RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume VIII, Issue 539, 1 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, June 29. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) John Wilson, for having been drunk and disorderly, was fined £1 or 48 hours' imprisonment. Breach op Distillation Act.— T, M'Millan was charged, on the information, of H. F. Andrews, Esq., Inspector of Dis 4 tilleries, with carrying on business as a wine and spirit merchant at Stoney Lead without having registered his name under the Act. Mr Andrews stated thai the premises occupied by the defendant were registered under the name of M'Lean. He produced the register ; the defendant's name was not entered there. By the defendant : He did not know that the store was registered by Mr M'Lean for the firm of M'Lean and M'Millan. Was not aware that Mr M'Lean was Mr M'Millan'a partner at the time when the store was registered.— Constable Moeller knew the defendant's premises at the Stoney Lead. He held a bottle license under the name of M'Lean and M'Millan. When called upon he exhibited a license under the Distillation Act in the name of M'Lean. He cautioned him to see Mr Andrews about it.— The defence was that the store was registered by Mr M'Lean, on behalf of the late firm of M'Lean and M'Millan, in his name only by some mistake. Ha was under the impression that it was sufficient for the firm. Mr M'Lean was called and corroborated this statement. He was under the impression that he gave the names of both partners to Mr Andrews, and it was owing to his oversight that the defendant's name was left out of the license, but he would not swear it. The Magistrate remarked that both partners, must have their names registered. It was for the defendant to see that the license was properly filled up. On the dissolution of partnership it was necessary for the defendant to take out a license in his own. name. But there appeared to be no wilful infringement of the Act, and the case would be dismissed on pajment of costs, by the defendant, who would have to take out the license. EMBEZZLEMENT. Alexander Johnston was charged With having, on the Ist February, embezzled the sum of L 25 13s 6d, monies received by him on behalf of the firm of N. Edwards and Co. Richard Nancarrow : lam manager for the firm of N. Edwards and Co. in Greymouth, under a power of attorney. The prisoner was employed as my clerk and storeman for about fifteen months. It was part of his duty to collect monies on. account of the firm and pay them over to me the same day. In February last, Mr Duncan M'Lean, Boundary street, was due the firiu L 25 13s 6d for goods. The prisoner collected that amount; I have seen his receipt. He has never accounted to me for that amount. I saw the prisoner that day. He asked for a holiday to go to the Eight-mile diggings, to return on the following evening. I gave him. permission to go, but he never returned* I had no suspicion of the prisoner until his receipt was produced for money paid to him, and for which he had nob accounted. The account produced is receipted by the prisoner for L 25 13s 6d received from Mr M'Lean on the 21st February, Mr M'Lean has informed me that he paid prisoner that amount. Prisoner had authority to receive monies on account of the firm, but not to appropriate them to his own use. He accounted to me, and Ito the firm. I did not see the prisoner from the time I gave him leave of absence until about the Bth of May in Melbourne. He was then in custocy. I engaged the prisoner ; he was the servant of the firm ; I had power to dismiss him. Duncan M'Lean : I am a storekeeper in Boundary street. I knew that Mr Nancarrow was manager for the firm of IT. Edwards and Co. in Greymouth in February last. I was then indebted to that firm L 25 13s (xl for goods, received. TJio

prisoner was employed by that firm. On tko Ist February last the prisoner calle.l with the account, requested payment of it, I paid it, and he receipted it. That is his signature. I paid him in cash, L 25 13s 6d. Either that day or the next I saw the prisoner on horseback. „ He told me he was going to the New River. That is the last time I saw him until he was in custody. After I heard the prisoner was missing I informed Mr Nancirww that T had paid my bill to the prisoner, and showed him the receipt afterwards. Sub-Inspector James handed in the warrant to show that the prisoner was arrested in Melbourne. The prisoner, having been cautioned, said — " I have nothing to say further than that I acknowledge the charge." There was another charge against the prisoner of embezzling a cheque or order of Ihe value of Ll7 7s, which he received from James Middleton on account of the firm of N. Edwards and Co. on the Ist February last. Mr Narcarrow gave evidence similar to that given in the last case. James Middleton : I am a hotelkeeper in Greymouth. On Ist February last I was indebted to the firm of N. Edwards and Co. Ll7 7s for goods supplied. Mr Nancarrow is manager for the firm in Greymouth. The prisoner called on nio on the Ist February for payment of the account produced for Ll7 7s. 1 paid him the amount by cheque on the Bank of New Zealand in favor of N. Edwards and Co. I produce the receipt signed by the prisoner. I did not see the prisoner afterwards until he was in custody. Alex. Murray Hunter : I am a tobacconist in Greymouth. I know the prisoner. He was in the employ of N. Edwards and Co. on Ist February last. On that day he presented me a cheque drawn by James Middleton in favor of N. Edwards and Co. for over Ll7, and asked me to cash it. I did so, and paid it in to the Union Bank in the usual way, and received credit for the amount. I did not see the prisoner again until he was in custody, and had no further conversation with him about it. The prisoner was again cautioned, and admitted the charge. There was another charge against the prisoner of embezzling a cheque or order for L7O 5s received from Alex. Murray Hunter on account of N. Edwards and Co. , on the Ist February. Mr Nancarrow repeated his former evidence. A. M. Hunter : I am a tobacconist in Greymouth. On the Ist February last I was indebted to the firm of N. Edwards and Co. L7O 5s for goods supplied. The prisoner was in the employ of that firm. He called on me on the Ist February, presented me with my account for the full amount, which I paid him by a cheque on the Union Bank, in favor of N. Edwards and Co. He receipted the account, which is produced baariiy his signature. The cheque produced is the one I gave him. I had frequently paid the prisoner money on account of the firm prior to this. I saw the prisoner half-an-hour after I paid him the money, but never again until he was in custody. William Buchanan : On Ist February last 1 was ledger-keeper at the Union Bank, Greymouth. Mr David Thompson was teller that day. The cheque produced bears my initials, and I believe it was debited to A. M. Hunter's account on the Ist February. I find a description on the back of the cheque of the notes and coin paid in MrThompson's handwriting. This cheque must have been presented at the counter, and the cash paid over. I obtained it from the head-office, Hokitika. Mr Thompson is at present on leave of absence. The prisoner was again formally cautioned, when he admitted the charge On all three charges he was committed for trial to the Supreme Court, Hokitika, to be holden on the 10th September. CIVIL CASES. Jackson v. Carroll. — This was a rehearing of a claim for L 6, the value of a sail delivered to the defendant, to be carried to the Teremakan, but which he failed to deliver. - The plaintiff was nonsuited, having failed to prove the non- delivery of the sail. A. R. Guinness v. Patrick Caldwell. — Judgment by default for L 2 7s, and costs. Williams v. Kilgour. — Claim of LSO for damage done to a dam in High street on the 2nd June.— William Williams stated that his dam was injured by the defendant, who caused a lot of logs to be placed three feet below the level of the dam bank, over which to run his line of tramway. He also forcibly took possession of the dam, and caused a portion of it to be cut away, although he had received notice two days previously from the plaintiff not to interfere with it. The dam was a portion of a water-race, without which the race was useless. The damages were claimed for the plaintiff having been idle from the 2nd June to date, and also for the destruction of the dam. Being cross-examined, the plaintiff stated that the dam was on a portion of High street. He had been fined in Court for having a fence in High street which was this dam. The defendant's men cut away the dam. He did not hear the defendant order them to do it. The water had been let off before the logs were laid down by the defendant. The water remaining then was not sufficient to j be of any use to the plaintiff. — Samuel | Williams corroborated this evidence. — Ihe defence was, that Messrs Kilgour and Perotti had permission from the Borough Council to run their tramway-line through High street. The plaintiff's dam obstructed their progress, and the defendant did nothing to injure it except under the privileges granted them by the Council. It was proved that the plaintiff was ordered by the Council to remove his dam by a certain time, or it would be removed at hia expense. He failed to remove it, and the Town Surveyor, acting under instructions from the Borough Council, employed labor, broke down the dam, let the water off, and the defendant then laid his tram-way-line in accordance with the permission granted him. The defendant said the dam could now be re-built as before, and be of use to the plaintiff. — The Magistrate dismissed the case.