SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 791, 3 January 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, January 2. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) larceny in a dwelling-house. Herbert Fleming was indicted l or having on the 4th November stolen a lea:hern belt containing eighty sovereigns. The prisoner, who, was defended by Mr Izard, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The case for the Crown was that the prosecutor and prisoner lodged together in a boarding house. The prosecutor had a belt in which he kept the amount of money laid in the indictment, which belt was kept in a box in the bedroom occupied by the prosecutor. The prisoner came into the room whilst the prosecutor was in the act of taking money from the belt. On the following day the prosecutor missed his money from the box. Information was given to the police and thei renquiries resulted in the discovery of the fact that the prisoner, been without money, had been spending large sums, aud had been changing gold for notes at some of the banks in Christchurch. He waa arrested and part of the missing money found upon him. For the Crown, Mr Duncan call ed Detective Bettington, Inspector Feast, ;he prosecutor M'Lelian, J. P. Douglas, and others. The case for the Crown having closed, Mr Izard addressed the jury for the defence. His Honor, having summed up, The jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to nine months’ imprisonment, with hard l abor. FORGERY, Hugh McPherson waa indicted for having, on the 4fcb December, altered the pay-sheet of the Canterbury Railways, with intent to

The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Grown.

The facts relied upon by the Crown were as follows ;—The prisoner was employed in the locomotive department on the Canterbury Railways, and in that capacity received a ticket for wages, amounting to £7, which it was alleged he altered to £9, and received the amount.

The following evidence was taken : Walter Morton Ollivier—l am cashier on the Canterbury railways. The prisoner was employed in the repairing shop. On the receipt of the paysheet from the Treasury a ticket was made out for the prisoner for the month’s pay due to him, It was checked by me and handed to Mr Cronin, the clerk of the department, whose duty it was to hand it to the prisoner, who would then have to apply to me personally for the money. The paysheet produced is the one for November, and came from the Treasury with the money on, I think, the 2nd December for the whole of the salaries of the employes of the railway. The prisoner’s name appears there for £7 9b 7d. A ticket fer that amount was sent out to the prisoner. The ticket produced is the one. It is not in the same state as when sent ont. The figure “7” has been altered to a “9.” It was filled up by Mr Fryer. I checked it before it was issued. It was presented for payment on Monday, the 4th December, by some one; who I cannot recollect. 1 cannot say whether it was prisoner or not. To the best of my belief—though I cannot be certain, owing to the large number of persons getting paid—l paid the amount of £9 9s 7d to the person presenting the ticket. The pay sheet was by my aide, but it would be impossible to check it at the time. I checked it afterwards, and found myself £2 8s lOd out. I afterwards checked the pay sheet with the tickets, and found no such entry on it as £9 9s 7d for McPherson, I found £7 9s 7d credited to Hugh McPherson.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—A. great number of employes came to me that day. I should think there would be over 300 tickets issued by me on the Saturday. There is an instruction printed on the back of the tickets that each man is to present it. There are no means of identifying the men. I pay the tickets as I would a cheque that is to bearer. My attention was not drawn to the matter until the next afternoon. The actual difference between my cash and the pay sheet was £2 3s lOd. The ticket remained on a file on my counter, where it was until I balanced my account. It was impossible for me to get a balance until I checked the tickets. Thomas Swinton—l am foreman of the locomotive department of the Canterbury railway at Christchurch. It is mj duty to make out pay sheets monthly from the timekeeper’s book, and forward same to Mr Ollivier. The prisoner was in my department. The sum of £7 9s 7d was due to him for the month of November. I sent that item through the pay sheet on to the cashier. I have nothing to do with the tickets after they are issued. John Thomas Fryer—-I am a clerk in the railway accountant’s office, Christchurch. I made out the tickets from the pay sheet. The prisoner’s name, Hugh McPherson, appears on the pay sheet for £7 9s 7d. I made a ticket out for that amount. It has evidently been altered since. It is now £9 9s 7d, William Charles Cronin—l am a clerk in the Railway Department. I recognise the ticket produced, I received it from Mr Ollivier for McPherson, I could not see McPherson, and gave it to a little lad named Garland. I told McPherson that I had done so.

Henry Joseph Garland—l am employed in the Railway Department. I got the ticket produced from Mr Cronin, and locked it up in my drawer in the bench. I found McPherson afterwards, and brought him into the shop and gave it to him, This was on the 4th December. The amount was £7 9s 7d, Prisoner said “ You can’t make it more if you read it upside down.” Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Nothing was said except the words I have stated. I opened the drawer, and he took it out. George Turner was there at the time, quite close to me. George Addington Turner—l am employed in the Railway Department. I was present on 4th December when Garland gave McPherson a ticket for his pay. It was for £7 9s 7d. After prisoner got it he showed the ticket to me. I noticed it particularly, because there was a nine in the centre and a seven on each side. I do not remember what was said, or if anything was said. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l was standing quite close to Garland when the latter handed the ticket to prisoner. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Joynt addressed the jury for the defence.

His Honor summed up veiy carefully and fully, and after a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of “ Not guilty,”

The prisoner was then discharged. ' This closed the session, and the Court adjourned until the 9th instant for the civil sittings.