de was induced to cish : the cheque fropu knowing accused as having been barman kt the Shamrock Hotel, and believing that the cheque would bo honored. Witness first gave the cheque to the collector for the Waterworks Company, who returned it to him. He then presented it to the bank, and it alsa returned it to him.—Detective Shury arrested accused on the evening of Monday last. He found him concealed in the roof of his house.—Mr Turtoa submitted that the accused must be discharged. The false’ pre,£enpe§ must ha proved by either words or act. As to the act, there was no false representation either as to character or business, A ccused seemed to have gone ipto the plage of business of Mr Jacobs, aud, on tho strength of his having been a barman at the shamrock Hotel, presented the cheque and got itc ashed. s to tbe false representations being by words, there was not a single bit of evidence bifJre the Court, lb appears that Cooper went to Jacobs, presented the cheque and asked him to cash it, and that Jacobs gave him tho money. The only representation made was alter the cheque (yas cashed, and that could not in any way affect the matter. Hindle and Horsey ha t simply been called to prove that accused knew that he had not sufficient money ip the bank at the time to meet tho cheque. Ho again submitted that accused must be discharged.—His Worship said that the case involved, to a certain extent, a new point. It was settled law that if any person intended to defraud another, and gave a cheque to a banker with -Whom ho no account, then he committed a crime, 'ijsat is a raise pretence within the statute. But the - question here was—lf a man who had a credit "*of k f'.w chiihhgs in a bank, and passed a cheque for a certain amount ‘with the knowledge chat it would upt be honored, was that also a false pretence ? In the cas.c of a man issuing a cheque on a banker with whom he kept no account, it was pot necessary to prove that verbal repre-eatatipp.3 were made to constitute tho crime; it was sufficient if he gaye a false cheque and obtrined money with intent to defraud. Then came the question, could he stretch the law as to say that, if a mau gave a cheque with a certain knowledge that it would be dishonored, and by so doing got L 3 belonging to another mao, could he say that

was fraud? If that was not obtaining money by false pretences, he could not say what it was It was proved that accused knew a week previously that a cheque of hi- had hem refused ; a d he seemed to have “ traded” en the 6s 9d wl ich he had in the bank. When am ui gave a cheque well knowing that when it was presented it would not be, honored, he (his Worship) thought it fraud within the Act As it was the first time a case of its kind had come up, he woult like to look up the case quoted aud see if there had

been any representations made, and if representation was necessary to form an element in the fraud. Accused had given the cheque to Mr Jacobs, and he cashed it at once.—Sub-Inspector Mallard said that a case occurred here some ten years ago— Regina v. Woolf—in which the facts were precisely similar. The case was heard before Judge i iehmond, and aocus d was sentenced to twelve mouths’ imprisonment. —His Worship said it was also right to mention that this was the first case brought under the new ' ct. Before last session of Parii men* cases of fraud could only be brought before the Supreme Court j now such power was given to Justices as to try cases summarily when the amount was under 1.5. The case would be adjourned cid Tuesday next, and accused admitted to bail on his own recognisance in the sum of Lso— himse f; no other sureties ? - His Worship : Oh, no; I am not afraid of his running away. CIVIL CASES. Long v. Wright —Cla'm L 36 for board and lodging and washing done —Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, Mr Johnston for defendant. The parties were shipmates from London, and defendant, on landing in 1871, went to live with plaintiff. He had afterward hj written to plaintiff saying he Would pay her aa much as he could weekly, and expressed a hope to be one day able to pay her handsomely for the many kindnesses he had received. He had, however, not fulfilled the promise, and the amount sued for was due. Plaiuuiff sued as a widow, and it appeared that her husband, when she left the Home country, promised to follow her out in tUe next boat. She had not since heard from him, but had received a letter from his sister saying she had heard he was dead.—Mr Johnston submitted that the plaintiff mast be nonsuited. She had not proved that she was a widow ; simple hearsay evidence not being sufficient.—His Worship deferred judgment on the point raised. P. M. Grant v. John M’Keay, carrier.— rlaim L 43 6s lid, for goods sold, 'ihere was a f-ontra-account, bringing the balance ’0 127 7s sd. Mr stout appeared for plaintiff for whom judgment was given, with coats. Pearson v. Alexander Muir.- Claim L 6 10s. for wages due. Judgment for plaint.ff, with costs. Briscoe and Co, v. Campbell aud M’Ketizie. —Claim L.41 llh, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment was given, by default, for plaintiff. G. Bell v. W. 0. Ball. as manager of the Shag Valley Quartz Mining Company.—The amount did not transpire in this case, and Mr Bathgate, who appeared for plaintiff, asked to be allowed to amend the plaint by striking out Mr Ball’s name. Mr Ball, it appeared, objected to being connected with the claim ; although, in a case of a similar kind, he allowed judgment to be given as against him.—Mr E. Cook, who appeared f>r Mr Ball, submitted that plaintiff must either be nonsuited, or, in the event of an amendment being allowed, Mr Ball must be recouped the cost of the day’s proceedings. —Plaintiff was nonsuited, but without costs, His Worship recommending the plaintiff to proceed against the Company immediately.