Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 207, 5 January 1894, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

(Before Messrs H. L. Sherwill and F. A. Monckton, J.Ps.) After we went to press yesterday afternoon the following evidence was taken in the case, Police vA. Hickford : — M. Bielski deposed : Was a settler residing at Rangiwahia; on December 22nd asked accused if he would bank ! some money for him in the Colonial 1 Bank at Feilding; gave him a cheque : for £38 15s and seven £1 notes ; asked him to pay it in as soon as possible ; could not say whether the accused paid the money into the bank or not, but had received a deposit receipt for it ; produced receipt for £45 15b ; accused was arrested before witness received the receipt ; did not give accused authority to cash the cheque. By Mr Fitzherbert : Was satisfied with the money being paid in on the date it was ; did not wish to lay an information against accused for larceny. O. Wakelin deposed: Was ledgerkeeper in the- Colonial Bank at Feilding; the last witness has an account at the Colonial Bank ; accused had not paid any money to the credit of M. Bielski on the 22nd Deceml>er or since. By Mr Fifczherbert : The money was paid in on the 29th by Henry Hickford. R. C. Baillie, of the Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence, which was similar to that given in the previous case, of accused cashing two cheques, the second one amounting to .£3B 15s. Constable Sherman gave evidence in this case similar to the previous one. Constable Tuohy briefly addressed the Court and said that by the evidence it was proved that accused had received certain monies which he had appropriated to his own use instead of for the purpose intended — viz., placing them in the bank. Mr Fitzherbert, in addressing the Court, quoted clause 3 of the Larceny Act and other authorities in support of his contention that the information was wrongly laid. It had to be proved that accused divested himself of the property, which identical property was to be restored at the end of the bailment if the charge was to be for larceny as a bailee. The thing delivered to accused was not to be returned, but was to be paid into the bank and was not a bailment or accused would have been limited to time. The first possession of the property was a lawful one and it was therefore a case of default. Mr Fitzherbert cited authorities to show that the charge of larceny as a bailee could not be sustained. Two certain men gave accused two cheqnes to pay into the bank, and lie only had Saturday morning to do it in. He was obliged to cash the £36 cheque to pay an insurance premium, as the cheque for £2 could not be cashed in Feilding. The fact of accused leaving the town might be accounted for that he was going to Wanganui for a holiday. There was no harm if the money was paid into the bank by the father, and the persons who gave the cheques were satisfied. This case was entirely brought by the police. The Bench having retired for a few minutes called I Constable Tuohy, who deposed ; On Christmas morning at about 6 o'clock the father of the accused came to him and informed him that his son Arthur had cleared out on the previous night ; owing to a communication from the accused's father, witness was led to believe that larceny had been committed, and he took action accordingly. Henry Hickford was re-called, and explained that lie informed the police because his son did not return home to his bed, and he wanted to know where he was ; went to Constable Tuohy and asked his advice ; at the time witness believed the accused had money in his possession that did not belong to him ; on Sunday morning bis son asked if witness was going out, and he replied "No " ; accused then said, " Take charge of this money," which witness did ; could not say how much was in the purse, as he did not open it ; in the evening the accused again asked if witness was going out, and he reph'ed in the affirmative ; then told accused to take his money, and witness would take Ins own ; was advised to have the accused arrested for stealing the horse and saddle, and it was on this charge witness believed he was arrested ; had placed part of the money, some of which was his own, in the Bank to the credit of the persons who entrusted bis son with the money; witness did not know what cheques were cashed at the time, and was anxious to get accused back. Constable Sherman, re-called, said he arrested accused for stealing cheques. The Bench said it had been decided that there were certain technical points which would have to be left to a higher Court, and they would liave to give their decision on qquity and good conscience. Accused had been given cheques to pay into the Bank, but did not do so. It was not compatible with common sense to ignore the fact that there was larceny as a bailee, and the decision of the Bench would be that the accused be committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Wanganui on April 10th. Bail was allowed, accused in his own recognisance of £100 and two sureties of £50 each. Mr Henry Hickford and Mr J. Gould were accepted.