SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5242, 11 January 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

. Thursday, January 10, (Before Hia Honor Chief Justice pfendergast.) OBTAINING GOODS BY A VALUELESS'CHEQDE. Henry Cape Williamson was indicted for having, on the 28th November last, obtained from Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains, drapers, Lambton-quav, by means of a valueless cheque for £32 4s. 6d, certain articles of wearing apparel. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Hutchison. William Edward Taylor, an assistant in the shop of Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains, stated that accused called on the 28fch November, and obtained a variety of articles of clothing, in payment for which he gave the cheque produced. He filled up and signed tbe cheque in witness’ presence, and the goods were sent, at prisoner’s request, to Coker's Hotel. Accused did not ask for any credit, but said he was a chemist by nrofession, and , was going to reside at Riingitikei. Cross-examined : Witness had,a long conversation with prisoner on general matters, and had no doubts about the'cheque being genuine. He had such confidence in. him that be pressed him to take more good-, and made him a present after receiving the cheque. John Kirkcaldie, one of the prosecutors, said the. cheque produced was first handed to him by the last witness. He thought it was a good one, or otherwise would not have allowed the goods to have been sent. The cheque was paid into the Bank of New Zealand, Wellington, and was forwarded to Wanganui, on which hank; it was made payable... Subsequently it was returned to him dishonored. . Cross-examined : Prisoner’s, respectable appearance was a circumstance in favor, of the cheque being accepted. Joseph Walker Buckridge, an assistant in the shop of Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains, deposed that on the'2Bth November last he delivered the goods in question at Coker’s Hotel, where they: were left for prisoner. ; Henry Gower, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New South Wales, Wanganui, said that prisoner opened an account at the bank on'the 10th November, 1876, with £SO. This amount was never increased, and was reduced to 12s. 7d. on the 28th November last. On the day previous four cheques, each for £l, bad been paid. The cheque produced was presented at the Bank of New South Wales, Wanganui, on the 4th November, 1877, aud was returned dishonored, as prisoner had not sufficient funds; Accused had no right to overdraw at the bank. Previous cheques by prisoner had been dishonored, aud witness received instructions from the manager on the 27th November not to allow him to overdraw his account one shilling. In August, • before prisoner opened his account, one Frederick Sproule paid in a bill of exchange for £9 for collection, which was payable to accused at Nel-on. The bill was not paid, because it was not due when it reached Nelson. One cheque for £ls on the 27th, , drawn on prisoner’s account, was dishonored, and several other cheques had been returned dishonored. Mr. Hutchison contended that this evidence could only go to support another indictment. His Honor ruled that evidence as to what cheques were presented bearing date subsequent to the 28th November, 1877, could not be admitted. Witness continued: The manager of tho bank received the following telegram from prisoner on the 30th November: —“ Have two cheques been paid to my credit, one for £ll, and the other for £25 ?” to which the manager replied, “ No ; have received nothing to your credit since lOth November.” This was the case for the prosecution. For! the defence Charles O. Graham, secretary ' to the Education Board, deposed that prisoner had been employed as a schoolmaster under the Education Board, Maxwelltown, and in November witness posted him a cheque for £ll, payable at the Bank of New South Wales) Wanganui. That cheque had not been paid up to the previous day (January 9). Counsel for the prisoner submitted that the prosecution had signally failed, the Crown having failed to prove any false pretences. It was further essential to prove the actual obtaining of the goods, whereas there was nothing in the evidence to show that prisoner was ever in possession. The jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty. ■ Prisoner was remanded until 10 o’clock the following morning for sentence, and the jury were directed to be in attendance at that time. FORGERY. Arthur Barnsley was indicted for having, on the 2oth' May, at Wellington, forged a telegraphic money order, purporting to come from J. Mills, Dunedin, to J. Wilson, Wellington, for the payment of £lO. Mr. Fitz Gerald defended prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor narrated the circumstances of the case, and explained the modus operandi of sending away apd receiving money order telegrams. William L. Walton, clerk in the post office, Dunedin, said he was engaged in the money order pffice there on the 26th May. It was customary when sending away a money order for the Bender to fill in a " requisition,” from which the clerk wrote a telegraphic money order in duplicate. The money having been paid, the order is handed to remitter to sign, after which he takes it to the telegraph office. The advice part is filled in hy the post office clerk, and sent by him to the telegraph office. On neither of the days mentioned was any order in favor of J. Wilson issued. Cross-examined : No other clerk could have sent away an order on that day, or there would hove been a record of it. By the Court : The orders from the post office were sent away without delay, Charles Lemon, general manager of the New Zealand Electric Telegraph Department, described the custom of receiving money orders. Duplicate copies of the message are taken, one of which is put on a file, and the other is given to tbe despatch clerk., Prisoner was in the office on the 26th of May, He, was not employed at either of the wires. He had only been employed in the office a few days when this offence is alleged to have occurred. William Smith, officer in charge of the Wellington Telegraph Office, deposed to the oneratqra at the wires on u the. 26th of May. Prisoner was not at the wires on that day. George Cameron, a clerk in the money order department of the Wellington Post Office, stated that he paid the order produced on the day ini question. He had no recollection to

whom he paid the money, but it was receipted with the name of J. Wilson. John Gell, Miss Carpenter, and Henry Hawke.were called, and stated that they were the operators employed at the telegraph office on the 26th of May. They had sole charge of the wires, and did not believe that prisoner could have had access to any of the wires on that day without their knowledge. Hr. Lemon re-called, said prisoner left the office suddenly on the sth of June, and went to Sydney, where he was arrested on the 3rd of October. By the Jury : All the wires led into one room. George Nation, clerk in the accountant’s office at the post office, said advices of money orders were kept for three months and then destroyed. He could not say whether this particular order which was the subject of the proceedings had been destroyed. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Fitz Gerald submitted for the defence that owing to the original receipt having been, destroyed the receiver was not known. It was true Barnsley was the one who received the message in the course of his duties, and no evidence hud been given to prove that the message had not been sent from. Dunedin. It was quite consistent with the evidence that the message had been sent from Dunedin, received by Barnsley, and the money given to some person not known. His Honor in summing up remarked that the case presented certain legal difficulties, as certain important documents, it was alleged, had been destroyed, and the assumption therefore was that they never existed, Further, there was no evidence from the Dunedin end that the messages were not issued from there. If they came to the conclusion that this order had been forged then it would be for them to convict the prisoner. The jury retired at six o’clock to consider their verdict, and after being locked up for half an hour returned into Court with a verdict of guilty, added to .which was a strong recommendation to mercy. Mr. Fitz Gerald asked his Honor to reserve sentence until the point relative to the receipt being destroyed by the responsible authorities had been considered. His Honor signified his intention of having the point considered, with Mr. Justice Richmond, before .the Court of Appeal, as it was one of considerable importance to the telegraph office. Mr. Fitz Gerald asked that prisoner be allowed bail. His Honor said it would require to be substantial. He would give the matter his consideration in chambers. The Court then rose.