MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 990, 28 August 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, August 28. (Before Gf. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly. —Mary CunninghanTwas fined 60s, and two'flrst offenders 10s and 5s respectively. Embezzlement. Mathew " Henderson, storekeeper in the Railway Department, was charged on warrant with embezzling twenty-five shillings belonging to the General Government. Mr T. S. Duncan appeared to prosecute, and Mr Joynt for the defence. Detective Benjamin gave evidence of the arrest of the accused the previous afternoon, When witness explained the charge accused said, “What, for embezzlement?” and then added that-he knew they had laid this charge to prevent the action he was about to take. Accused also said he had written to Mrs Stevens in the North Island about some matters, but did not say what they were. G. P. Williams, resident engineer in the railway department, Christchurch, stated that he knew (lie accused, who was employed as storekeeper in the Public Works Department. His duties were with reference to packing cases, to sell them and pay the money into the public account. In the month of July accused had some communication with witness with reference to some packing cases. In the end of July or beginning of August witness received the duplicate receipt produced for money purported to be paid into the bank for the amount of £6 15s, with particulars endorsed (lithe back in Henderson’s writing. After receiving that document witness hatf some conversation with accused with reference to packing cases. Could not recollect the date of first convention, but remembered one on

the 13th August. Asked him what he had done with the money for the trimming cases, amounting to * 255. Accused did not reply at once, but in about ten minutes said he had refunded some money to the railway hands a day or two after he had received it. He said he received it about the same time that he had received the £6 15s, but that some of the men who had bought them expressed their dissatisfaction at the cases that had been sold to them, and he had thought it only fair to distribute the 25s amongst them. Witness told him he had no right to have done this without receiving authority; that if the men had complained about the cases it was only fair that the money should have been refunded to them, but he (accused) should first have received witness’s authority. This Conversation took place between ten and twelve of the forenoon on the 13th of August. Witness could not recollect whether accused had formerly accounted to witness for cases sold. Believed accused had only been employed as storekeeper in the Public Works Depar'ment for four or five months, but understood he had been previously in the Railway Department. Accused supplied witness with a written statement of this matter after the conversation had taken place between them. The statement produced is the one, and is dated 13th August. [Statement read showing the amount of money he held belonging to Government, on 19th Jidy.] In cross-examination witness said it was part of accused’s duty to receive money for packing cases, and pay it into the public account. Tt was his duty because it was the usual routine. The storekeeper had had instructions to sell the carriage cases for 15s each, - and pay the money into the public account. Witness also gave verbal instructions to Henderson to sell the packing cases to the railway hands. Did not name any price for the latter sales, but said in effect at the usual rates. Gave those instructions in July. Trimming cases are cases in which carriage trimmings are packed. Gave accused no -instructions about these kind of cases. Was not aware of his own knowledge that any routine was established in the office about the sale of these cases, and the price to be charged for them. The tramming cases were small cases. Witness could not say of his own knowledge that any record existed | in the office of any of the trimming cases being accountedfor. Witness remembered some little time before this (it would be a month or six weeks before the 13th August), Henderson told him he was going to sell some cases, and that Mr Smith, the Locomotive Superintendent, made some objection to their removal. He (witness) could not recollect exactly his reply, but lie told accused lie had better issue them to Mr Smith. A week or so afterwards, accused told witness that when Mr Smith found he was debited with the cases he declined to take them over, and witness then told him that he had better sell them to the Railway hands in the usual way. Witness thought accused was then referring to the carriage cases which he afterwards sold. William Anderson, shop foreman at the Railway station, called, stated he knew the accused, who was employed as storekeeper. In July last, witness purchased nine carriage cases and five trimming cases from him. The former were Iss each, and the latter 5s each, amounting in all to £B. Could not remember the date of the month he purchased them. On the 7th of July paid accused £3 5s in part payment, and on the 16th of July gave him £4 15s. Witness asked accused for a receipt, but he replied that he would not give any. He did not say why. Witness asked for the receipt on another occasion, and he would not give one. Witness bought them for the men, and they took them home. The men’s names were Andrews, lanson, Ellis, and Finch. Witness bought the cases for the men. Andrews had two or three, lanson two, Ellis one, Finch two, and a man named Butler one. All these were carriage cases. The trimming cases were sold to the same men—Andrews got one, a man of the name of Brown one, and witness could not say which men got the others. There was no complaint made to witness about the cases. One trimming case (exclusive of the five) was given in to Andrews for his carriage case, which was deficient. Witness did not make any suggestion with reference to any allowance of 25s for the trimming cases. Andrews made some complaint to Mr Henderson about the cases he got. Witness could not say of his own knowledge whether Henderson refunded any of this 255. In cross examination witness said that when buying the cases he could not remember whether he told them they were for the men or not. It was six months ago that the cases were sold. Witness sold them at the same price for which he had bought them. Did not inform Mr Henderson that he had sold them to the men. Believed that Henderson sold the trimming cases himself, and he ( old witness to receive the money for them. Accused told the men to give witness the money for the cases. Andrews was present at the time, but witness could not say what other men were there. The trimming eases were sold on the 7th July. Witness received some of the money for the carriage cases from the men on Saturday 7th July, and the remainder in the week following. The carriage cases were not delivered to the men until about 7th July. Witness knew nothing about any money being refunded to -men on account of the cases. Witness now remembered that he had heard some money had been refunded, but could not say what the amount was. Witness knew a Mr Scott who was employed at the railway in July. He had one of the carriage cases in July. Witness sold it to him, and received the money, giving a receipt to Scott for it. Since the General Government took over the railway there had been no trimming cases, but axle-bolt and small cases went amongst the men. Witness himself had had a good many from time to time, the last ones not being paid for. The men used to break up the cases and take them home without paying anything for them. Witness took his home for firewood. Lately the carriage cases were the only ones that were paid for. In re-examination witness said that accused sold the trimming cases to I, he men 7th July. Witness was present at the time, and now that he remembered he was not. Witness concluded accused had sold the cases| as he (witness) received the money for them. Witness did not believe he was present when the live trimming cases were sold, hither Henderson or the men told witness l hat the price was 5s for each case. The carriage cases were sold a long time ago. Henderson told witness to receive the money for the cases, _ but he could not say whether the price was mentioned. Witness had never purchased a,ny trimming cases from accused. In reply to the Bench, witness said ae did not knpw that any money had been refunded. He now thought the men had told him \t had been. Their names were Andrews and lanaon. John Ellis called gave evidence of having purchased a carriage

packing case from Anderson, and paid him 15s for it. About three weeks ago Henderson gave him 4s as a refund, and said he would give him the other shilling another time. John Andrews gave evidence of purchasing two cases from Anderson, and to accused tendering him a pound note about three weeks ago to refund 10s. Witness had no change, and accused gave him (Is, saying he would owe him the other 4s, and that he should have given him the money when he made a complaint about the cases. Abraham lanson, who had purchased two cases, gave similar evidence. On the evidence of these witnesses, it was shown that complaints had been made of the state of the carriage cases, that one man had received a trimming case to make up for the deficiency, and that some of the men broke up the small cases and took them home for firewood. This concluded the evidence. Witness reserved his defence by advice of his counsel, and was fully committed to take his trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court. On the application of Mr Joynt, his Worship said he would grant bail, accused in £2OO, and two sureties of £IOO each. Disobeying an Order. —C. P. Fox was charged with disobeying an order for the support of his wife and family. £l3 15s wcr« due, and defendant said he had been ill for some time after his arrival at Wellington. Since he had obtained employment he had sent his wife as much money as he possibly could. He was in hopes of obtaining a better position there than the one he at present occupied. His Worship told defendant he did not wish to throw him out of employment. He v ould allow the matter to stand over for a month, but he must make some efforts in the meantime. Indecency. William White, for an offence of this nature, was fined 40s. Illegally on Premises. —George Williams, charged with being illegally on premises at St. Albans, belonging to Mr Kinlay, was fined 10s. LYTTELTON. Tuesday, August 28. [Leforc W. Donald, Esq., R.M. | Drunkenness. —An inebriate who appeared for the first time was fined 10s. Vagrancy. —William Bingin was accused of sleeping in a tank on railway premises, and ordered on board the John Knox, being a boy belonging to that vessel. Refusal of Duty. —David Gardiner, a seaman belonging to the brig Wave, was sentenced to one week’s imprisonment for this offence.

Breach of Stamp Act. — A case against Frederick Beechy was dismissed on payment of 10s costs.