RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealander, Volume XVIII, Issue 1716, 20 August 1862, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 13th, 1862. uttering forged cheques. Absalom Blanton was charged by Henry Lewis with uttering a forged cheque, on Tuesday last, the 12th inst., amounting to the sum of £l3 9s„ purporting to be drawn by one Avery McLean. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Henry Lewis being sworn, stated: I am a storekeeper, residing in Auckland. I know the prisoner-, I saw him on Tuesday hist, between eight and nine o'clock in the evening. He came to our store. I belong to the firm of Lewis, Brothers He purchased an overcoat for £2 7s. 6d., and a carpet bag for 10s. Ho handed mc a cheque in payment; that is the one now produced; it is for £l3 95.; it is purported to be drawn by one Avery McLean. I asked him whose it was. He said it was one of Avery McLean's. I could not swear that I have seen Mr. McLean's handwriting. It is now some five years since I saw his writing. He said it was Mr. McLean's, of Howick, and that he had been working for him, and had received tho cheque in payment that day. I gave him the clothes and £lO 1 Is 6d. chanpe. I gent to tho bank next day to get it cashed. I sent it to the Union Bank by one of our assistants, whose name is Thomas Bacon. He did not get cash for it; he returned from the bank with Mr. Von Dadelzen, the clerk, who handed tho cheque back to me. I then gave it into the hands of Corporal Smith of the police, and the prisoner was apprehended on the charge of forgery. I saw the prisoner when he was apprehended, in the police guard room: I saw him searched, and he had J. 18 and a penny on him. Mr. Commissioner Naughton asked him whoso money it was. He said that £lO 1 Is. Gd- belonged to me, and the balance was Mr. Rayner's, when he called for it. Thomas Bacon, sworn, stated: I am an assistant in the store of Messrs. Lewis, Brothers. I know the cheque produced; purported to be signed by one Avery McLean. I saw tho cheque on Wednesday afternoon about three o'clock. Mr. Lewis told mc to run to the bank and get it cashed. I took it to the Union Bank of Australia, and there I was informed by Mr. Von Dadel/.en that the check was a forgery. Mr. Von Dadelzen came with me to Mr. Henry Lewis's, and handed the cheque to him. Otto Daniel Von Dadelzen, sworn, stated: I am a clerk in the Union Bank of Australia. I have seen tho cheque now produced: it was presented at our bank last Wednesday afternoon, by the last witness. It is purposed to bo drawn by Mr. Avery McLean, who is a customer of our bank. I did not cash the cheque, because it was a forgery: it does not represent the name of Mr. McLean, it is spelt wrong: Mr. McLean's christian name is spelt with an 15 not an A: it is calculated to deceive a person not well acquainted with the signature, but not ono who is. I went down, as soon as it was presented to mo, with the last witness to Mr. Lewis's store, and handed him the cheque, and told him it was a forgery. Every Maclean, sworn, stated: I am a settler, residing in Bleak House, near Howick. The check now produced does not boar my signature: I suppose it is iuton.d.fid, to represent rajt name; it i? i>ahmlii{ud to/ iUs

ceive an ordinary person, one not well acquainted with my name. I have met the prisoner in the road: he has never been in my employment. Corporal William Smith, sworn, stated: I am a Corporal in the Armed Police. I apprehended the prisoner, on the charge of forgery, last Wednesday afternoon, about five o'clock. I took him to the police guard room, and searched him. I found on him the purse I now produce, containing eighteen sovereigns and a penny, and in one of his pockets half-a-crown. On seeing the sovereigns in the purse he remarked, that £lO lis. Gd. was the property of Mr. Lewis, and the balance was Mr. Rayncr's, when he called for it. I got the cheque now produced from the prosecutor (Mr. Henry Lewis). It is purported to be drawn by one Avery McLean. I got it last Wednesday afternoon, and it has been in my possession ever since. The charge was then read over to the prisoner, who was asked whether he wished to say anything, but cautioned that it would be taken down and used against him on his trial. The prisoner wished to say nothing. Absalom Blanton was then charged by George Rayner, with uttering a forged cheque on the Bank of New South Wales, for the sum of £ls 3s. 9d., purporting to be drawn by one Henry Nicol, with intent to defraud the said George Rayner. George Rayner. sworn, stated: I am an hotel keeper: I am proprietor of the United Service Hotel, Queenstreet. I know the prisoner: I saw hitn on Tuesday last, about half-past nine or ten o'clock in the evening. He said he had come to pay his account, and presented mo with a cheque, the one now produced, in payment: it amounted to £ls 3s. 9d., purporting to be drawn by one Henry Nicol. He told me that Mr. Henry Nicol was a farmer at Otahuhu, and that he was son-in-law to Mr. Matthews, builder. The amount of the prisoner's account was, I think, £5 odd. I receipted his account, and gave him the balance by a cheque for £lO. On the following morning I looked at the check he had presented, and thought it looked suspicious. I took it myself to the Bank of New South Wales, the bank it is drawn on. I presented it to the check eierk, who told me that Henry Nicol had no account there. From information I received I communicated with the police, and the prisoner was apprehended on the charge of forgery. The cheque was afterwards handed by me to Corporal Smith, of the police. John William Matthews, sworn, stated: I am ledger keeper in the Bank of New South Wales. I saw the cheque now produced at the bank: it was presented by the last witness, Mr. Rayner, last Wednesday. I did not cash the cheque, because Mr. Nicol had no account there. I know Henry Nicol's signature: this is spelt wrong. Had I not known his signature I might have passed it. The signature on the cheque is not at all like Mr. Nicol's signature. Henry Nicholls, sworn, stated: I am a, farmer, living at East Tatnaki, between Howick and Otahuhu. I have seen the prisoner in Howick. The cheque produced docs not bear my signature: I suppose it is intended to represent mine: I suppose it is calculated to deceive an ordinary person: my name is not spelt the same, but it is pronounced the some way as that spelt on the cheque. Corporal William Smith, sworn, stated: I am a corporal in the Armed Police. I know the prisoner: I apprehended him last Wednesday afternoon, about five o'clock. I received the cheque now produced about twelve o'clock last Thursday, from Mr. Rayner. I took the prisoner to the police guard room: I found a purse on him containing eighteen sovereigns and a penny piece, and in his trousers pocket half-a-crown. Ho remarked that £lO lis. 6d. was the property of Mr. Henry Lewis, and the balance was Mr. Rayner's (the prosecutor) when he called for it. The cheque has been in my possession ever since I received it from the prosecutor. The charge was then read over to the prisoner, and he was asked in the usual manner whether there was anything he wished to say. The prisoner had nothing to say. He was then committed to take his trial at the next Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court for both cases of forgery. Before being removed the prisoner applied to the bench to know whether he would be allowed bail, and what would be the amount. His Worship stated that bail would be taken for the first case in two sureties of £SOO each, and the same in the other case. Prisoner also wished to know whether he would be allowed to take his clothes into prison with him. His Worship stated that ho would have to conform with the rules of the prison, and would obtain o'l information from the gaoler, Mr. McElwain. The prisoner was then removed. MONDAY, AUGUST 18th, 1862. DESERTER. William Howard was brought up and charged with being a deserter from the 70th Regiment. It appeared from the evidence of a Sergeant in the Militai/ Police that the prisoner was described as a deserter. Ordered to be handed over to the military authorities. TUESDAY, AUGUST 19tii, 1862. LAURIE V. KIRIIT. This was a case to recover damages stated to be done to goods consigned by plaintiff per the barque Dunedin from Melbourne via Otago. Mr. Wynn appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Whitaker for defendant. Mr. Wynn, in stating the case, said that plaintiff claimed damages in terms of the bill of lading, ina.much as the captain agreed to deliver them in good condition, but they were damaged; the claim was, therefore, for goods not being landed in good condition, according to the bills of lading, from Hobson's Bay. Mr. Laurie being called, stated: (examined by Mr. Wynn) I am plaintiff. The goods in that bill of lading aro consigned to me. The Roman cement was damaged; it showed water marks outside, and I found the centre quite solid like stone, which would arise from its being laid in water. I called a survey, and they condemned it. Mr. Dacro and Mr. Eaton were the survey. I could not say how long the water had got to it, it must have been some time. Ido not know where they were stowed in the ship. The cement fetched more than its value at the sale. Mr. Dacrc saw the cement. Cross-examined by Mr. Whitaker: I did not give notice to the captain; I could not sec him. I gave no opportunity to the captain to be present at tho survey. I could not say whether it is customary to ask any one concerned to be present. The things came on shore in a cargo boat—one of Casey's. I employed them to bring them off. 1 don't know in what state they were delivered to the boat; I cannot say whether they were damaged in the cargo boat or ship. I can swear they were damaged by salt water, for I saw the salt in the casks. I sold the last lot at 255. a barrel; I cannot say what is the market price of Roman cement now. I gave notice to the agents that they were going to be surveyed, and the captain said something about their being damaged when they were delivered on board. The captain said that there was a survey held at Dunedin, and he would let me sec it, I did not tell him of the sale. I considered it quite a fair transacion not to give him notice. Examined by Mr. Wynn: The cement must have been in water for some time; the damage could not havo been done in flic cargo boat, or the cement would have been wet. There is only one kind of Roman cement. The last lot I sold I got 255. for, and that is what I would have asked for this. Mr. Dacrc being called, stated, (examined by Mr. Wynn): lam u merchant. I recollect being on a survey of some cement from tho Dunedin. I found 10 casks sound and 10 damaged by water; it appeared to mc that they were damaged by lying in water, by the marks on the casks; the marks had been there some time; the cement is quite damaged; lam not awaio whether it can be ground up'again here. I think they were .damaged by lying in tho hold of some vessel for some time under water. This was the case for the plaintiff. Robert Dow being called, stated: I am mate of the Dunedin. I recollect some cement being on board; thero were 20 barrels; part of it was 6towed in the fore hold, and part of it in the aft. I put it over the side myself; 4 casks were slightly staved. [The receipt was here handed in and read by Mr. Whitaker; it was signed by the boatman, stating that the goods were received over the side in good condition. Mr. Wynn stated that the boatman was not competent to tell whether the goods were in good condition; the casks might have been, but he could not vouch for the cement inside of them being in good condition.] Examined by the Court: On tho passage from Dunedin here there was no other cargo but the cement in the fore hold; but on the passage from Melbourne to Dunedin there was cargo on the top of the cement, and it turned out all right. The pumps were kept constantly going, The vessel did not leak on the voyage more than usual; it is usual to pump every two hours; the vessel made very little water, about 6 inches in bad weather and lroin 2 to 4 in fair weather, every 24 hours. Wc had nine inches dunnage. The Bench observed that the ship was evidently relieved from all responsibility, the agent of the consignee was responsible ; it was the duty of the plaintiff to depute some person to receive the goods from the ship iii good condition. The plaintiff had employed tho boatman to receive the goods, and he had given i his receipt for the goods in good order, but he did nut j know their contents •, tho four casks 'were ndmittcuVw j dumagcd B —J'lwlgmwt furplaijitiff, £$ 2j, 7<].

ASSAULTS. Marks v. M'Ghce.—No appearance ; case dismissed. Francis Murray was charged by Robert Dow, Chief Officer of the barque Dunedin, with assaulting him on Sunday last, so that he was afraid to go in the said vessel. Robert Dow, being sworn, stated—l am chief officer of the barque Dunedin lying in Auckland harbour; prisoner is an able seaman on board: on Sunday morning last, about nine o'clock, he came aft to me with some mutton chops in a plate, and asked me if that was sufficient for breakfast; I had previously been into the galley, and saw what they had for breakfast; they had some hash and potatoes besides the chops, and I told him I knew what they had ; he then called me a d-n liar, and, squaring up to me, said he would like to take it out of me. [Witness then stated some veiy disgusting and filthy language which prisoner had made use of to him.] I could use no discipline on that ship with such a man as that; he made no further threat than that ho should like to take it out of me ; he was quite near enough to strike mo when he squared up to me. Examined by Prisoner—l did not call you a d—n liar, nor shake my fist in your face. Examined by the Court—lt is entered in the log, and signed by the Captain and two witnesses, and was read over to the prisoner. James Kirkpatrick was then called and examined— I am a passenger by the Dunedin, and was on board on Sunday morning last, and saw the whole affair. [His evidence fully corroborated that of the previous witness.] The prisoner was then addressed by His Worship You have been guilty of using very bad and abusive language : there is no excuse for it ; it is the habit of sailors, and is a most disgusting practice, and in order to check it you will be fined 40s. and costs, or 7 days' imprisonment with hard labour. CHIMNEY ON FIEE. James Ferneyhough, a corporal of the 40th regiment, was charged with allowing his chimney to take fire in Queen-street, contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Police Act. His Worship stated that it was evidently not known allowing chimneys to take fire is punishable by law, and requested Mr. Commissioner Naughton to give full publication to, the clause in reference to it. In consideration of his being a soldier with limited means, His Worship moderated the fine to 10s. BREACHES OF THE IMPOUNDING ACT. Thomas Sansom was charged by Constable Cosgrove with allowing a mare and foal to stray at large in Victoria Quadrant, on the 15th instant—Fined 2s. 6d. and costs. William Walters was charged with the same offence, and fined 2s. 6d. and costs. John Davis was charged by Constable Molloy with allowing a heifer to stray in Victoria Quadrant on Monday, the 4th inst.—Fined 2s. Cd. and costs.