ARRIVAL OF THE WILLIAM MISKIN, FROM HOKITIKA.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 294, 3 August 1865, Page 1 (Supplement)

ARRIVAL OF THE WILLIAM MISKIN, FROM HOKITIKA.

TOTAL WRECK OF THE STEAMER TTTANIA. INCREASED RUSH TO THE GREY. 5.500 OUNCES OF GOLD BROUGHT BY THE WILLIAM MISKIN. [From tba Nelson Examiner, July 25.] The steamer William Mishin reached Nelson on Saturday afternoon, having left Hokitika ou the preceding morning. The steamer Titania, which left our port on Saturday, the loth J uly, for Hokitika, with a large number of passengers, many of whom were females whom she had brought from Dunedin, was wrecked on Wednesday morning iu attempting to cross the Hokitika bar. No lives were lost, and the primcipal part of the cargo was saved. The sad dis aster occurred through misunderstanding tho ■shore signals. ■ Thecbief news ii the rush to the Grey, where the diggings are turning out exceedingly well. Great numbers are leaving the Hokitika for the Nelsi-n diggings. ; The William Miskin has brought with her 6.500 ounces of gold, which, added to the 10,000 ■ounces brought by the Wallaby, on the preceding Monday, gives 15,000 ounces of gold received in Nelson from Hokitika within a week. The schooner Tiger, from Nelson, went on ■shore on the South Spit in attempting to cuter the •airet.

The Cytnracs, which had grounded on tho -North Spit, had been got oil - . We extract the following from the West Coast Times, of the Kdh and lyth J uly:— We hare received from a correspondent a few Remarks of a -prospecting tour to the southward of Hokitika. The writ er says—“ W c could obtain gold alon*l everywhere, but notin payable quantities. What seems to be a very great drawback, ■is the f vct that we could never obtain bottom, and the w ash, in most of the places -which tra tried, appears unsfratitied. It seems to me, from Abut head for a considerable distance south, the -mountains approached too close to the soa, teonse--quently the course of the rivers is very «bort, to 'which i-sttrilmtetlre contused state of the wash ; St hoiDg found always more so tho nearer v.-e approach tiie source of the rivers. It is on this account that my mate and party ore now trying between Arnot Point-and Jackson’s Bay, where the femUfitains recede a -considerable distance from «he shore, and form a bight similar ip the tract vowftcy-on+heooast where .Hokitika is situated. \ZJ-e -eiCpecl to find there tire continuation of the frits** «of the ife'kc'Ctold-frelds at Otago.”

SUPREME COUET. TUESDAY, Ist AUGUST, 1865. CHIMIN AL SITTINGS. His Honor took his seat at 10'30 a.m.; and. then delivered his opening address, of which, we are sorry to say, we have been unable to procure a report. The Grand Jury found true bills in the following cases:— Jos. M‘Guinncss, forgery and uttering# cheque on the Bank of Rew Zealand. A nn M‘Douald, keeping a disorderly house. Edward Smith and Stephen Muleahy stealing a purse containing a sum of money. Honoria Bradshaw, etedhig from Sarah Williams the stim of £6, a watch, and various other articee. The following jury was empannelled -.—Joshua Lear, W i&. Lear, Tliomas Morrison, Jas. Beake, Robert Brenton, E. J. Touet, Simeon Rewbold. W. F. Palmer, Robert Carver, James Graham, Amos Withevow, Laurence Higgins. S?OBG-EET AND UTXEEING. Joseph M‘Guinness was charged with having forged a cheque on the Bank of Rew Zealand, in the name of G. E. Lee, Esq., solicitor. A second ||count charged him with having uttered the same, knowing it to be forged. William Burton deposed that on the 26th June the prisoner had exchanged a cheque, bearing the signature of G. E. Lee, for money. He had exchanged one with him previously, but he did not remember the date. George Edmund Lee, deposed ; lama solicitor practising at Rapier. I know the prisoner ; he was once in my employ as clerk. He came to me a day or two before the 2Cth June, and was some months in my service. I have an account in the Bank of Rew Zealand. Ropart of the document Aisin my hand writing. He hasl'requently seen me sign my name—in fact constantly. Thu first part ol the signature is like my hand writing ; the vi hole is manifestly an imitation of it. I never heard ot any other person the same name as myself.

Prisoner: Did you never give me orders to fill up any cheques for you ? \V itness : .Never. 1 am very particular about filling up my cheques myself. 1 do not remember more than one instance where I did so. James Wood deposed : I am accountant in the Bank of New Zealand at Napier. His Honor (handing him document marked A) : What is your opinion of this ? \\ itness : That it is waste paper. It is a cheque which is not properly filled up ; it is not dated j ueiiher has it any sum of money written in the body ot it. 1 never beau! ot»a Bank that would honor such an order. If this had been Mr Lee’s real signature, it would not hare been cashed at the Bank.

His Honor here raised a point of law as to whether the document was a legal warrant or order for money. 5 Prisoner in bis defence said that he had been employed in Mr Lee’s office for some months; (hat Mr Lee owed him the sum of £3 l(!s., and told bin. to write out a cheque for that amount, winch h! would sign ; that not being acquainted with ti.-e method of drawing up a cheque, ho had omitted the amount in the body and the date ; and that Mr Lee had then signed it. His Honor then addressed the jury. They had merely to be guided by questions of tact as brought before them in the evidence, as it was not points of law they had to deckle. They bad to decide between the evidence of the witness Burton and Mr Lee on oath in the prosecution and the defence of the prisoner. The question as to whether the document A was a legal order for money was for the Court to decide.

The jury then retired, and found the prisoner guilty of uttering a cheque, knowing it to be forged.

IlgThe question of whether the document was a legal order or warrant for money was deferred, and prisoner was ordered to find two sureties of £IOO each to appear next session. Being unable to do so, be was committed to prison for the term. LARCENY. Honoria Bradshaw was charged with stealing from fcarah VV illiams the sum of £6. in money, a watch worth £3. 10s., a knife, a thimble, a pair of spectacles, and a bag. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and his Honor, in consideration of this being a first offence, and that the prisoner had been 156 days in prison, sentenced her to imprisonment with hard labour for the term of two calendar months. A new jury was then called, as follows.— Charles Pulford, Amos Witherow, Benjamin Warnes, William F. Palmer, E. J. Touet, Michael Baldwin, John Cunningham, Robert Finlayson, Robert Brenton, John Marshall, John Young! Edward Hamlin. ° DISORDERLY HOtTSE. Ami M'Donald was then charged with keeping a disorderly house. 1 8 Tiie prisoner pieadedguilty. His Honor said that as it had been represented ■that the object of this prosecution was not as much to punish the woman as to put down a nuisance, he would discharge her, with the provision that if she again committed a similar offence, she would be dealt with with the utmost severity. highway robbery.

Edward Smith and Stephen Mulcahy were charged with robbing William Whitwell of a sum •of money on the, aih of April, 1860. Another

count charged the second prisoner with aiding and abetting in the robbery. William Whitwell, the plaintiff said that he was a working man, residing at Waipawa. On Sunday, the sth April, riding «p to town, he met the prisoners near the Albion Hotel, took them in and treated them. They were then ordered off by Mr Campbell, the publican. Outside, he had a dispute with Mulcahy, and threw bis coat upon the ground to light. While straggling with Mulcahy, the other prisoner seized the coat as it lay on the ground, and abstracted a purse from the pocket of it. He then ran away, and was pursued by plaintiff, but without being caught. He had £5. or £6. in the purse. Robert Day deposed to having been in the public house, and seeing through a window the struggle between plaintiff and Mulcahy. He then saw Smith pick up the coat and take something out of the pocket. John Ashton deposed that he lived nest door but one to the public house, and between 11 and 12 o clock was returning from church when he saw Smith, Mulcahy, and Whitwell, struggling together. He saw Smith suddenly take up Whitwell s coat, and take something out of the pocket. He saw that this was a purse. Prisoner afterwards took something out of the purse and put in his breast. Abous fifty yards off he threw the purse away. Witness watched where it fell, and afterwards picked it up, and gave it to a policeman. There was nothing in it. Edward Ashton deposed that he was brother to the last witness. Erom information given by his brother he went out of his father’s house. He saw Smith running away, and followed him, crying “ Stop, thief,” He saw him throw away a purse, but did not stop to pick it up. He pursued the prisoner for a considerable distance, until stopped by another soldier, who threatened that he would “ kick his head off” if he proceeded any iurther. He then went and informed Sergeant-Major Scully. Thu prisoner, in his defence, said that he went to the Albion Hotel on the day in question, saw Whitwell there, got drunk, and did not remember anything after lie went out. E. hairtlough was then ealled, and stated that he was captain of the company in the 2nd battalion 14th regiment, to which the prisoner belonged. For so young a man ho bore a very bad character in the regiment. Tlie Jury, after a short deliberation, found: — Mulcahy, ndt guilty : Smith, guilty. His Honor sentenced Smith, in addition to 118 days already in prisoi, to imprisonment.with hard labor, lor the period of six calendar months. This closed the criminal business ol the Session.

WEDNESDAY, 2nd AUGUST.

CIVIL SITTINGS. / His Honor took his sent at 10 o’clock. The following jury were then called D. H. Graham, Jolm Cunningham, Simeon New bold, Benjamin Warnes, Jolm Marshall, Amos-With-erow, Edward Puiford, Robert Brenton, Thomas Edwards, Laurence Itiggins. Michael Baldwin, W. F. Palmer. HILL V. BEG G. Mr Lee appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Wilson for the defendant. Mr Lee, having stated the case for the plaintiff, called Boswell Danby Danvers, who deposed that he was defendant in the case of Begg v, Danvers. An execution had been carried out against him some time ago, on his farm near Havelock, in wliich several horses and some drays were seized. This property, though on his premises was not his, but his brother’s. He sold them at the beginning of May. There was a bill of sale (produced and marked A.) Mr. Wilson objected to its being read, as it was contrary to the Bill of Sales Act, 1851. After some discussion His Honor ruled that it should be read.

Witness continued : The agreement was that his brother (A. T. Danvers) should take an original mortgage to a man named hooks, and pay witness the sura of £IOO. The mortgage was for £•100, with £sl 11s (id compound interest. His brother took full possession of the property. He worked them on the roads as a carrier, and not on my (arm. He paid for a few weeks £2 per week, for his own lodgings mid the use of a paddock., but this was afterwards reduced to 30s. Wilness’ first transactions with Looks was in Feb., 1864They signed a memorandum in Mr B. Taylor’s office, hooks lent him £4OO. The agreement was made in February, 18ti4 ; the deed not signed till May. The money was payable, Feb. 3, 1865. J. Grindell deposed: 1 am Deputy Registrar, A Bill of Sale was registered on the 12th May, 1864, from Danvers to Danvers. A long discussion then took place as to whether sufficient notoriety had been given to the sale to make it a matter of public knowledge that the goods had been transferred from B. D. Danvers to to his brother. His Honor ruled that sufficient notice had not been given, and advised the jury to give a general verdict. The jury returned a verdict for defendant with leave for plaintiff to set aside the verdict. STUART AND KINROSS V. DAVIS. Mr Wilson appeared for .plaintiffs j Mr Lee for defendant. ■ Mr Wilson called— James Mcliss -Stuart, who deposed that he was one of the plaintiffs. He was in partnership with John Gibson Kinross until November, 1862. At the dissolution of partuerslvip whkffdccured'in

that month all the property was put to the hammer. Defendant was one of the purchasers- His bill amounted to £62. Os. 3d. At that time he owed us an old-standing account of £164., for which we had security. Immediately after the auction we sent him a promissory’ note for the amount, for him to sign and back to us. He neglected to do so, and by this means the account was overlooked. In 1863 we were urgent for him to pay the whole amount. He gave us a bill for £ 164., which was dishonored. Afterwards he pa'd us £lO. cash, and we took a renewal for the balance, which was afterwards paid. [Ledger produced.] I ordered some timber in the beginning of 1862 from Davis. I told him if it was not delivered within one or two months—l forget which—it would be no use to me, and he need not send it at all. All that I ever got was an insignificant quantity, not exceeding 1500 feet, and that came long after the specified time. The value of the timber was about £7. It does not appear in the ledger. In September, 1863, the deed of mortgage on the amount of the account was carried into the ledger. It is for the auction sale alone. There has been no payment on such auction sale at all. There was nothing ever paid bat the old £164. If Davis had sent in the promissory note, as all other buyers did, his account would never have been On the 12th March, 1863, the clerk made up the general account for Mr Davis, but it was only tha old account; he overlooked the auction sale. John G-ibson Kinross deposed.—The account for the auction sales was carefully kept separate' the orhers. John l ‘avis depased.—l reside at Ngawaktatarn. I am the defendant in this case. I remember going to town to settle an account for six or seven thousand feet of timber, and also for some goods bought at auction. Messrs. Stuart and Kinross both were present, and looked over their books. They told me the money should have been paid for the goods bought at auction, and that the timber should have been delivered earlier. I gave them a bill for £1.64. The value of ttie timber was £6O or £7O. In consequence of the timber being delivered later than agreed to, I consented to make a reduction in the price. W <; settled that the value; of the goods bought at auction should be set olf by the timber. 1 was not able to meet the bill I gave them.

Cross-esumiacd by Mi- Wilson.—The partners were both then-. It was Mr Stuart who did not wish to be paid the full amount. I have an account of the transaction. I have no copy of it here. I have not got my book. I left it behind. By His Honor.— There was a letter on the subject. I burnt it. I sent no answer to the letter. When I saw them I mentioned this demand, and said it must have been an error. It was a month or less alter I received the letter that 1 came to town. I then told Mr Stuart regarding the timber. He did not give me any satisfactory answer. He showed me a copy of the letter. The sale was to the firm. I engaged Mr Fairvveather as carter. He is now dead. Messrs. Stuart and Kinross both accepted and acknowledged the receipt of the timber, Mr Stuart recalled : It is not true that I arranged that the timber he delivered should be a set-off against the debt. I have no recollection of having made any such arrangement. There was not more than 1,506 ft. delivered at my house, and none at the premises of the firm. 1 remember writing that I would not pay the amount agreed upon as the timber was not delivered in time. There was no delivery of more than 1,500 feet, and I never ordered any such quantity as 6,000 ft. He settled the £164 account in May. He brought the old account, in which the auction account did not appear. The first thing that drew my attention to it was that our book-keeper said that Mr Davis had never paid his auction sale account. J. G. Kinross, recalled ,• I have not the slightest recollection or cTe? agreeing that the value of the timber was to be a set-off to the debt I have searched the books and can find no, trace of it. In the course of business it must have appeared in one of the books. Mr Lee addressed the Jury for the defence he contended that it was an error on the part of Messrs Stuart, Kinross & Co., that they had forgotten the transaction, Jtc. ' Sir Wilson addiessed the jury. He mentioned the utter untrastworthiness of Davis' statement. I had a letter; t burnt it; I gave the goods to a carter ; he is dead ; I have a book with it all in ; but I left it at home. He could not tell them a single fact. It was sis or seven thousand feet of timber—it come to sixty or seventy pounds at 22s per hundred feet. This was the only slyle of evidence the defendant would give.

His Honor then summed up to tho Jury very carefully, and at considerable length. He referred to the improbability of the matter, escaping from the recollection of both of the parties if such an agreement had been made, and the utter impossibility of that particular sum being arrived at without reference to the auction sale. It rested with the jury to consider whether the partners, and the books of the firm were to be believed against the Mr Stuart’s was. He then read over the evidence of tire defendant. He referred to the impossibility of the defendant’s story being true if evidence to the jury. It was for them to decide which party was most worthy of belief. The-Jury then retired, and after an absence of an hour and a quarter, returned a verdict for the defendant, —deciding that all the claims of Messrs Stuart, Kinross and Co., had been .satisfied by him. The court then adjourned.