SUPREME COURT, TIMARU.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1190, 12 June 1884, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, TIMARU.

Tuesday, June 10th, 1884. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] CRIMINAL SITTING. The half-yearly criminal session of the Supreme Court was opened at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston. His Honor, in charging the Grand Jury, said he was very glad" to find the calendar such a light one. He spoke strongly on the manner in which tradesmen were in the hnbit of changing cheques signed and presented by persons unknown to them, and said that in doing so they were really the tempters to the commission of this crime. Referring to Kirkpa+ricks' case he said that the evidence with regard to footprints must be taken very guardedly. He referred at great lengih to the charges of embozzlement asrainst Mackay. The Grand Jury found the following TRUE BILLS.

0. Littlecott, forgery and uttering ; Walter Thompson, alais Mark Christie, forgery and uttering ; Samuel Kirkpatrick, house-breaking, and stealing from a dwelling ; Henry George, forgery ; E. H. C. Plowden, false pretences ; David Taylor, embezzlement (one of the three charges only), NO BILLS. Charles Kotepahi, stealing from the person ; Earnest Herbert Davy, indecent ass-mlt; Joseph Mackny, embezzlement. FORGERY AND UTTERING. Charts Littlecott, asrainst whom the Grand Jury found the first true bill, was placed in the dock, and charged with the forgery of a chequ? drawn by Mr mann-rer on the 24th December last, at Peel Forest, by altering its amount from £1 2s to £7 2s, and the second count with uttering the knowing it to be forged. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Tie was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labor. Walter Thompson alias Mark Christie, pleaded guilty to a charge of forging, in April last, the name of J. Mumfard to a for £49 on the Bank of New Zealand, and to a second count charging him with littering the same, knowing it to be forged." His Honor spoke very severely to the draper's assistant (Valentine Reid) who had cashed the cheque, and sa'd that if it bad been his master he would have deprived him of his costs and reprimanded him very esverely. The prisoner said that as soon as he regained his liberty he would pay everyone every penny. He was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labor for two years. STEALING FROM A DWELLING. Samuel Kirkpatrick was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Daniel Seaton/ of Waitohi, on the 6th January last, and stealing £ll therefrom. The prisoner was undefended, and pleaded not guilty. Tne evidence was identical with that given in the R.M. Court, Temuka, when the accused was committed for trial, and was then published by us. His Honor concluded his address to the jury as follows :—"Somebody had been in the house. The prisoner, knowing the place and knowing that Seaton and his wife were safe at church, was se<m on the road to the house, and was again seen near the house. There were footmarks near the place correspondng in several material points with the boots prisoner was wearing. It wns a cage entirely of circumstantial evidence, and the iurv most. consider all its parts one by one." The fury after a short retirement returned a verdict of 'Not guilty,' and the prisoner ! was discharged. FORGERY. Henry George was charged with forging the name of Peter Hanley. of Waim-ite, to a cheque on the Union B ink of New Zealand, on the 20th. February last for £8 10s, and uttering the some to the wife of the licensee of the St. Andrnws Hotel. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and His Honor sentenced him to two years' hard labor. FALSE PRETENCES. E. H. C. Plowden was charged with obtaining money and goods to the value of £4, on the 24th and 25th March, from R. Glass, of Geraldine, by falsely representing that he was expecting a letter with money from Mr Joynt, of Christchurch. Mr William Tosswill "appeared for the"' pTisoner, who pleaded 'Not guilty.' The evidence of Mr R. Glass, draper, Geraldine, was taken, and was the same as that given by him ' -vhen the accused was committed for trial at the R.M. Court, Geraldine, and then published by us. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labor. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11th. EMBEZZLEMENT. David Taylor was charged with the embezzlement of th« sum of 7« 6d, the property of his employers, Messrs Siegert And Fauve', on November 29, 1883. Prisoner pleaded ' Not Guilty.' Mr White appeared to prosecute, and Mr Hamerslevfor the defence.

The following: jury was empanelled : —MessrsT. Kelly', J. Scannell, J. Watts, J. King, F. Hooper, T. Williams, W. S. Padget. G. Phillips. T. Mercer, E. Mitchell. C. Kelly, and Henry Squire.

Mr T: Williams was chosen Foreman, For the prosecution, the following evidence w?>B beard :

Julius Siegp-rt, of the firm of Siegert and Fauvel, general storekeepers at Temuka, said there wore two departments in the store, grocery, and drapery, riivided b3 r a wall and archway. Accused was a draper s assistant at the beginning of August 1883, at. a salary of £2 I7s 6d" per week. His duties were to sell and receive money for the payment of sales, to be banded over to the bookeeper. Accused wns authorised to give credit to people he knew. On Oct. ID, witness told him that as business wns slacK, he would have to reduce big wages from £2 17* Cd to £2 10s. Witness remembered seeing a customer named Mrs Fenton on November 9 in the grocery store. She made a purchase to the amount of £2, mid then went into the drapery store. About 10 or 11 minutes afterwards she came back into The grocery store to make another purchase, and asked that her grocery and drapery parcels should

be sent ud to her house. In the mean time, seeing Taylor did not bring any mon.-y into the grocery store, witness went lo the drapery store, and found Taylor had iron?- to dinner, having locked the doorf In the baok witness found the last entry to be three yards of dress stuff with no name. When'Taylor returned witness asked if Mrs Fen ton had been in the store. Prisoner replied ' Oh, no.' Witness said .she must have been in the ctore because • s;..e took a drapery parcel iri*o the grocery j store. Prisoner replied ' Yes, i forgot all about that, she bought three yards of dress stuff,' showing the book to witness. Prisoner then added that Mrs Fenton had also taken some goods on approval which he had neglected to enter. Witness afterwards saw Mrs Fenton, and also Mr Uprichard. Prisoner subsequently told witness that Mrs Fenton had paid him 4s 6d in all, but witness, having learned from Mrs Fenton that ahe bad paid 7s 6d, requested prisoner to accompany him to see Mrs Fenton, wherj he confessed that he had taken 5a to lend a friend. Witness discredited the story and aaid so, as prisoner could not give the name of his friend. Witness then told prisoner he felt sure he must have taken LIOO or Ll2O during the time of his being in the employ of the firm. Prisoner asked to be allowed to retain his situation on condition of his making restitution, but witness at once refused the request. On examining the books _ witness and his partner found alterations in prisoner's hand-writing. To Mr Hamersley—Prisoner was in Mr Mendelson's employ for nine years. I have quarrelled sometimes with him. The entries were not in the book at 4.50 o'clock of that day. At this time we owed prisoner a good deal of wages and ho had j applied for payment thereof. He would not accept the reduced and summoned the firm. As soon as we received the summons we brought this charge. He had sometimes spoken of starting an opposition business. T. Fauvel (partner in the firm of Siegert and Fauvel), gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness. In cross-ex-amination, it was eli'ited that one of the partners informed prisoner that unless he paid LSO, they would prosecute. He did not pay the LSO. prosecute till after the summons had been served on tnern.

Harriet Fenton gave evidence to the effect that on the 29th of November last she purchased some groceries in the grocery side of Sieuert and Fauvel's store. She then went to the drapery side and bought 8s worth from the prisoner. Paid 73 6d and left Gd owing, and took the parcel into the grocery side and ieft it there to be sent up with the groceries.

In reply to Mr Bbmersley witness said she was in the store about 12 o'clock. There were other customers there at the time.

Edward Whitehead was acting bookkeeper on the day in question. Kept the cash book except when at dinner. There wore some of Mr Siegert'a entries in the book but the entry drapery, 2s Gd, wns got from Taylor. Did not receive 7s 6d, but during the day received other sums over that amount.

Mr Hamersley pointod out that while the entries were entered under the date 28th November in the drapery book, it was 29th in the cash book.

In reply to Mr Hamersley witness said Taylor used (o bring in the money any time during the day.

Mr White pointed out that the entry of November 28th was a mistake, as t!ie day was the 29th.

The witness, in reply to Mr White, stated that all the entries in Taylor's drapery book corresponded with entries in the cash hook, and there was no entry of the 7s 6d.

W. R. Upnchard gave evidence to the effect that Taylor came to him and told him he had left Siegert and Fuuvel's on account of some goods purchased by Mrs Fen ton the previous evening. Taylor asked witness to say that he borrowed 5s off him. Witness declined to do so, as he had a wife and family to look after. Taylor said a person from the Rangitata had borrowed the money. To Mr Hamergley : Taylor instructed me to collect the money from Siegart and Fanvel. I saw Fauvel that evening, and he said he would see hia partnur. If Fauvel says lie did not see me for a fortnight after he say» wrong. A fort night after he said he would pay at the rate of L2 lOs a week. At the first meeting Fauvel admitted Taylor had been engaged at L2 10s, Saw Fauvel several times and he offered to pay L2 10s per week. Told him Taylor wanted L2 I7s 6d. He mentioned LSO. I was always good friends with Taylor. Wub in Mr Velvin's employment seven years ac;o. I was not discharged from Velvin's or from any place aim-© I came to New Zealand. Saw entry ' Balance, Mrs Fenton, sa,' in the book ou the 30th. This concluded the case for the prosecution. No evidence was culled for the defence.

Mr Hamersley then addressed the jury, urging that the whole amount was 7s 6d, 2s 6d of which was accounted, 2s of which was paid to Siegert, and 3s of which was debited to Tuylor. He urged also that the prosecution wag got up to extract LSO out of the prisoner. He then criticised the evidence.

His Honor in summing up «aid the smallness of the amount ought not to have any weight. He read the evidence through, commenting on it as he went along.

The jury retired at 2.30 p.m., and had not brought in a vcrdifc when our reporter left at 5.30 p.m.