MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1521, 2 January 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, January 2. [Before a. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Die orderly. Four first offenders were lined :is etch, and one in charge of a horse 10s. Obscene Language.—Margaret Shannon, charged with mating use of obscene language in a public place, war fined 20s. Street Fighting.—Thomas Mayers was chargsd with fighting in Gloucester street at five o’clock on New Year’s morning. A witness called by the accused who denied the charge, failed to upset the evidence of the arresting constable, who established the fact of the defendant’s fighting a man with “ ginger ” whiskers. A fine of 10s was imposed. Indecent Behaviour.—E. Clarkson was charged with committing an act of indecency in a public place at midday on December 31st. The arresting constable proved the offence, which was 8- very gross one, and the accused was fined £5. Failing to Provide. Mary Belinda Sweeney appeared again on an adjourned summons for failing to pay for the maintenance of her child. The arrears had amounted to £S 13s of which the defendant had paid the complainant £7 7s, and she now stated that (he balance had been paid into court. This being found to be the case the defendant was dischargee^ Embezzlement.—Francis H. Yalpy was brought up on the remanded charge of embezzling various sums of money, amounting to £lll fis, the property of the Christchurch branch, of the New Zealand Railway Employes Benefit Society There were several charges of embezzling—£6 4s, £5 16s, and £3 16s ;£5 4s and £1; £2B 6s and £2O 8s ; and £lB 16j and £2l 16s. Mr Izard defended the prisoner. Mr Covlishaw appeared for the prosecution, and said he should proceed for several acts oc stealing under the Larceny Act Amendment Act, 1870. The accused was an officer of the Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Radway Employes Benefit Society, in which capacity he had embezzled certain suras of money the properly of the society. The first case that lie should take would bo that of Thomas Bradley, in which the accused vras charged with embezzling two 4 sums of £2B 6s and £2O Bs. Thomas Bain said he was in the employ of the Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Railways Employes Benefit Society. Was present at a meeting held on the 7th of June, 1878. The accused was there, lab minutes produced were in the handwriting of the accused. The accused was a member of the society. There were about one thousand members belonging to it. and amongst others, Messrs McQ-aron and Spenc r. The Otago rules were considered, altered, and passed at that meeting; the copy produced is a copy of the printed rules as then altered and passed. The officers of the society were appointed at that meeting. Mr Yalpy as secretary, and Mr Peter Ellis as treasurer, and the former had acted in that capacity. In consequence of some thing that had occurred with reference to Mr Yalpy, witness wrote to him a letter —(he same produced in Court. The other letter produced was written to the witness by the accused. [Letter handed in.J Thomas Bradley being sworn, said ho who station-master at. Lyttelton, and a n ember of the Christchurch branch of the New Z aland Railway Employes Benefit Society. Oo the 10th October paid the accused a sura of money in his capacity of secretary to the society and representative of the members resident in Lyttelton. The sum be paid amounted to £2S tip for which witness prodund the receipt. On November 12 h paid him a further sura of £2O Bs, which witness sent by the guard of the train (Mr Heaton) and he now produced the receipt. Pet* r E‘ i« being sworn, said he was a member an treasurer of the Christchurch B finch oJ the jS'ew Zealand Railway BePCflt

Society. Did not in October receive anj Buma of money amounting to £2B or £2C B.*, ns mentioned by the last witness. Accused had paid him no money smco September 19th. There was no other person in the society the prisoner was authorised to pay money to but himself. Dad spoken to accused about the non-payment of moneys to him, and had a letter in reply. Some time in November witness asked accused if he had seen a copy of a resolution p issed at a committee meeting held the previous day ordering him (witness) to interview him (the accused) relative to moneys in his hands belonging to the society. Prisoner replied lie had not been able to get the moneys together, but would call on the witness the next day. Witness subsequently received from the accused the letter produced. Witness saw the prisoner once acain [after that, and the subject of their conversation was the getting of the money back from accused, but ho never got it. Afterwards received another letter (produced) from the accused, but never got any money from him after the 19th of September. This was the case. The next case was that of Thomas McGarva, and tiro sums embezzled amounted to £lB 16s and £2l 16s. Air McGarva degosed ho was foreman of the works in the hristchuroh railway station, and a member of the Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Railway Employes Benefit Society. The witness knew the accused as a member and secretary of the society. Paid the accused on October 28th the sums mentioned in the charge through Mr Chataway his clerk, and the latter brought back the receipl produced in the handwriting of the accused. The money witness paid in he had collected from the members, and he paid it ns the property of the society. On the 25th November Mr Chattaway again paid the accused a further sura for witness of £2l 16s, which he had collected from the members as before. Diehard Henry Chattaway, clerk to Mr McGarva, and a member of the society, remembered paying the accused in his capacity of secretary to the society, two sums of £lB 16s and £2l 16s on October 28th and November 25th, He paid the money on behalf of Mr McGarva, ai d received from the accused receipts for them. Mr Peter Ellis, as treasurer of the society, gave similar evidence to that in the previous case. Mr Thomas Bain repeated the evidence he had given before. The accused was then further charged with embezzling three sums of £6 4s, £5 16s, and £3 16s, which he had received from Mr H. Spencer, and the property of the New Zealand Railway Employes’ Benefit Society. Henry Spencer, foreman of the goods yard at the railway station, and a member of the society, being sworn, deposed that he paid the accused £5 16s on the 2nd of October, which he had collected from members of the society ; also £3 16s on the 3rd of October, and again £6 4s on the 11th of November last, and received the receipt produced. These moneys all belonged to the society, and were paid to the accused in his capacity of treasurer. On the 7th of December had a conversation by the direction of the committee with the accused about the money, and he (prisoner) told witness and his committeemen that he would see them the following Saturday, but although he kept that appointment he did not pay over any money, hut made a further appointment at Mr Dickinson’s house for a morning on the following week. On that occasion, he said he had leave from Mr Conyers, the Commissioner of Railways, for a few daja to square-up matters in connection with the society. Witness accordingly allowed the matter to stand over until last Saturday—a fortnight. Witness then saw the accused, and told him he should tako proceedings if the money was not paid by the 17th December. Accused said he would be at Mr Dickenson’s office by ten o’clock on the 17th to make arrangements. Ho did not come that day, but witness saw him on the 18th, and accused handed him the letter produced. Accused was given till ten o’clock on the morning of the 19th to pay £SO and a bill on his father at six months for £IOO, the balance being roughly fixed at that sum. Accused asked witness and Mr Dickenson for a letter accepting : those terms, which they gave him. The accused did not comeitho next morning, and the money had never been paid. An information was 1 then laid. Peter Ellis and Thomas Bain again 1 gave their evidence, which was exactly the same as before. Mr Cowlbhaw said there were a number of other cases, but, unless the Bench wished it, he did not see any necessity for going into them. The other charges were accordingly withdrawn. The depositions were i then read over, and the accused, who reserved his defence, was fully committed for trial at 1 the next session of the Supreme Court. The 1 accused was admitted to bail, two sureties in ' £2OO each and himself in £4OO. LYTTELTON. - Thursday, Jantjaey 2. ("Before W. Donald, Esq.. R.M. ; H. R. Webb, Esq., T. H. Potts, Esq , Dr. Rouse, and H. Allwright, Esq,, J.P.’s.] Ebeiety.- Owen Kelly and O. Watson ] were let off for a breach of this offence with J a caution. >■ Embezzling Stores. Thomas Forsyth i and A. Kait, on remand from yesterday, were j charged with unlawfully abstracting liquors \ from tba cabin of the Jessie Nieol. The Bench, taking into consideration the prisoner’s \ previous good character, sentenced them to j seven days’ imprisonment. : Lunacy.—George Nearos, on remand from the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Ashburton for lunacy from drink, was again remanded to appear on the 6th inat. :