TE KUITI MAGISTRATES COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 216, 13 December 1909, Page 5

TE KUITI MAGISTRATES COURT.

Thursday, December % 1909. n;*<fur- Mr F. G'B. Lougbnan, S.M. In t,h* following eivit cases judgment went for the plaintiffs by default:— AlbrtM-htsen v. Donkin; Stevens (Mr Hin«) v. Mahoed: Green sad (\>let>rook (Mr Hint) v. Lonus. In the judgment summons case: (Mr Finlay) v. Anderson,,- the judgment debtor was ordered to pay the amount due, JE3 IT» Sd or in default I I days imprisonment. Order to be suspended if debtor pays £1 on January Ist, and JSZ I7s <sd on February Ist.

Towrubend (Air Finlay) v. Ratima (Mr ftitie) : This was a claim for nnes for non-supply of milk to the Aria Dairy Factory and had been adjourned from last Court day for legal argument. After bearing the arguments of Counsel His Worship held that the agreement was not an instrument under "'the Chattels Transfer Act 1998/* and was therefore not void under the Nativw Land Court Act for nontranalation. Mr Hine then raised the question of misrepresentation and the <:: is« will be further heard on January JOth next.

Diverting a Subscription.— James Burns Young, who appeared en remand from Auckland, was charged with collecting money from a number of Te Kuiti residents by means of false representations. Accused was further charged with putting XI Is obtained from F. B. Darrow to his own use. Constable Mathew conducted the prosecution and accused conducted his own defence.

In stating the case for the prosecu tion Constable Mathew said accused hail collected sums of money hy representing that the money was to be devoted to erecting a pavilion and

dressing room on the Domain. There were 75 names on the list and the amount of Sli 0s 6d had btvn collect-

cd. The pavilion had net been erected and no account had been given of the money. W. F. St. George, auctioneer of Te Kuiti, givnig evidence for the prosecution stated that he entered into partnership with accused some time ago. The book produced was the property of accused and the entries were in accused's writing. Witness was cross-examined at length by accused as to partnership transactions the accused stating he wished to show malice with respect to witness' connection with the prosecution.

Witness admitted he was not friendly towards accused. F. B. Darrow stated in evidence that on or about May 31st last accused interviewed witness and asked for a donation towards the erection of » pavilion and dressing room on Te Kuiti Domain. Witness gave accused a guinea. Had he thought accused had not been instructed to collect the money

for the purpose mentioned he did not think he would have given the donation. The money was donated for a specific purpose. Cross - examined by th# accused witness said he did not think fee wooid have raised any ojbectton if the money had been spent in any other direction for the improvement of the Domain. Know accused was president of the Maniapoto Rugby Union. If witness had known accused had approached the Domain Board with a view to having money epxended in a different manner didn't think be would have objected. Witness had not authorised the prosecution. To- Constable Matthew : The pavilion had not beenerected. F. H. Sims gave evidence with respect to the donatie* of ten shillings to the fund. The money was donated for the specific purpose of cr actinjf • pavilion. Tb* building had not been erected. To Accused: Remembered accused asking him for » couple of shovels. Understood two men were to be pot on to do some work on the Domain. Had not instructed anyone to take action against accused. Had work other than the erection of a pavilion been done for the benefit of the Domain witness would have been satisfied the

money had not been misdirected. Accused her* stated be bad receipts for payment of work done on the Domain but these documents had been purloined. H. A Ellison gave evidence at to donating 10a id to the fund. The pavilion had not been erected If 3© it was not visible to the naked eye. To Accused: Witness had not instructed a prosecution. Would have been satisfied if the money had been utilised for the benefit of the Domain in other directions though he would have liked to have seen the pavilion erected. E. J. Thompson gave evidence as to paying accused 10s 6d on behalf of Cotter Bros, and 5s on behalf of H. Kneebone to aid in the erection of a pavilion. [n answer to accused witness said be had not authorised a prosecution. V. S. Hattaway stated he had given accused 10» 6d towards the fond for the erection of a pavilion. Knew accused was president of the Maniapoto Bugby Union, Had not authorised a prosecution. W. Price gave similar evidence with repsect to a donation of 16s. A. S. Gresbamv secretary of the Maniapoto Rugby Union stated in evidence that no authority bad been given to accused by the Union to collect money for a pavilion. Witness knew of £2 10s paid by accused for work done on the Domain. As secretary of the Union witness 1 bandied th* Union funds. Accused bad given the £2 10s to witness. Understood it was from the money collected by accused, and independent of the football funds. To Accused: Remembered accused coming to him and showing a list of moneys collected. Accused told bim the amount. Witness promised to contribute to' the fund. At on* or more jf the Upion meetings accused suggested the Rugby Union sbottid confer with the Domain Board and decide what was to be done witb th* money that had been collected. Witness rang up members of the Board and asked them to meet the Union officials and one of the Board members promised to attend but did not turn up. At a subsequent meeting accused referred to the fact that it was unsatisfactory that the Domain Board members could

not be got to confer with the Union and again moved toot the Foard numbers should be asked to met them. Witness reported to the meeting that ! £2 \m was dot to R. Hewer for draining the Domain. The amount was : paid to Hewer oat of the fond col Jetted <by accused. Did not rem*rob*r if it I was specially resolved or whether the Union delegates merely agreed upon I the matter without a resolution. Accosed promised to pay another account. j The money for this account was not paid to witness and he did not think Che account had been paid. Witness had rot received the balance of the money that had been collected. For the defence- A. F. He worth colled by accused said he wt» a delegate to the Rogty Union last season. Had attended most os to*? meeting*. He remembered accosted amcouncing he had taken op a subscription with the object of having a pavilion erected on the Domain. The amount that had been collected was stated. Witness remembered at one meeting the secretary being instructed to write to the Domain Beard asking them to meet the Rugby Vnion ar.d discos* what was to be dene with the money. Remembered witnes* referring to the matter at a subsequent meeting. The matter of paying ter some fencing work cot of the fond was discussed by the Union and the delegate* approved of thru being done. Witness had given a donation. Did not consider the mercy misspent. To the Bench: The money was collected for a pavilion, hot th*r Union had endeavoured to cn-epecate wish the j Domain Hoard ur.dt had failed, and the : money in hand was insufficient for the erection of a pavilion. " The fencing was done. Did not know if it was paid for cot of the fond. To Constable Mathew: Do not know what became of the balance of the ! money. Knew accused was collecting j the money on his own initiative. Accosed had issued a valueless cheque to witness for £2. EL C. Falwaaser stated in evidence he was a delegate to the Kogby Union. Witness corroborated the evidence o»* ! the previous witness with resp«;t to ' accused's action in connection with the fund. If witness had been a subacri- j ber to the fund be woofi not have ob- j jeeted to the money being diverted to other work. Remembered it being decided that the amount for fencing should be paid out of the fond. To Constable Mathcw: Do n»i know ; what has become of the balance. Re- '

membered approximately what was collected and expended. Accused had never Hsued valueless cheques to witness.

To the Bench: Ths amount collected lie understood was about j£l-t and the amount expended about £2 t*)s. Accused acWreased the Bench and applied for a remand to enable him to produce receipts showing money spent on the Domain out of the fund. His private papers had been purloined or had srone astray and he wished to> msfce a thorough search for them. His Worship said accused was much too intelligent not to know it was imperative for him to get op his defence and he had had ptefity of time to do SO before the charge was heard. He would however, give him until I o'clock the following day to produce hist papers and account for the money. Accused would have ts» satisfy the Court that he had bona fide expended a certain portion of the money and retained bona fide a certain pert ion which was n«w available before he eoufd be acquitted. The ease was further heard en Friday at I p.m. when accused produced a statement of accounts together with vouchers accounting for the whole of the money with the exception of £1 0s tOd.

His Worship said that with regard to the six informations ot ebtsintng money by false representations the prosecution must fail. On the charge of having: obtained from one of the subscribers and directed to hi* own ewe the ion of £1 Is the circumstances were somewhat different. He thought accused had initiated and carried through the subscript ten in the beat of intentions at first. Accused now endeavoured to show- the matter was merely one of account* which could have been fixed up at any time To his mind His Worship said the fact that one of those accounts bad been passed for payment in June last and bad only been paid that day was conclusive. Taking the whole facts be was of opinion it was a case of restitution after prosecution. Accused would be convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Accused: Won't you allow an option your Worship? lib Worship: No option.