RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 1 December 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. [Before J. Udall and W. H. S. Roberts, Esq.'s, J.P. 's). EMBEZZLEMENT.

Walter Rice was charged on remand with having, at Ngapara on the 25th September, then being in the employ of the New Zealand Government as a bailiff to the Resident Magistrate's Court, Oamaru, received on account of the Government a cheque for the sum of L 8 10s drawn by William Paterson, and fraudulently embezzled the same.

William Gabriel Filleul, Clerk of the Court, gave evidence that the accused was appointed bailiff to the Court on the Ist June, and ceased to hold office on the 15th November. It was part of his duty to serve summonses and execute warrants. When he received moneys for the court it was his duty to pay them to witness. On the 16th September a • summons was issued addressed to William Thomas and Andrew Paterson for the recovery of the land tax. When returning the summons accused did not pay to witness any money he had reoeived. Judgment was afterwards given for the amount, and a distress warrant issued early in November. Acoused had not paid him any money received from Mr. Paterson. Accused was, he believed, in Court when judgment was given against Mr. Paterson. Witness heard the Magistrate ask accused where the money was. Accused did not say where it was, but replied that he would pay on Monday. The signature on the receipt was that of aocused.

Mr. Hislop, in reply to the Bench, said he did not appear for the accused, who was wrong in saying the previous day that he did so. The Bench remarked that accused had led the Court to believe that Mr. Hislop was engaged to represent him. Mr. Hislop said he had told aocused that he would adviso him, but would not appear for .him. Accused said he was under the impression that Mr. Hislop would appear for him.

Mrs. Longford gave evidence to having cashed the cheque produced for accused about two months ago. Alexander Gillespie, brother to the last witness, said that he had received the cheque from his sister, and paid it into the bank. The cheque was afterwards returned to him by the bank on the ground that the signature was not correct. He saw the accused several times about the matter, and finally received from him the address of the drawer of the cheque. He wrote to Mr. Paterson, who amended the signature, and witness passed the cheque through his account at the bank. The endorsement by the accused was on the 1 cheque when witness received it. John Arthur Stanley Wait, ledgerkeeper in the Bank of New Zealand, stated that William Paterson and Son, farmers, Ngapara, had an account in the Bank of New Zealand. The cheque produced had been paid, and charged to their debit account.

Constable King had arrested the accused. When he mentioned the charge against him, he replied " Oh, I was looking for money to pay it." The Bench to accused : Do you prefer to be dealt with summarily or to be committed for trial 7

The accused : I prefer being committed for trial. That is why I reserved my defence and asked no questions. . The Bench ; Then you will be committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, Dunedin. Accused : Not the District Court, your Worship 1 The Bench : No.

The acoused was then fully committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Dunedin. Bail was allowed —accused in LlOOand two sureties of LSO each.