RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4579, 23 November 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, November 22. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. John Cowan, arrested on a charge of drunkenness and assault, had been admitted to bail, and when called upon did not appear, so the amount of Ms bail was ordered to be forfeited. FORGERY. Benjamin H. Solomon was brought up on remand, charged with forging and uttering. Mr. Quick for prosecution, Mr. Travers for the defence. The information having been read over to the prisoner, as well as the depositions taken on the former sitting, the following evidence was taken Andrew Tod deposed : I am.a merchant in Wanganui. Kemember having business transactions with prisoner in October last. I paid him a cheque on the 29th of the month. The cheque in question (that produced) was for £lO 17s. 3d. I afterwards saw the prisoner on Saturday, the day following. I paid Mm no other cheque than that just given in evidence, marked B. I see my name subscribed to the cheque A produced. That is not my signature. The signature is generally imitated, hut it is written in a peculiar mariner. There are no other figures used in the spurious cheque but what can be found in the genuine one, but the sum is different. My attention was called to the spurious cheque at Wanganui. I understood there was a wrong balance of my account when I received my pass-book. I then looked for the names of the cheques that had been issued. I found a cheque had been debited to me on behalf of Nathan and Co. It was past bank hours when I discovered the irregularity. Next morning I was shown the voucher in favor of Nathan and Co. The document marked A was the voucher shown to me. I immediately repudiated the cheque, finding it was a forgery. By Mr. Travers : There was another irregularity in my account some nine years ago in the Bank of New South Wales, when there was an error in the addition of the pass-book. I had had no dealings with Nathan and Co. until after the spurious cheque was drawn. I have had dealings with Joseph Nathan and Co! I have on more than one occasion had business with prisoner, who acted on behalf of Matheson Bros., and other firms. I had no reason to believe that prisoner would be capable of such an action. I gave the £lO cheque at about half-past eleven in the morning. Mr. Quick said that concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Travers re-called

George Maurice McKeown, who, being sworn said ; I saw the prisoner once before the £9O-cheque was presented. I had not seen him at any other time to notice him. I think the £lO cheque was presented not later than noon. I observe that the £9O cheque is dated two days earlier than the other cheque. I did not remark it at the time the cheque was presented. It was cashed in £lO notes, which were taken from a bundle containing £IOO notes. I have no means of identifying the notes, because I do not know the numbers. I did not discover the forgery until ten days afterwards. I took notice of the prisoner because of the largo amount of the cheque. The cheque was not initialled. It is not usual for the ledgerkeeper to initial the cheques in the Wanganui branch. I did not ask for an endorsement of the cheque, because I did not think it was necessary.' (Witness then detailed the description he had given of prisoner when the forgery was discovered.) I stated that I had cashed the cheque previously for the same man. I afterwards pointed out the prisoner in the Empire. I can positively state that the same person cashed both cheques. There is not much similarity between the writing in the bodies of the two cheques ; the similarity is between the two signatures. I do not think it is a had imitation. Mr. Travers was about to offer some remarks when His Worship said a prima fade case had been made out, and committed prisoner to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court to be held in Wellington. MATRIMONIAL DIFFKHENCTEB. John Hewson was charged by his wife with having systematically ill-treated her, and failing to maintain her. She, therefore, prayed the court to grant her a protection order. Complainant stated that her husband had grossly ill-used her, and was living on her money, having adopted that system since her marriage. Ann Francis Crompton, a fellow-passenger of the defendant and his wife on the St. Leonard’s, was called to give evidence in favor of complainant ; but her statement was rather favorable to the defence. She had never seen the defendant ill use his wife, and had always considered his treatment of her exceptionally good. George Langton, another fellow-passenger, bore testimony to the complainants’ character

on board being generally bad, and remembered her being drunk on one occasion, and threatening to bum the ship down with a lucifer match. Complainant did not produce evidence of her husband having struck her. His Worship granted the protection order ; but made complainant pay her own costs.