RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5813, 15 November 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, November 14. DRUNKENNESS. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) One drunkard was dealt with in the usual manner. VAGRANCY. Donald Campbell was charged with being an idle and disorderly person, and with being on the premises of Henry Walton, fellmonger, Clencairgie, for an unlawful purpose. He pleaded not guilty, but the charge having been proved, he was sent to gaol for forty-eight hours. INDECENT LANGUAGE. An old man named James Castles was charged with using indecent language in his house, within the hearing of passers-by in the street. The evidence was to the effect that most abominable language had been used, which his Worship world not allow to be spoken in Court, it being merely written in the summons. The defendant was ordered to pay a fine of £5, or go to gaol for one month. A charge against defendant of keeping a disorderly house was postponed for a month, at the end of which time, if the nuisance was not abated, deiendant was warned that he would be liable to be committed for trial. BREACH OP LIQUOR LAW. Daniel Toohill, landlord of the Imperial Hotel, was charged with having sold liquors on the Basin Reserve on Monday last, without having obtained an extension of his license. The defendant pleaded guilty, but said he had acted in ignorance of the law, aud had not had any desire to evade or break its provisions. A fine of £5 and costs was inflicted. A GROSS SWINDLE. Jacob Bloom was charged with having on October 2, 1879, obtained goods to the value of over £SO from Mr. Newman, jeweller, Lambton-quay, by means of false pretences. Mr. Stafford appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Pitt defended prisoner. Mr. Stafford, in opening, said prisoner had been connected in business with a bankrupt named Samuel Meyer. When the latter filed his schedule, about two months ago, he executed a mortgage to prisoner for £l5O, but he (Mr. Stafford) would show that this mortgage was a fraudulent, one, executed for the purpose of cheating Meyer’s creditors, and that ha had never received any value for it. On the contrary, Meyer actually owed prisoner money at the time. Prisoner held some I O U’a professing to be signed by Meyer, but Meyer was actually absent from Wellington on the dates of the I O D’a. With the mortgage prisoner went to Mr. Newman and obtained jewellery, the false pretences consisting in his having represented to Mr. Newman that the mortgage was a genuine one. Samuel Meyer, a German, whose evidence was interpreted by Mr. Cohen, deposed that before his first meeting of creditors prisoner suggested that he should give him a, mortgage over his property for £l5O. Witness wanted a man named Chafer to take the mortgage, as he had no confidence in prisoner. In consequence, however, of prisoner taking an oath that if witness gave him the mortgage he would not take advantage of him, the mortgage was given. Witness did not owe prisoner any money. Mr. Pitt here suggested that the witness should be cautioned as to the effect of his evidence, but His Worship said Meyer had already sworn to an affidavit containing similar statements, so that he could not now do himself any more harm that he had done.

Examination continued : In consequence of prisoner taking the oath referred to, the mortgage produced was executed in his favor. The statement in the deed that it was in consideration of money lent to witness by prisoner was untrue, for prisoner never lent him any money. The four I O U’s produced were not given by witness to prisoner at all. The marks at the foot of them purporting to he his signature was not genuine, and he had never seen them till shown him at the detective office.

By Mr. Pitt : Witness had not affixed his mark to the I O U’s in the presence of a man named Jackson.

Mr. Pitt then asked the witness what he had done with his furniture before his insolvency, but Mr. Stafford asked his Worship to caution the witness.

Mr. Mansford said it appeared to him that both the witness and the prisoner were implicated in a gigantic swindle, and he should not caution Meyer at all. Cross-examination continued : Witness had not put the furniture under his house. It was moved, but not by him. He had it now. He had not settled with his creditors. The mortgage was dated August 12, and witness filed on the 20th. He made an affidavit that the mortgage was correct. Mr. Stafford then put in as evidence a statement made by prisoner to the trustee in Meyer’s estate, and taken down by Mr. Forwood.

Mr. Pitt, while not objecting to the statement, remarked that it was a direct denial of Meyer’s assertions with reference to the 1.0.U.’5.

The evidence of Mr. Newman, jeweller, was taken, to the effect that prisoner went to him at the end of September for some jewellery, and witness consented to let him have some for cash. On October 2 prisoner again went to witness’s shop, and said he had no cash, but he could give him a mortgage on which he had advanced £l5O as security for payment for the jewellery. Witness sold prisoner the goods, and in return received the mortgage (produced) upon which prisoner said he had advanced the £l5O, showing the 1.0.U.’s (produced) in support of his statement. There was no definite term fixed for repayment. Witness subsequently received a from prisoner to the effect that times wi-:.- bad, and that he could not pay witness. A few days later he heard that the mortgage was no good, and from what he afterwards heard he placed the matter in the hands of the police. Further evidence having been taken, prisoner was fully committed for trial, bail being allowed.