MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 297, 26 May 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. * Wednesday, May 26. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., E.M., and R. J. S. Harman, Esq., J.P.] Drunk and Disorderly. —Wm. O’Neill, for drunkenness, was' lined ss. J. H. Berryman, 10sand C. M. Fantham, 20s. Drunk and Illegally on Premises.— John Sullivan, charged with being drunk and lying in a stable in Montreal street, was lined 10s. Jumping on a Railway Carriage.— David Jebson was charged with jumping on the step of a railway ( carriage at the Racecourse station, and riding for about fifty yards. Mr Garrick appeared for the accused, and asked that the evidence might be taken down in writing. Constable Firman stated that at seven o’clock the previous night the guard of the South’ train gave the accused into custody for jumping on the step of a railway carriage at the Racecourse station. J. Heasman, guard of the South traiu, stated that he was in charge of the 4.15 train the previous day from Christchurch to Dunsandel. As the train was leaving the Racecourse station, accused jumped on a step of the railway carriage, and before he could stop the train, the accused jumped off. Accused returned to town by the up-train, and alter he (witness) returned to town he reported the matter to the head porter, and gave him into custody. By Mr Garrick—l reported the matter to the head porter, J. Lewis. Accused came back to the station about two hours and a half after the offence for his coat, and I gave him into custody. Mr Garrick wanted to know against what bye-law the offence had been committed. If there was a bye-law relating to the offence he would like it to be put in. He (Mv Garrick) admitted that defendant had, while in a hurry, jumped on to the railway carriage, but it was monstrous that about three hours after the offence had been committed his client should have been given into custody and locked up as if he were a felon. A summons would have answered equally as well. The bye-law was then put in by Inspector Buckley. In reply to Mr Garrick, the clerk of the bench said, that no information had been laid. Defendant had been given into custody. His Worship said the bench would dismiss the' case, and the bench considered it a most unwarrantable piece of arbitrary authority on the part of the railway authorities to give a man into custody who was so well known. The constable who had taken the man into custody should have shown more discretion, and on previous occasions the bullying which a constable stationed at the Christchurch railway station had been guilty of had been reported to him. Both constables and railway servants should remember that they are the servants of the public, and he trusted the inspector would enquire into the matter. A constable should not take a man so well known as defendant into custody merely because a guard wished him to. It was a most arbitrary case, and more ought to be heard of it. The case would be dismissed. (Mr Harman here retired fiom the Bench.) Breach of Land Transfer Act.—E. Mainwaring-Johnson appeared to answer to his bail for committing a breach of the above Act. Mr T. S. Duncan appeared to prosecute, and Mr Joyut for the accused. Mr Duncan, in his opening remarks, said the charge had been laid under the 143rd section of the Land Transfer Act. The following evidence was taken: —R. J. S. Harman stated that he was a Justice of the Peace of the Colony of New Zealand. The signature to the subscription of John Campbell to an application produced, under the Land Transfer Act, for a certificate of title, was his. The document bears the date of the 2nd July, 1874. Did not remember who was present when the d duration was made. Remembered Campbell coming to his office on several occasions, but did not remember his coming this time, and who was with him. He had not the slightest doubt but that Campbell made the declaration produced. George Boutfiower Davy, Registrar General of Land, under the Land Transfer Act, produced his appointment as such. Remembered looking into a matter with which Mr Johnson, land broker, was concerned. Pound in his office the application produced for a certificate of title under the Laud Transfer Act. It is an application for one John Campbell. The declaration produced was affixed to the application, and also the usual declaration on a printed form. The application stated there was no encumbrance or claim affecting the section, except a certain agreement between Campbell encl

Joseph Jessop, which had not been carried out. On looking into the matter he afterwards ascertained that there was a conveyance from Campbell and Jessop to a person of the name of John Whale, dated 9th July, 1866. Believed this conveyance had reference to the same piece of land referred to in Campbell’s application. A certificate of title was issued under the application, so far as he knew or could judge, to John Campbell. Produced the Land Register. It did not state that a certificate had been granted to Campbell, but he knew that he had, as there was no other application in the office on which the certificate could have been granted, and had not the slightest doubt but it had been. Compared the number of the application with the Register, and found they were the same (1588.) Two mortgages were effected with reference to part of section 26, the land referred to in the application. Produced one mortgage for £9O, from Campbell to Johnson for a portion of this land. The late Registrar General ■erred a caveat on Mr Johnson for this piece of land. Had not personally had any communication with Mr Johnson on this matter. Robert- Wilkin —Was a Justice of the Peace for the Colony of New Zealand. The signature to the declaration produced was his. The declaration is made by one John Campbell, and is dated 3rd July, 1874. Could not remember whether Campbell was alone when the declaration was made. R. W. D’Oyley, Examiner of Titles under the Land Transfer Act, stated that in the course of his dutie* he saw an application from John Campbell for a certificate of title for part of rural section 26. Produced the application. The application came to him in its present state with the declaration appended. Dratted the certificate from the application, and it was subsequently granted. E. M. Johnson, so far as he knew, acted as broker, and the endorsement bears his signature. Subsequently two mortgages were produced in the office affecting different portions of the land comprised in the certificate, one of them for £9O, from Campbell to Johnson (mortgage produced) over the land conveyed by Campbell and Jessop to Whale. The other for £BO, also from Campbell to Johnson, over that portion of the land comprised in the certificate, to which John Campbell appears to have a clear title. The conveyance now produced purported to be a conveyance from Campbell and Jessop to John Whale for £llO for that portion of the land included in the application of John Campbell, over which the mortgage produced for £9O purported to operate. The conveyance is dated 9th July, 1866. If he had been aware of that conveyance he would not have certified to the title of the application made by Campbell. The conveyance was never registered. Peroival Pearce stated that the signature attesting to the execution of the conveyance produced from John Campbell and Joseph Jessop to John Whale was his. He was attesting witness to the conveyance. Knew Mr Johnson, land broker. About June of last year Mr Johnson called upon him and had a conversation respecting some land he had bought under the Transfer Act for Campbell. He (Johnson) said that he was to receive half the lvalue of the property which was £IBO. He was to get £9O. He did not mention any particular land, but he (witness) knew the land to which he referred. Johnson said that Hanmer had got into a d 1 of a mess about this land, and he (witness) replied that he did not see how Hanmer could get into a mess with it. Johnson said that Campbell afterwards objected to give him the £9O, and he remarked that he thought Campbell a b fool for giving him £9O for bringing the land under the Act, when he could do it himself for £2 10s. He (witness) remarked that he thought others besides Mr Hanmer would get themselves into a mess if they did not look out. He remarked to Johnson about the large sum of money Campbell was going to give him. He then told Johnson that if he would wait he would go through the books, and give him all the particulars respecting the land. Told Johnson at the time that getting such a large amount of money for bringing the land under the Act looked very much like fraud. By Mr Joynt—l cannot remember the exact date of this conversation. Mr Johnson said something about the balance of the purchase money from Campbell to Whale not having been paid. I did not tell Mr Johnson that the balance of this money had been paid. The entry of the payment of the balance money would appear in Travers and Hanraer’s books. The balance of the money was paid in the office of those gentlemen, but I d'd not see the money handed to Whale. The witness then related the particulars he had given defendant from the conveyance which had been produced in court. Mrs John Campbell, called by Mr Duncan, was objected to by Mr Joynt, who contended that the information was laid against his client for fraudulently assisting in procuring a certificate of title, and if her evidence told against the defendant who had not committed a fraud, it might implicate her husband should the conviction be sustained against his client. As no wife could be made to give evidence which might in any way implicate her husband, he would object to her being examined. His Worship considered that it would be for a higher Court to decide this point, and would allow of Mrs Campbell’s evidence being taken. Mary Campbell examined, stated that she was the wife of John Campbell, and knew that he had been possessed of rural section 26 at Avonville. Had a conversation with defendant respecting the land in June, 1874. She went to Mr Johnson, and said she was Mrs Campbell, and wanted to speak to him about her husband’s affairs. He replied in a sneering tone, “ Campbell said he must have your advice, but what do women understand about men’s affairs.” She observed that she saw enough of the matter to know that he was leading her husband into danger. He then said that there was no danger, and if there was, he was sharing it equally with her husband. Johnson said he had made all the necessary searches, and that there was no mention of that particular piece of land. He then asked if she was aware how the purchase money had been paid. She told him that she did not think any of the money had fallen into Campbell’s hands. He said “ Oh yes, Peroival Pearce has pocketed the money and failed to make any entry.” She wished him, before proceeding any further, to have the mistake in the deed rectified, and only to get the portion which would come to them under the new Act. He told her she was not to interfere, that he and Campbell had agreed to share the profits between them, provided he (Johnson) could get a clear title. He said she was to search her husband’s papers and if she found any papers relating to the land, abe was to burn them, as he

had all that was necessary. She called at his office some time afterwards, and he told her that the title was returned clear of all encumbrances. He said it was returned to her husband, and he could then occupy it as soon as he liked. On the 28th October, 1874, she saw her husband and Mr Johnson talking in her garden. She went out and heard what they were talking about. Her husband accused Mr Johnson of haying given him a blank mortgage to sign. Johnson said there were no blank forms of mortgage. Her husband then said—“ You know what I mean, it is a printed form not filled up with writing.” Her husband continued to say to Johnson that this blank form of mortgage he had afterwards filled up for £9O. Johnson then laughed and said, “ Ah I my boy, I was one too many for you that time.” He also said he had protected himself from the very first, and that her husband would have to bear the whole of the blame. After some further conversation he went away, and returned later in the evening. As he passed the window he said, “ Campbell, are you there.” Her husband went out and she followed. Johnson said that he had been to Mr Fox ; that he had made certain enquiries there, and the affair now would have to take its own course. Her husband said he was quite willing, as whatever would happen he had been led into through Mr Johnson’s representation, Johnson said his character was without a stain, and her husband would have to bear the whole blame. Later still, that evening, Johnson was sitting in the house talking to her husband. He told him that if he (her husband) would make over the cottage on the land, mortgaged for £BO, he would see him through it all. Her husband refused, saying that it had been promised to witness, and that he (Johnson) snould not rob her of it. The next day Johnson sent his office lad up, and said he wished to see her. She went, and he read her a copy of a letter which he had sent to Messrs Fox and Banks. He said it would be a very serious affair for her husband, She told him that she had only to thank him for all the disgrace and trouble that had been brought on her, that if her husband had gone into an honest broker’s office he would have turned out a more honest man. Whilst they were talking, a gentleman came into an outer office, and she heard that gentleman tell Johnson that a warrant had been issued for her husband’s apprehension. When he came back she told him what she had heard, and he advised her to go home as hard as possible, and if she found her husband, she'Was to persuade him to get away. She returned home and found her husband there. Her husband left at five that afternoon. The night her husband left Johnson came to her house about eight o’clock and asked her if her husband had got away. She told him that he had left on horseback. Had a conversation with, him about the property, and he said he would deal with it and her as he should like any person to deal with his wife if left in similar circumstances. Next morning she called at his office, and by his advice went to the lock-up to see if her husband had been taken. She was to return and let him know. Mr O’Neill was in Johnson’s office when she returned. When Mr O’Neill went away, she upbraided Johnson for what he had done. He said that he would keep a good lookout during the day, and if her husband were apprehended, he would send to her. If he was, she was to go to the lock-up and tell him that Messrs Joynt and O’Neill had been retained to defend them, and that he would pay all the expense. He told her to tell her husband that he was not to breathe a word to implicate him. If he did he would make it hot for him. Met Johnson again in the month of November. He asked her if she had heard anything of Campbell, and she told him she had, and that she was going to send to him. He said he would let her have some money to assist him in getting away from New Zealand. She was to call at his office at 12 o’clock. When she did so he said he had consulted with his solicitor, who had advised him not to advance her any money. In the month of December she had occasion to go to Johnson for an order to collect some rents. He told her he could not give the order until his interest became due, which would be on the Ist January. On the sth or 6th of that month she went to him to pay the interest. He asked her if she would pay the interest on the £BO and £9O. She said she would not, and would never recognise the £9O. He said he would sell the land, and if he could not do that he would come on the Government assurance for the amount. She asked him if he thought that was honest as he knew her busband had never received a penny of that £9O. He replied he thought it was, and that if he got the money, he might send a part of it to Campbell if he found out where he was. After the evidence had been read over, defendant, by advice of his counsel, reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court, On the application of Mr Joynt, his Worship granted bail as before, namely, one surety in £2OO, and defendant in £2OO. Drunk and Disorderly.— Denis J, Buckley, who had been admitted to bail on this charge, did not appear, and his Worship ordered a notice to be issued on him to show cause why the amount of his bond should not be estreated. He appeared in Court later on, and was fined £3O, Larceny —Alice Anderson was brought up on remand charged with this offence. Detective Kirby deposed to the arrest of prisoner at her lodgings, in North Durham street. When arrested, she said she had no property belonging to Mrs Macfarlane. He afterwards searched her box in the presence of Mrs Macfarlane and the accused, and found the articles of clothing produced, which were identified by Mrs Macfarlane. Prisoner said she had a dress piece, which she had taken to a dressmaker in Cathedral square. Subsequently went to the house mentioned by prisoner and obtained the dress piece produced. The prisoner here admitted the charge. A second charge of stealing a dress and other articles was preferred against the prisoner, which she also admitted. Chief Detective Feast said that the prisoner had been in Mr Pratt’s service for a short while, and had stolen about £2O worth of goods. That gentleman had taken the articles from her, and having warned her, let her go. Prisoner arrived in the province by the Eastern Monarch in July last, and he had received a very bad character of her from her shipmates. During the week she had been in Mrs Macfarlane’s employ she had stolen about £lO worth of goods in a very systematic manner. His Worship regretted that under the circumstances he could not deal as leniently with the prisoner as he would if this had been her first offence. She would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.