MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2926, 11 August 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMABO—THIS DAY. (Before E. G. Kerr and H. J. LeCren, Esqre.) FOEGEEY. James Martin Shepherd (whose ahsconding from the colony some time ago created so great a sensation) was charged with forgery. The Court was attended by a considerable number of persons. The police prosecuted and Mr Jameson appeared for the defence. Counsel requested that accused might be permitted to be seated,, his health being delicate. The permission was granted. , Mr Inspector Pender applied to have six cases gone on with together, in order to save time. Counsel for the defence offering no objection to this, the information, covering six charges, was then read, and the following evidence was taken : A. Christophers, formerly manager of the Bank of Hew South Wales, Timaru, and attached to the same Bank in Dunedin, said —The accused was a customer of thi Timaru branch. I remember seeing this document (produced) marked A about July 27’ It is a promissory note for £ISOO. I wrote the body of the document at the request of the accused. Accused had had aocommodation from the Bank, and he then wished farther accommodation. He offered to get a promissory note to deposit with me as a security, signed by James Shepherd, his uncle, Andrew Martin, Otaio, and John Hay, of Kakahu. I agreed to this, and gave him a further advance, accordingly. I returned him the promissory note after filling it in, that he might obtain the signatures. In a few days be. brought it back, signed as it is now. He said he had to send it out to John Hay. (Mr Jameson objected to this evidence, and the Bench disallowed it, on the ground that only statements of actual occurrences could be 1 received). I saw accused sign the doonmeut produced. I held it as security for advances made to him at various times. I. also remember this other document (produced) signed by George Talbot, coming to the Bank, about Dec. 6,1882. It is a promissory note for £92, arid accused told me it was Talbot’s hill. It was discounted at Shepherd’s request and passed to the credit of his current account. The writing in the body of it I believe to be the prisoner’s. He said George Talbot was a farmer at Kingsdown. I also recognised this note (produced) signed, Andrew Wilson. It also was brought fay accused to the Bank in the ordinary course of business. Ho said Andrew Wilson was a carrier living at Saltwater Creek. The note was discounted and placed to his credit in current account. This other document produced is a promissory note for £SOO, which accused asked me to discount. It purported to be signed by John Hay and Andrew Martin. It was brought on March 4. It was discounted and the amount placed to his credit. This note (produced) I also recognise. It is for £23 12s 4d, and purported to be signed by J. Thornton, a builder iu Timaru. This note (produced) signed David Martin I also recognize. It js for £SB 14s. Accused asked that it be discounted. This was done as in the former cases. Part of the body is in the handwriting of the accused, and part is, I believe, in the writing of Mr Poole, his dork. All these documents were duly presented and returned dishonored. The accused was carrying on business as a storekeeper. He was a customer of the Bank up to the time of bis absconding. I think this was about the end of March last, His account was then overdrawn £1441. None of those notes have been paid. To the Bench—The bills were all presented and dishonoured. James Shepherd, storekeeper (uncle to accusod)J said the promissory note produced was not signed by him, nor did he authorise anybody to sign it for him. Ho did not know of its existence till March last.

Andrew Martin, farmer, Otaio, said—l know no other farmeratOtaio of the same name. The document produced (a joint guarantee for £1600) was not signed by

me, nor did I authorise anybody to sign it. Accused never spoke to me about it. (Witness gave similar evidence as to the other promissory note for £500.) John Hay, farmer Kakahu, said—l know no one else of ray name in the district, the joint guarantee for £ISOO was not signed by me, nor did I authorise anyone to sign for me.. Accused once asked me if I would sign a promissory note for £SOO in conjunction with his uncle. I declined, saying. I never did such a thing. I did not sign the promissory note for £SOO in conjunction with Andrew Martin, nor authorise anyone to do so.

George Talbot, farmer, Kingsdown, said—l did not sign the promissory note produced for £92, or authorise anyone to do so. I know no one of my name residing in the district. I have given cheques to accused at various times, by which ho knew my signature. Andrew Wilson, carrier, gave similar evidence in regard to the document bearing his name, denying the signature to be his or authorised by him and added that accused know his (witness’) signature.

Henry Thornton, builder, Timaru, gave similar evidence in regard to the promissory note alleged to have been signed by hire, and added that he had signed his name to other documents about three times in the office of accused.

_ David Martin, farmer, gaye exactly similar evidence regarding the note purporting to have been signed by him. Jabez Henry Luxford, ledger-keeper in the Bank of New Zealand, said The bills produced, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, were presented at our Bank, and not met. To Mr Jameson—l know, of my own knowledge, that they were presented and returned. They were returned through me, for the reasons on each endorsed, namely, “ Signature not known,’* and “ No account.” J. S. DaEmden, accountant at the Union Bank of Australia, gave exactly similar evidence to that of the previous witness concerning the promissory-note drawn on the Union Bank.

This was the case for the prosecution, Mr Jameson paid he would reserve his defence. Mr Pender said there was another charge against the prisoner, but he would withdraw it for the present, as the documents relating to it were at San Francisco.

In reply to the usual caution accused said nothing, and was fully committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. Mr Jameson applied that very substantial bail might be allowed.

Mr Pender said, in reply to the Bench, that the fact of accused’s absconding must be remembered, also that there were other charges against him. Mr Jameson urged that accused had returned voluntarily, also that he was prepared with substantial bail. He further produced medical testimony to the effect that accused was in a state warranting his being sent to the Hospital for medical treatment. The Bench allowed bail, two sureties of £SOO each, and ti e prisoner in his own recognizance of double the amount, and remarked that they would only accept bail from very substantial men, LUNACY. John Charles Bay, on remand, was charged with lunacy. Drs Macintyre and Hassall handed in certificates to the effect that accused ought to be under restraint for a time. The accused in a rambling statement said there was nothing the matter with him. He was on his way through Albury, intending to shout a few bottles of fiz at the hotels, prior to patenting his newly invented pig-trap, when he was arrested, i , The Bench committed him to the Lunatic Asylum.