SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2220, 7 April 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CEIMINAL SITTINGS, This Day. [Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court resumed at 10 a.m. POBQEEY. James Scott was indicted for having forged a receipt for money. Prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded not guilty. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Charles Jones deposed to being employed at Chatmoss Station, where the prisoner was manager. In December witness purchased goods from a hawker to the amount of £1 9s, and gave an order on prisoner, as manager, who paid it. Witness never gave prisoner a receipt, or anyone. He never gave the receipt produced, nor put his mark to it. The receipt produced is signed by mark; witness signed by name. The only receipt ever given by witness to prisoner was one in August, for £3 10s. Witness believed that the name Charles Jones, to the receipt, was in prisoner’s handwriting. The date of the order produced is 30th October for £8 5s in the name of Charles Jones. Witness never received it. There was no other Charles Jones on the station to witno-s' knowledge. Ho bad had his whole wages paid up to the end of the year. An account had been rendered to him from the agents of Chatmoss estate. Witness disputed an item of £8 ss, which he had never received.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—The account was given to witness by Mr Foster, the clerk. Witness never gave a receipt for the £1 9s. William Mitchell, a hawker, deposed to selling Jones £1 9s worth of goods and £1 worth to prisoner, and receiving payment from the prisoner by an order on Miles, Hassell and Co. for £8 ss. Witness gave him the change between £2 9s and £8 ss. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—lt was not unusual for prisoner to pay witness’s account by an order conatining the two accounts. For the past eight or nine years witness had supplied goods for men on the station, and had taken one order for as many as fifteen or twenty men. Witness had often given Mr Scott change out of orders before the present occasion. Witness traded amongst the men employed on the station, and knew no one of the name of Jones except the witness. Prisoner had a number of transactions with witness, and ho never found him “crooked.” Prisoner was manager of Lokely, Isleworth, and Chatmoss stations.

Thomas Taylor, clerk to Miles, Hassal and 00., deposed to being at Chatmoss on 29th December lust. On December 30th prisoner gave witness a receipt for £8 ss, purporting to be signed by Charles Jones. The receipt produced was the one. Witness believed the writing of the receipt was that of the prisoner.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Prisoner kept the accounts at Chatmoss. There was a cadet to keep the books, and after be left a man named Branson was engaged to look after the boobs. There was only one account in the books in the name of Charles Jones. Witness produced the bocks kept at the Chatmoss estate. They were partly kept at the station and partly in Christchurch from statements sent down. The wages account in the name of Charles Jones was in the handwriting of Brunson. Walter Poster gave evidence as to the payment of the order for £8 5 1 by Miles and 00. Witness saw prisoner after he had ceased to bo manager of Chatmoss, He volunteered a statement to witness as to the £8 ss, which was taken down and signed by prisoner. The memo, was “ T. P. Jones, eight weeks' work at fences and grass seed sowing, at £1 per week.” Prisoner said, “ This must have been charged to Charles Jones’ account." He told witness that this amount to T P. Jones occurred in May, 1880. Witness never heard of T. P. Jones before or since. Witness believed the receipt was written by the prisoner. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt: Witness wrote the memo, produced re T. P. Jones, and prisoner signed it. This was in February, 1880. Prisoner gave witness the information ostensibly from a memo. book. There was no entry in the books of “T. P. Jones, eight weeks at £l."

Edward Lovett deposed that he had been on the estate for two .years and a half, and had not known any one working there of the name of T. E. Jones.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr Joynt as to his having said that he knew another man of the name of Jones, but the witness denied it.

Mr Joynt asked that the witness Jones should be recalled.

In answer to Mr Joynt, he said that ho had bet with a man named Walker as to the result of the trial.

In_ re-examination by Mr Duncan, witness said it was before he laid the information against the prisoner that Walker offered to bet with him, and he took him up. Walter Poster, recalled by Mr Duncan, deposed that orders for payment were drawn on separate accounts for drainage, wages, fencing, <to. No personal accounts were kept in their books.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Forms were sent to the manager of the station to fill up, so as to show what each man did on the station. The prisoner was decidedly careless in his way of sending up accounts. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Joynt opened the case for the defence, stating that he intended to call two witnesses to prove that there was another man on the station named Charles Jones, besides the one they had had before them that day. The following evidence was given for the defence—

Thomas Dayman deposed that ho was at the house of a man named Fowler about a month ago. Witness saw Lovett there, Lovett said he know that this man Jones that there was so much hubbub about worked one day with him at Chatmoss. Lovett said it was the Jones who worked with Messitcr, not the Charles Jones who had been in the box that day. Lovett said the whole affair would be cleared up. John Walker deposed to having had a contract at Chatmoss last year for cutting the drains. Witness know a man named Messiter, who was at work there. He also knew a man named Jones, who was working for Messiter. He was a young man about nineteen. Wit-

ness first saw the man working there in July, but he could not say if he saw him there in September. If Jones wore working at fencing or general work witness would not be likely to see him.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—Witness was at Ohatmoas in Juno and November of last year. Mecsiter had completed his contract at the end of October or the beginning of November. Witneai heard Messiter call the man he had spoken of Jones, also called him Jones. Mr Joynt addressed the jury for the defence. Mr Duncan having replied, his Honor summed up. The jury retired at 1.10 p.m. to consider their verdict; at 1.25 they returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor—Do you intend proceeding with the cose of embezzlement, Mr Duncan ? Mr Duncan—Yes, your Honor. The Court then adjourned till 2 p.m. On resuming at 2 p.m., Mr Joynt said that he had been asked by the prisoner to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of embezzlement, and. plead guilty to it. His Honor—l think he has done wisely. Mr Joynt called the following evidence aa to character:— Hay Smith deposed that he was a farmer at Ashburton. He had known prisoner for thirteen or fourteen years. Ho had boon manager at Longbeaoh for Mr John Grigg, and had been manager for the Ohatmoss Company at different stations for a number of years. The prisoner was a man of excellent character, and was generally considered as an honest man. John Carter, of the firm of Wilkin and Carter, deposed, to having known the prisoner for some years. The prisoner was considered as a man of honesty throughout the district. His Honor re-called Mr Foster, as to the extent of the defalcations of the prisoner. The witness stated that there were several cases of defalcations, commencing about the beginning of the year 1880. Witness could not say anything about what were the temptations which had induced the prisoner to commit the embezzlements.

Mr Duncan said that the prisoner had filed his petition in insolvency. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour on the forgery case, and the same on the embezzle* ment, the sentences to run concurrently, remarking that the loss of good name and position to a man having held the status the prisoner had, was in itself a terrible punishment.

The Court then adjourned to Monday next, at 11 a.m., when the Civil Sessions will commence,