SCOWEN V. INGLEY.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 111, 3 May 1876, Page 2

SCOWEN V. INGLEY.

(TO TUT. EDITOR OV TUIC TATRA MAIL.) Sir, —In reading over 1 lie account of a case against a man mined Ingloy, for receiving money nuder false pretence,s, it occurs to mu that either the evidence has been mistaken by his Worship, or that he has delivered his judgment fmm a predetermined idea as to the prisoner being drunk or otherwise at the time of issuing tin; cheques. My reasons for saying lie may have mistaken the ovideneearotlie.se: Firstly—as per report in join- paper—the prosecutor swears (Pat the prisoner was sober when lie issued the first cheque. Secondly, the only witness for the prosecutor swears that in Ids opinion the prisoner "-ns sober : and thirdly, that the sole witness for the defence also says that the prisoner was not drunk. Tin; lawyer for the defence also does not plead drunkenness on the part of his client, but simply stales that, although the prisoner had no money at the bank at the lime of signing the cheque or cheques, lie expected money to ho placed to his credit for some supposed land purchase, then in course of negotiation. From the evidence, then, it appears palpable that the prisoner was sober, and the question that arises in my mind is this—How did Ins Worship come to the conclusion that the prisoner was drunk. Perhaps the appearance of the prisoner suggested habitual drunkenness, or may the B.M. lias had so many cases of drunkenness before him that he cannot help associating all crimes with that “bane of noble minds.” But the worst part of the matter, in my opinion, is that, after coming to the conclusion that the prisoner was drunk (which is generally thought to be an aggravation rather than excuse for crime), his Worship proceeds to comment severely on the prosecutor making the man drunk and then taking advantage of him. It will be seen by the evidence that the man was sober, and may I ask what possible advantage the prosecutor could have taken of the prisoner, of course I take the evidence as reported in your paper : —The prosecutor swears he paid the money for the cheques ; tire next witness swears that he saw the prisoner hand over the m ollo3’ obtained from prosecutor to Mr Alzdorf ; the third witness, Sir Alzdorf himself, confirms this, and the lawyer for the defence never disputes the receipt of the money from the prosecutor. The only advantage then that accrues to the prosecutor, in npy opinion, is that he is saved the trouble of carrying his own monoj'. If the prisoner had made prosecutor drunk, and then got him to cash the cheques, I could have seen that an advantage had been taken by some one, but when a man hands over sterling nionc} - for what lie believes to he genuine, but which is in fact spurious paper, I consider that the man who hands over the money is taken advantage of, and the one who receives is guilty of sharp practice. But, granting that the prisoner was drunk, is that an} 1, reason whj- he should he allowed to draw cheques on a bank in which ho has no account. The conclusion to be drawn from his Worship’s decision says yes, hut if such precedents are established a man will only have to get drunk in order to be able to rob respectable tradesmen with impunit}’. I am, &c., AKGUS.