CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4100, 18 April 1876, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tdbbdit, Aran-18. Before H. S. Fish, and B. Paterson, Esqs., J.P.’s)

Chaege or Babbit St haling —Charles Coleman was charged on remand with stealing two rabbits.— Inspector Mallard said he had no further evidence. The police bad been unable to find the owner of the rabbits. —Prisoner said a young man asked him to sell what was in the bag—not telling him what the hag contained.—Mr Fish : Then what induced yon to go into Harper’s shop P Prisoner: I guessed the bag contained rabbits.—Mr Fish toid there was a difference of opinion between himself and his colleague. He was clearly of opinion that the offence was proved ; while Mr Paterson was of a different opinion, and under the circumstances, he saw no other course hut to discharge the prisoner.—lnspector Mallard stated that prisoner was the greatest liar he had ever come into contact with. (Before V. Pyke, Esq., and B. Patterson, Esq., J.P.’s.) Dbunkbnsess.— William Mnllen was fined ss, in default 24 hoars’ imprisonment. Diboedkelt Comduct.— John Wilson and Charles Ellis for riotous behaviour on the Anderson's Buy Boad were each mulcted In the sum of 10a, in default 3 days' imprisonment. The Leith street Assault Case.— John Thomas, described as a laborer, was charged by John Barnes, Inspector of Corporation Works, with assaulting and wounding him on -»pril 8, Mr Barton defended. —Prosecutor stated that he was still unfit to give evidence. He was exceedingly weak.—Mr Barton took objection to accused being called a laborer. He had Seen known for years as a respectable contractor, &c. Conduct of that kind looked like a desire to make the Bench regard accused in the light of a common drunkard.—Mr Pyke thought Mr Barton would give the Bench credit for better aeuse.-Mr Barton contended that the police had no more business to call Thomas a laborer, than Mr Barnes, a hodman —The Bench said it was simply a matter of dignity. Whether the accused was a common laborer or a millionaire he would receive like justice. A remand would be granted.—Mr Barton objected. He was quite prepared to go on with the case.—The Bench could not go on with the case while informant was not in a fit state to give evidence. A remand till one o’clock wonld be allowed, and informant would in the meantime get a medical certificate.—Mr Bartoh objected to an arrangement being come to for an adjournment before the case came before the Court.—Mr Pyke took exception to counsel's remarks. He would not allow Mr Barton to cast such aspersions on the Bench The case was adjourned till one o’clock.—Mr Ba» ton remarked that the way the business in the Court was conducted was very extraordinary.—Ultimately, tho case was adjourned till Friday next. Moule’s Cask. —Arthur Bobert Moule, described in the information a as gentleman, was charged on remand with “aiding, abetting, and assisting” Edward Kellett, confectioner's assistant, in committing a forgery. Mr Barton defended, and that the witnesses should be ordered out of Court.— Detective Henderson deposed that he apprehended the prisoner on warrant on the 11th Inst., on tho present charge. His told him the contents of the warrant, brought him to the Police Station, aud there searched him. Witness found upon him three deeds of conveyance. (Mr Barton took exception to the papers being called deeds before they were put in.) The three documents produced were the same he obtained. Upon the marked one purporting to be a memorial of registration of certain lands in the Colony of Victoria conveyed from Catharine Kellett to Messrs W. B. Windson, O. W. Taylor, aud A. E. Moule ho noticed. a signature purporting to be that of Edward Kellett. When apprehended, prisoner stated that the documents were of no benefit to him; he was simply taking them to Melbourne to oblige Mrs Kellett.—By Mr Barton: Witness saw prisoner at the Police Station Some time before he was apprehended. He was not aware what he was there for. Prisoner afterwards came up to bim and said, “ I see you are watshing me. I will not go awny." Ho then walked with witness till arrested. William D.. Stewart,barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, deposed that he recognised the documents pro-

duced. The document marked B purported to be a conveyance from one Edward Eellett, of Dunedin, whose occupation ia not stated, to Wm. R, Windson, G. W. Taylor, and A. E. Moule, of certain lands in the Colony of Victoria. There ia no o aiaideration, and the purchase money, &c., is blank. It purports to be signed by Edward Eellett. Witness received the document from the accused on Tuesday, the lith Inst. In consequence of a conversation he had bad at his office with Mrs Kellett and a gentleman, a frind of his, ho went to Dunning’s Hotel aud saw the accused, Mrs Eellett accompanying him. He said to th° accused that he had come to examine the documents signed that morning. The accused stud : “ Well, I don’t know you in the matter." Witness stated that his name was Stewart; that he was a solicitor Loro, und tbat he was acting for Mrs Eellett, who was anxious to know the nature of the documents. Be said : “ Well, I don’t think I'll show yon them. Witness asked “ Why ?" Moule replied : “ Well, they might involve the rights of third parties. Witness said that it appeared unreasonable tbat be should get the documents signed, no one acting for Mis Eellett, and that he should now refuse to show them. As be refused to show them witness said he should have t<> place himself in communication with the police. He proceeded down the stairs a few steps and requested Mrs Eellett to follow him. Accused detained her and commenced conversing with her. When witness again requested Mrs Eellett to accompany him accused called out, “ Oh, if you object to the signatures IT! strike them out." Witness went back to him saying, “ You had better not touch them. All I want at present Is an inspection of them." Accused again refused to show the dosnments, and said If the signatures were objected to ho would strike them out and have done with it. Witness protested, and accused struck out the words “ Edward Eellett ” on the second last page •f the document, saying “ Now that’s done." WhUe he was doing this aud re-folding the document witness’s eye caught the words “Edward Eellett’s." Witness exclaimed. “ A case of forgery; a deliberate case of forgery,” repeating the words several times. Prisoner said, “It ia not: will you listen to my explanation." Witness replied, “You can say what you like, but I intend to sift the matter to the foundation, and will communicate with my agents in Melbourne, M’Grcgor, Eamsay, and Brake, as I am perfectly satisfied there is something wrong." Moule gave a rambling explanation, and at its conclusion witness said be mast see the deed. Moule again refused to show it, but at length did so, saying, “Will that satisfy you ?’° Witness earsonly read it, and then remarked, “ 'this appears to me to be a gigantic swindle." He pointed out that the person Edwai d Kellet who should have signed the deed should have been alive in 1858, and be at least, eighteen years of age. whereas the person who had signed it was only eleven. Witness further said it was a deliberate attempt to rob persona rightfully entitled to land of it. Accused said, addressing Mrs Eellett. that he had explained the matter, and he did’nt mean to say this Edward Eellett was the right person. Witness repeated once or twice, “ It’s a deliberate swindle,” and asked Mrs Eellett to request her friend to c-une in and bear Mr Moule's explanation. Whilst she was out witness said, “Now, Moi’lo, this is a most diabolical swindle." He replied "Oh no," or something to that effect. He had previously informed witness that his name was Moule, that he was not a solicitor, but that he was related to a so’icitor of that name in Melbourne. Mrs Eellett returned, and said she oonld not find her friend. Moule said, “If you are not satisfied with these deeds you had better prepare other documents, get them signed, and got them sent over to your Melbourne agents.” Witness said he was desirous of conferring with Mrs Eellott's friend—a Mr Gardiner—and would take the deed with him. Accused said, “Oh no, I don’t think I should allow yon to tike tbat deed wit hj yon after what yon have threatened. Witness ultimately took away the deed and arranged to meet Moule at two o’clock that day. He subseqnently communicated with the police. Witness again saw accused at two o’clock, and asked for possession of the other documents, telling him that the police hod been spoken to, and added that on further consideration he was satisfied that the thing was a deliberate swindle. Accused complained of being a stranger and the treatment be was subjected to. Ho said he might have made a mistake, and could cancel the signature and then there would be an end to the matter. At witness’s suggestion accused and Mrs Eellett went along with him as far as the Police Station. Moule said he was a married man. and would send Mrs Kellet L 25 from Melbourne if she allowed the matter to drop. Accused again attempted to strike out the signature.—Crossexamined : Witness was present when the information was drawn up.—Sarah Eellett, widow of the late Thomas Eellett, residing in Dunedin, deposed that on August 8,1862, she was married to Thomas Eellett at Dunedin, He was then a widower, and witness a widow. She never met her husband till about a fortnight before they were married. He came from Victoria to this Colony. Her husband died ia March, 1876, leaving her with four boys— Thomas, bora Ist June, 1863; Edward, bora in August, 1864; Charles, 27th October, 1866; and John, March 8, 1869. She produced a certified copy of her marriage, and a certified copy of the birth of her children. In the early part of the present year she noticed an advertisement. in one of the Dunedin papers enquiring for John Thomas, Edward, aud Catherine Eellett, late of Bendigo, Victoria, and stating that they would hear of something to their advantage by apply to a Mrs Windsor, Mr Hardy, at Witness request, wrote in reply to the advertisement, but she heard nothing more of the matter until she saw Moule. At Mr Barton’s request the letter was produced. This would bo about seven or eight weeks ago. He went to witness’s house andannonneed him«elf os the lawyer from Melbourne, and, learning tbat she was Mrs Eellett, he asked her to lot him see her marriage certificate, which she did. She showed him a portrait of her late husband. He then said he thought the man was too old for the party he wanted. He also said he would take a copy of the marriage certificate and the portrait to Melbourne. Witness asked him what property was it. He merely roplied that it was a good estate, and on leaving promised to call again, saying that he would have to travel the Province to find more Eelletts. Witness saw nothing further of him till Saturday, the 6th of the present month. In consequence of some communication she had she wont to Dunning’s Hotel about six o’clock in the evening, Mrs and Miss Hardy accompanying her. She saw the accnsed. He said he bad had a telegram from Melbourne, and he wanted to go home and if she would bring the font hoys on Monday he would have their portraits taken. He also asked her to obtain the boys’ baptismal certificates. She then left and returned to Cunning's on the following Monday, accompanied by her four hoys. Accused said not to mind the likeness just then, but to go and get their baptismal certificates. She got them and took them to him, also giving him the marriage-lines and the likeness. At his i equest she again met him at 7 o’clock the same night. The boys did not accompany her, and he said that he wanted them, not her. Ho said he wanted them to sign some documents. Up to that time she had not heard anything of any documents. He said he wanted the boys to sign the documents i they might be heirs to the estate, and appointed the following morning to ta';e the hoys to sign the documents. On the following morning morning, accompanied by her two eldest boys, Thomas and Edward, she went again to Dunning’s. Besides the accused Another person—“ the India-ml berm n’’—wns present. Accused brought some documents with him. The accused asked her son Edward to write his name to one of the documents. He signed his name iu three places. He also signed his natno on a memorial. The boy now in Court is her son Edward and whom she saw sign the document now produced. [Mr Pyke jocularly remarked that if the boy was produced as an exhibit, he also would have to be marked j Not a word passed hetween the accused and the hoy other than telling him where to sgn bjs name. After Edward had signed, Thomas signed two similar documents Moule said to Mr Musgrove, “ Now, George, we’ll erase Caterino and put Thomas." Nothing further was said other than accused sayln ho would send the MO frem Melbourne if the hoys were not the right heirs as he didn’t think they were. He told her to keep her own counsel and not let people know what had transpired. At her request she gave him his address.

[Left sitting.]