RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4385, 9 April 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

+- Thursday, April 8. (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., E.M.) DIIONK AND DISORDERLY. A. F. Trench, who on Monday last was fined £5 for an unprovoked assault upon a girl, was again brought up, charged with creating a disturbance at tho Central Hotel. Mr. Hausrnan stated that defendant caine to his place, and asked to be allowed to stay there, which request was declined on account of defendant's conduct in the previous case alluded to. Being unable to obtain lodgings elsewhere, he returned to the Central about one o'clock in the morning, and was again refused admittance, whereupon he created a great disturbance, and was locked up. ... Fined 205., with tho usual alternative of forty-eight hours' imprisonment. LARCENY. John Harris was charged with stealing a feather bed, recognised by the feathers inside being identified, and a pot known as "big belly." The property being owned by Maoris at Paikakariki, accounted for the singular nature of the evidence given in the case. Mr. Gordon Allan, for the defence, contended that the evidence was altogether too weak to bring the charge homo to the prisoner. His Worship took a similar view, regarding the case as one of mere suspicion. Tho prisoner, therefore, received the benefit o£ the donbt, and waa discharged.

EMBEZZLEMENT. Henry Gardiner was charged with embezzling 16s. Dd., the money of his employer, Onus. Mclntyre, baker. llv. Gordon Allan appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Buckley for the defence. Prosecutor said he was a baker in Torystreet, and took the prisoner into his service about a month ago. His duty was to sell goods witness might give him, and make himself useful. Told him he would receive £1 aweek and board and lodging, or fourpence in the shilling, and board and lodging. He accepted the latter proposal. It was the practice for him to take out a certain quantity of goods in the morning, and in the evening he was to pay the cash. On 31st March last saw prisoner in the bakehouse. He said he had sold out. He went out, and didu't return again that day. On the eveniDg of the Ist April saw him at work in the bakehouse of Mr. Underwood. Asked him why he had not come to settle up witness's account, and he said he hadn't time. Then said that unless he settled up by ten o'clock on the morning of the 2nd April he would be charged with embezzlement. He came down ou the 2nd, and witness claimed 10s. 9d. from him. He said he would be back in half-an-houv, but he didn't come, and on the next day witness laid the information at the Police Court. He came to witness in the evening, and offered to pay the money. Told him he couldn't take it, as proeceediugs had been taken. A scale of prices was agreed upon, and the goods were counted out to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley : We usually settled up every night. Sometimes he left a deficiency, which he settled on another occasion. I never charged him with embezzlement on any other occasion. Should not have charged him this time had ho not left my employment. It looked as if he was guilty of embezzlement when he left "witness's employ. Had he settled up on the 2nd April, would not have charged him with embezzlement. Up to that time looked upon the deficiency as a debt. Could not say, from his own knowledge, what goods he took out ou that day, but ordered certain goods to be made for him. After the first week ill his employ, prisoner worked on commission and made himself useful. He had no set time. About 80s. was the greatest day's sale. Witness didn't say to him, at Underwood's, that it was a shame for him to leave his employment so suddenly. Didn't go to him at the gaol. Ke-exammed by Mr. Allan : On previous occasions, when there was a deficiency, he had to account for it. The men in his employ were always supposed to account for bread supplied, and from that system he knew the amount the prisoner had to account for. Never said he considered the 16s. 9d. a debt. The statement in his previous evidence to that effect was a mistake. Mr. Buckley having addressed the Court, and characterised the prosecution as a piece of spite on the part of Mr. Mclntyre, Mr. Allan made a few remarks, when His Worship dismissed the case. FALSE PItETEXCES. Denis Wright was charged with having, on the 4th July, obtained from William Sefton Moorhouse a cheque or order by means of false pretences, with intent to cheat and defraud. Prosecutor stated that previous to the date alleged he had received money from the Treasury upon the prisoner's order. Upon the 4th July he came to witness's office, and made a proposal to borrow some more money, but having had a great deal of trouble over the first transaction, witness at first declined to have anything to do with this one, representing to him at the same time that he (witness) was the holder of a promissory note given by prisoner to Mr. Ludwig. Prisoner, however, made strong promises that he would pay without fail, and upon his giving witness an order for his next quarter's half-pay (£32 45.), witness gave him a cheque for £l6 19s. 6d., the difference being made up by the amount due under Ludwig's promissory note (£l2 6s. 6d.), law charges, and interest. The order given to witness by prisoner authorised him to receive the quarter's half-pay, duo on the Ist October, 1874. Was aware that another document beside the order would have to be produced at the Treasury before the order would be paid, and the prisoner promised to sign such a document, but he failed to do so, although wituess again applied to him for it, and he again promised to send it. On the Ist October witness applied for the money at the Treasury, but in the absence of the document referred to the Treasury refused to pay. Just about this time saw another order in possession of Mr. Hunt, which was dated two days previously to witness's order. The order in possession of Mr. Hunt empowered him also to receive the money for the October quarter. When witness saw that order he was convinced that prisoner intended to cheat him, and he determined to prosecute. Cross-examined by prisoner : I hold possession of the promissory note given by you to Mr. Ludwig. It has not been given up to you because the money due has not been paid. I was employed professionally by Mr. Ludwig to sue for the amount of the promissory note, but upon your protestations that you were "an officer and a gentleman," I sympathised with you, stayed proceedings, arid paid Mr. Ludwig the amount by cheque, taking your responsibility upon myself.

Prisoner drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that there was a great discrepancy between the two amounts stated in evidence and the amount of the order. First, there was Ludwig's bill, £l2 6s. 6d., then Mr. Moorhouse's cheque for £l6 9s. Cd., that made £29 16s. The amount of the order was £32 45., leaving about £4 unaccounted for. Mr. Moorhotise said he had already explained how the difference was made up. First there was the preparation of a power of attorney—■ irrevocable—entitling him alone to receive the money; then there were visits to the Treasury and to Mr. Ludwig, interest upon the money, and other professional costs. Prisoner said the interest charged was very modest—-120 per cent. Mr. Moorhouse said he had hadsuch an amount of trouble over the transaction that he wouldn't lend any more money if twenty Captain Wrights came to him. Mr. Hunt gave evidence as to prisoner having given him an order to receivethesamequarter's pay ; but the particulars of his case must be familiar to our readers. Inspector Atchison applied for a remand till Monday, in order to obtain the evidence of Mr. Best of the Treasury. The remand was granted. LAKCENY. Henry Tracey, laborer, was charged with stealing two bottles of beer from Wagg'fl Pakuratahi Hotel. Thos. Wagg, jun., stated that on Saturday last he was in the bar and saw the prisoner, who thought be was unobserved, take two bottles of beer from a shelf. Taxed him with the theft, when he asked witness to tell his mother that he had taken the two bottles, for which she was to charge half-a-crown. Witness said he would do nothing of the sort, that he had stolen the beer, and that he would tell his father so. Thos. Wagg, sen., deposed that acting upon what his sou told him he followed the prisoner down tho road, and took the two bottles of beer from him. Previous to this offence prisoner had attempted to pick the lock of the bar-door with a piece of wire, and had broken open a barrel of lemonade with a mattock. Altogether he had had te complain five times of the prisoner's conduct, but had always overlooked his offences until the present occurrence. Constable IYyster said that petty thefts of this kind had been very frequent of late. Prisoner denied any intent to steal the articles. The occurrence arose in this way : Having upon him an order for 10s. from Messrs. Collie and Scott, contractors, he gave it to Mrs. Wagg a few days before ho took the beer, and as sho had possession of this order when he got tho beer, there could be no robbery, to his mind ; particularly as he told the boy to tell his mother to charge him half-a-crown for it. His Worship said tho offence wa* a comparatively trivial one, but as these petty robberies were becoming frequent in the locality, they must be put a stop to. Sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

CIVIL CASES. J. and H. Barber v. A. Tomoaua—Claim, £3 6s. 4d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v. Nelly—Claim, £1 7s. Judgment for amount and costs. Sewell v. McDonald—Claim, £1 7s. for repairs to a house lately occupied by defendant. Judgment was given for £1 and Co3ts, less Bs. 6d. paid into court. A number of other cases were settled out of court.