MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 215, 16 February 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, February 16. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M., W. H. Pilliett, Esq., and G. Lee, Esq., J.P.’s DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. The following inebriates were fined : Hamilton Shaw, 20s ; John Galvin, 10s ; Johanna Connor, ss. For being drunk and disorderly at the Railway Station, Frederick Turner, and James Stewart, were each fined ss. DRUNK AND INDECENT EXPOSURE. Robert Tait, charged with this offence, was fined 20s* DRUNK AND INSULTING FEMALES. Henry Hopkinson who had been remanded to Lyttelton on the charge of insulting females in Colombo street, as he was suffering from the effects of drink was again brought up. Mr Reston, chief gaoler, told the Bench that the man had recovered. The accused was cautioned and discharged. DRUNK AND ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. John Lane, on remand, was charged with this offence. Mr Reston stated that the accused was then recovered, but had been up on a previous occasion similarly charged, and each time he seemed to become worse. Accused was strongly cautioned not to appear before the Court again, and was discharged. STEALING A POST OFFICE LETTER. George Westrop was charged on remand with this offence. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Chief Detective Feast called Robert Powrie, who deposed to being manager for Mr White’s saw mills at Little river ; knew the accused, who was postmaster there. Remembered making up a letter in December last; it was on the 16th. The letter contained six £1 notes, and a ten shilling piece, addressed to the manager of the Bank of New South Wales. One of the notes has got the word Barry, and another letter, on which he thought was an Z ; also thought there were other letters on that note. Would know that note by this word and letters on the back, and would know it by the No, he had taken before the detective took it away. The note produced is the one. Also knew it by the word “Jay,” but there had been other writing placed on it since. He (witness) posted it. Folded the notes and fastened the letter carefully and gave it to his lad to put it in the post. To the best of his belief the letter never reached its destination, as he received a communication from the bank stating that it had not. Mr Joynt objected to the contents of any communication being stated by the witness. Examination continued—Next saw the note on the 26th September. Received it from the accused. At that time had not complained to accused of the loss of any letter. Had the note in his possession two days before he posted it. Got the note from a Maori named Tawha. Ultimately gave the note to the police. Gave the letter to his son Joseph to post, amongst other letters. Had heard no complaint of any of the other letters being missing. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l am sure it was on Wednesday, the 16th I gave the letter to my son to post. I in mistake wrote to the post-office that it was on the 17th. I wrote soon after the letter did not reach its destination, It might have been about a fortnight after I posted the money. I am quite sure it was £6 10s, though I have written to the post-office that it was £7 10s. I had no other notes in the house, besides the six. I got all the six on the 14th from a Maori. They were not all marked “Barry” or “Jay,” none of them but the note in Court. I first took notice of the number of the note when I gave it to Mr Feast. That was some time after 1 got it from the accused. I gave it to Feast last week. I know no one in the district named Barry or Jay. I have no other mark of identity but those words. There were sports at Little River on the 26th December, and a great many people there, with some money changing hands—a few shillings and half-crowns given to an acrobat There was a cask of gingerbeer on the ground. [Laughter.} On the day when accused gave me the note, I was collecting money for prizes ; a friend of accused sitting next him offered me half a sovereign, and prisoner said “give me that, and I’ll give you a pound,” which would be his subscription, and his friend named Vickers. I collected £6 10s that day, and the rest was gold and silver. 1 noticed the writing on the back of the note about four or live days after 1 received it from the accused. I didn’t directly inform the prisoner. About a fortnight ago I first informed any one of the recovery of the note from accused. It was Mr White I first told. The accused stands very high in the estimation of the public at Little river, and so far as I am aware, hc.has ample means to live on. I have not had many transactions with him, I put the money into the letter on the 16th with my own hand. 1 have not told anyone that my wife put the money in. I have not told anyone that I laid it on the table with instructions for her to put it in. Re-examined by Detective Feast—The weather was wet on the 16th. Joseph Powrie, son of the last witness, stated that he remembered his father giving him some letters to post. Did not remember the date. It was on the Anniversary Day, and was raining. Did wot know how

many letters his father gave him. Was not sure, but thought there was one addressed to the Bank of New South Wales. Took the letters to the Post Office, but was not sure to whom he gave them. Was sure he took all the letters to the post-office that his father gave him. He usually gave the letters to Mrs Westropp. He (witness) went to Mr Westropp’s school. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l often posted letters for my father, and posted them as Igo into school. Igo before school. How I remember posting the letters on Anniversary Day is because my father and I were going for a walk. My father did not come to the Post office. I did not go to school that day. We were going out for a walk if it was a fine day, but we did not go. I did not go. It was raining all the morning. lam not sure how I carried the letters but I think I put them into my pocket. I walked slowlytothepostofficeintherain. It’s half a mile from my father’s house to the post office. I didn’t count the letters when my father gave them to me. lam not sure who I gave the letters to that morning. I didn’t count the letters when I handed them in at the post-office. I recollect seeing that one letter was addressed to the Bank of New South Wales, when I took them from father. I am not sure it was that morning as I took some before from my father. I don’t recollect seeing that same letter when 1 handed them in at the post-office. I don’t remember the address of any of the other letters I got from my father that morning. Since this letter was lost my father has questioned me about posting it. He has spoken to me about it within the last few days. My father has toldme that one of the letters was addressed to the Bank of New South Wales. Henare Tawha—Examined through the Rev Mr Stack, stated he lived at Little River. He remembered giving some money to Mr Powrie on the 14th December. The money consisted of single notes. There was writing on some of the notes, he thought on three or four. The writing was on the back of the notes. He did not know how to read English. If iany other writing had been added since, he could not recognise the writing that was on them when ho had them. William S. Robison, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, Christchurch, remembered receiving a communication in December last from Powrie, with reference to a missing letter, said to have contained money, asking if it had arrived. Mr Joynt objected to this latter evidence, as no amount of correspondence passing between others could affect the accused. It would, he knew, be excluded if the case was taken further. The Bench did not object to the letter received by the witness being handed in.

Examination continued—Did not receive a letter from Powrie in December, containing £6 10s, nor bad he received it up to date. Sydney James Jago stated that he was chief clerk in the Christchurch Post-office. He knew the postmaster’s name at Little River was G. W. Westropp. He did not know the accused. It was the postmaster’s duty to make up the mails, and to receive letters. There had recently been a complaint made of a letter at Little River containing money having been missed. The letter was said to have been addressed to the Bank of New South Wales. Search had been made at the Christchurch Post-office for that letter. The postmaster at the Little River was communicated with. The letter had not been found. There was an official document tilled up by the postmaster at Little River, stating the supposed description of the letter, and what it was supposed to have contained. Had not that document with him. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—There is a waybill or letterbill filled up and sent with each mail, but I have not brought it with me. It is not at all an unusual thing thing for employees to till up these letter bills. To the Bench—There was no complaint that the letter bill on this occasion did not tally with the contents of the bag. Mr Joynt submitted that the absence of these documents placed him in the dark, as he wanted to see who signed the letter bill on this occasion. His Worship did not see how their absence would affect the case. Mr Joynt did not know whether the Bench thought it was a case to send for trial, as, if so he would not address the Bench. His Worship did not think it was a case to send for trial. Mr Joynt was about to address the Bench for his client, when His Worship said the opinion of the Bench was that the evidence was bad, as it wanted the link to connect the actual posting of the letter, as the boy had no doubt heard about the letter addressed to the bank being missing, and could not of himself remember that he had posted this identical letter on that day. Mr Joynt desired, as Mr Westropp occupied a responsible position, to show that there was no evidence but that of Powrie to show that he ever got the note from Westropp. i. The Bench did not think there was any occasion for Mr Joynt even to address them on the point, and the defendant was discharged.