Feilding R. M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume X, Issue 124, 25 April 1889, Page 2

Feilding R. M. Court

Tuesday, April 23, 1880. (Before Dr Monckton (Mayor) and Mr Bull, J.P.s.) * OBIMIKAL. Peter John Anderson and Samuel Gaskin were charged on remand, on the information of Sergeant Manning with the larceny of a cheque, value .£9, at Awahuri, on April 2nd. Mr Hankins appeared for Anderson, and Mr Hawkins with him Mr Matthews (of Fitzherbert and Matthews) for Gaskin. The prisoners being charged together Mr Hawkins applied to have them charged separately, on the ground that two parties could not find or pick up a cheque together. He quoted authority for his contention. Mr Hankins said it was immaterial to him whether they were charged separately or jointly. Sergeant Manning objected to the charge being separate on the ground that the whole action of the prisoners had been jointly committed, and the one had been an accessory to the other. Mr Hawkins again urged on legal and just grounds to separate the charges. Mr Matthews made a similar contention. Ultimately it was decided for the cases to go together, and the Sergeant opened the case. Blanche Gordon Lloyd, of Awahuri, deposed to having a banking account at the Bank of New Zealand at Palmerston North ; on the 2nd April drew a cheque for £9 to a number ; gave it her husband to pay an account at Feilding ; the cheque produced was the one she drew, payable to 148 or bearer ; took steps to stop payment ; authorised no one to deal with cheque but her husband. By Mr Matthews : Had suffered loss by having to pay the amount to Mr Thompson ; the cheque had not been charged to her account in the bank ; (witness read endorsement on back " payment stopped, refer to Mrs Lloyd for confirmation") first heard of cheque being cashed from Mr Lloyd ; next thing she heard was a summons from Mr Thompson for payment ; would not swear the cheque had not been paid by the bank. Henry John Lloyd, settler at Awahuri, the husband of last witness, corroborated his wife's evidence as to receiving the cheque ; on going to pay the cheque discovered he had lost it ; drove back at once to the hotel and met a waggonette with two men in it, but didn't know then who they were ; the prisoner Anderson was one ; searched at the hotel for cheque, but couldn't find it ; went home, and not finding it drove to Feilding and stopped payment by telegraph to the bank at Palmerston ; got a horse and went on to Birmingham ; saw Anderson and taxed him with finding the cheque and trying to cash it ; he denied all knowledge of it, and said he had not been at HaEttie's Hotel ; did not see the accused Gaskin till that morning. William Summers deposed to being assisting in the bar of Hastie's Hotel when a cheque was presented for payment of two drinks ; " Lloyd" was the signature on the cheque ; Gaskin presented it, another man was with him, but witness could not identify him. Samuel Jacob Thompson, storekeeper, Feilding, testified to Gaskin coming into the store about 14 a.m. of the 2nd instant and asking for change of a cheque ; prisoner showed him the cheque produced ; was conversant with signature ; witness asked him if he wanted to buy anything, and prisoner got trousers at £1 3s 9d, witness giving him balance of cheque; banked the cheque 6*me day at Bank of Australasia, Feilding ; it was returned two days later, with endorsement to stop payment ; sued Mrs Lloyd in Feilding Court, and obtained judgment, which had been satisfied ; asked Gaskin his name before cashing the cheque, and he gave it. By Mr Hawkins : Gave accused a£s Bank of New Zealand note in the change, also a£2 cheque and some silver ; could not say whom the cheque was drawn upon; Gaskin did not hesitate to give his name, and witness did not ask his address. Ellen Jane Stewart, wife of the licensee of the Cheltenham Hotel, Baid she knew Gaekin, and had changed a £5 bank note for him. Egbert Francis Iveson, clerk in the Bank of Australasia, Feilding, testified to cheque marked A being paid into the Banking account of S. J. Thompson on 2nd April. James Meehan, Constable at Feilding, deposed to the cheque being handed him by Mr S. J. Thompson on the 9th. William Manning, Sergeant of Police at Palmerston, deposed : Arrested Anderson on Saturday 13th instant at Palmerston ; read the charge to him, and he denied all knowledge of it ; arrested Gaskin in the afternoon of the same day at Stoney Creek ; he made a statement ; conveyed him to the lock-up ; had previously read the warrant to him ; in the evening of the same day Charles Peck visited hin, and in answer to a question he made a further statement. By Mr Matthews : The statement made by Gaskin when arrested was " Anderson picked up the cheque and I cashed it ;" Peck said " Now what about this cheque, do you want bailing out, let us know all about it ?" Accused said " It's all right, Anderson picked the cheque up and I cashed it." This closed the case for the prosecution Mr Hankins contended that there was no evidence to show that the cheque was ever in the possession of Anderson. Mr Matthews contended for the utter improbability, putting all the circumstances together of Gaskin being in a guilty or criminal possession of the cheque. Mr Hawkins made a similar contention. The Bench retired for a few minutes, and on returning said there was not sufficient evidence against Anderson, who would therefore be discharged. They were satisfied there was a prima facie case against Gaskin, and he would be committed for trial. Mr Hawkins applied for Gaskin to be dealt with summarily, and to be discharged under the First Offender's Act. He pointed out to the authority of their Worships to deal with the case as one of simple larceny. Mr Matthews also plea ded for a summary dealing with the case under the above Act. The Clerk having put the charge before the prisoner in writing he pleaded guilty. Several persons gave evidence as to the good character of the accused. Sergeant Manning made application for the accused to be called upon to defray the costs of the prosecution or any other expenses incurred in connection with the case before being dealt with under the Probation Act, and pointed out the power of the Bench to require this. The Bench again retired for about three quarters of an hour, and returned stating their decision was to admit the prisoner to probation for six months on condition of his repaying £'9, the value of the cheque, and paying costs of prosecution £4 19s within two months from date. The prisoner was then discharged.