MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2597, 18 July 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

SECOND EDITION

TIMARU—THIS DAT. (Before R. Beetham Esq., R.M.) ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. In a case of abusive language preferred by Philip Bradley against Francis Scoringe, there was no appearance of complainant, and the charge was dismissed. ALLEGED LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Harpin Exley was charged by Samuel Kirby, quarry proprietor, with the larceny as a bailee of £4. Mr Haraersley appeared for accused who pleaded not guilty. Samuel Kirby recollected a transaction between himself and Exley relative to the purchase of certain trees ordered from Mr Ivory, nurseryman, of Rangiora. Wrote out the cheque for £4 in payment of the account, enclosed it in an envelope, stamped it, and asked Exley to post it. Next saw cheque in the detective’s hands. It was on the Union Bank. Exley was present when witness wrote out and cnclqsed the cheque in the envelope. Made the remark that it might be as well to cross the cheque and Exley said it might and witness then crossed it. There was no dispute or misunderstanding with Exley about freightage. The trees were ordered by witness and not by Exley. Ho sent the order, jlvory was paid by Exley for the trees. Witness had a communication from Ivory to that effect, dated July 13, There had been transactions between Exley and witness for some lime past, and they had not had a proper squaring up for two years. Could not say what amount was due between them now. It would not be £l. Tin’s transaction about the trees was a totally distinct one. Witness believed Exley said something after the trees had been settled for to the effect that witness owed him half-a-crown for freightage still, and witness said that was all right.

J. Williams, laborer, was present when Kirby drew out the cheque. Exley was there too. Exley took away the cheque with him.

By Mr Hameraley—Saw Exley write something on the cheque after Kirby had crossed it. Exley took some of the trees by arrangement with Kirby and paid for them at the time. Fred. Scott, carpenter, deposed to being paid the cheque produced by Exley for goods bought at auction. Paid it into the bank.

Mr Hamersley submitted that the charge of larceny could not be sustained. Exley had purchased certain trees and had taken a cheque for them but he had to pay Ivory all the same and had done so.

His Worship said he would like to hear Mr Exley’s statement, for he was at liberty to make one if he liked. Harpin Exley defendant, stated that being about to order some trees from Christchurch, he had mentioned the matter to the prosecutor, who said he would have some too. They were to divide them. Procured the trees and the prosecutor being dissatisfied said he would like to get some trees from Ivory, of Eangiora. They got one of Ivory’s catalogues and picked out some 51 trees in all. Witness wrote out the order and received the trees with an invoice. It was very wet weather when they arrived and witness took them home, saying that as soon as the weather cleared up they would divide them. Prosecutor wrote out the cheque for £4 and crossed it, and witness wrote on it “To account.” Two or three nights afterwards prosecutor admitted that he was still in witness’s debt to the extent of 2s 6d, Wrote up to Ivory enclosing payment for the trees ordered, and later on telegraphed to him to send Kirby a receipt for the money. Ivory telegraphed to Kirby yesterday that he had received the money safely. His Worship remarked that a misunderstanding had evidently arisen between the parties, but there had certainly been no attempt to commit larceny. The case was dismissed. The Court then adjourned.