RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1758, 3 July 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tkmuka— Monday, July 2, 1888.

[Before John Talbot and James Guild Esqs., J.P.’s]. LAXCENT OP A CHEQUE.

George Ramsay was charged with feloniously stealing* taking, and carrying away a certain valuable security, that is to say a certain cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, for money to the value of £2 Bs, belonging to, and being in the dwelling-house of, one John Craig, contrary to ths statute. Accused pleaded not guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Constable Morton stated that on May 23rd Ramsay was committed to Lyttelton gaol for 3 months’ imprisonment on a charge of using obscene language. After his committal the police were informed that John Craig, blacksmith, Temuka, had lost a cheque. On enquiry it was found to have been passed through the account of a tradesman in the town, who had received it from accused. A warrant was duly made out, and the accused was brought up from Lyttelton to answer the charge. The Bench, before letting the case proceed, consulted authorities as to Ihei’r power to deal with it. They ultimately decided to hear it. Constable Morton then called John Craig, blacksmith, Temuka, who on being sworn, said that be remembered Thursday, May 17. Had a cheque in his possession that day. It was left under the cover of a daybook, which was lying on the table in the front room of his house, which was used as an office. Cheque produced appeared to he the one. It was written in rather watery ink. Never gave the cheque to accused or to any one else. Had occasion on Thursday, the 17th, to go to Timaru. Wat perfectly sober. Missed the cheque on his return. On entering the house found the room “upside down,” the papers and books scattered about. Missed the cheque, but did Aot say anything at the time. Preferred to wait to see if anything turned up. A few days afterwards enquired at the Bank of JNew Zealand to ascertain if the drawer of the cheque banked there. Round that ho kept his accouat in Timaru. Then spoke to the police. Ascertained while at the Bank that the cheque had been paid. It had been paid into a customer’s account. Did not owe Ramsay any money. Did not give him the cheque for any purpose whatever. The front door of the premises was always locked. Did not close the back door. It was left open for the Butcher and baker. Ramsay knew the premises. By the accused: Had not sworn that it was the cheque lost. Did not remember asking Mr Jackson, of Timaru, “to have a taste” on the 18th. Did not recollect producing the money or having the cheque on that day. Was drinking on that day. Would not swear if he was capable. Did mot remember on the morning of the 19th of May lying on the sofa of Heap’s hotel, and being refused a drink by White, the barman. Accused said that it was no use asking witness questions as “ he could not remember or could not recollect.” By the Constable: Was perfectly sober when the cheque was missed. It was the 17th. It was afterwards that he was drinking. Henry Williams, wheelwright, Temuka, said that his premises adjoined those of Craig. Remembered seeing accused in Craig’s house on three different occasions. Once was Friday, the 18th May. He was in the kitchen amusing himself by eating bread and onions. Had gone round himself to see if Craig was at home. Found that he was away. Accused said that he had brought Craig home the previous evening, and he (Craig) had asked accused to sleep on the sofa. Cautioned him that if he was caught there again he would be given in charge for being illegally on the premises. Ordered him out, as he bad done several time before, and he left. Craig was not in the house that day. Anyone could go into the house without being seen. - Had cautioned accused several times about going on Craig’s premises. Replying to the Bench: A person could enter the back door and go through the house. To the accused; Ordered you out the last time on the 19th May. You were eating bread and onions in the kitchen on the 18th May. Could not say how long before the 18th May I had ordered you off. The accused: You see, your Worships, the witness is rambling. He has told enough lies.

The accused was called to order. Witness, in answer to accused, said that he recollected charging him (Bamsay) with carrying whiskey to Craig. The accused: Don’t you recollect my saying that I only took him eggs and milk, according to Dr Hayes’ orders, aa he wanted nursing. John Angland, hotelkeeper, Temuka: Know accused. Bemembered his being about the hotel. He cashed a cheque at the hotel for £2 8s on or about the 18th or 19th of May. The cheque was paid into the bank on the 22nd of May. Only had the cheque three or four days before it was paid jn. Could not swear to the cheque. Jt was similar to the one produced. It was drawn in favor of Craig by John Broanahan. Asked accused how he came by it. He said: “ It’s all light; Broanaban’s good enough.”

Did not care to cash the cheque. Accused said he received it from Craig, who owed him money. Kept 6d exchange and the amount for drinks, and gave accused the change. Paid him the amount less the exchange and Is. He did not ask for drink to take away. The cheque was paid into the bank and duly credited. Was certain accused said, “ Craig owes me the money, and more too.” By the accused: Remembered the 20th May. It was Sunday. Was most likely in the bar when the cheque was cashed.

Accused was proceeding to ask a number of irrelevant questions but was stopped by the Bench. Mr Guild: The date the cheque was cashed does not matter. You cashed the cheque with witness ? Accused replied in the affirmative. John Brosnahau, farmer, Levels Plains; Remember giving Craig the cheque produced in payment of an account. It was the only cheque of like amount given on that date, May 15th. The cheque had been paid at the bank. Craig took the cheque in his office. Edward Pigeon, ledger keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, Timaru, certified to the cheque having been paid at the bank, and charged to John Brosnahan’s account.

John Morton, Constable in charge at Temuka: Proceeded on the 24th June to Lyttelton gaol and interviewed the accused, and read the information to him. Told him if he wanted any witnesses or assistance that they would be obtained for him by the date of hearing. Accused said he did not require witnesses. Craig had given him the cheque to get drink with. J. Craig, re-examined by the Bench : Was never in the habit of giving Ramsay money to gee drink. He had bought drink about twelve months ago, but not lately. In defence, accused said that he went past Craig’s on the 18th, but not into his house. He was going to Mr G-ray's to get linseed for a man who was taking horses to India. On the morning of the 19th he met Craig coming down the street holding his head. He asked him (accused) to get him “a taste.” Told him that the hotels were closed and that there was no chance of getting a drink, Craig offered him the cheque, hut he did not take it. Afterwards got him as much whisky as would make three nips, Craig drank it all. On the 19th was going into Timaru. Craig asked him (accused) to get some whisky like the last. (Accused explained with some earnestness that it had curacoa in it, which would do more good than fifty ordinary nips.) Received the cheque from Craig but did not cash it then. Cashed it on the Sunday. Only received 265. Accused pointed out that he was charged with stealing the cheque on the ~l7th May, hut the evidence was that he was in the house on the 18th. He also pleaded that he had never been charged with theft, although frequently before the court for minor offences.

Replying to the Bench* accused said that he received the cheque from Craig and cashed it with Angland. The Bench considered that accused had come by the cheque dishonestly, and that his defence was a piece of barefaced impudence. He would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

Accused: And be branded as a thief! Well, the next time I’m before the Court it will be a Supreme Court case.

CIVIL CASES,

Bolton v. Malarkey—Claim £lO 9s,

Mr Aspinall, who appeared for the defendant, applied for an adjournment for a week, as his client was in gaol. Plaintiff objected. The case had been adjourned once, and defendant’s goods were being disposed of by his son. He was willing to adjourn the case if the amount was paid into Court.

Mr Aspinall submitted that defendant’s property could not be sold as he was in gaol. The Bench thought that it was only fair to hear the plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff, sworn, said: The account produced is correct. The charges fair and reasonable. The contra accounts are credited as received by me from Mrs Malarkey. The amount is still owing. On several occasions I have been promised payment in grain or otherwise.

Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

Mogridge r. Meagher—Claim £1 10s.

This was a case adjourned from a previous sitting of the Court to enable plaintiff to prove delivery of the goods. J, Wiltshire proved delivering the goods to defendant’s sou, since dead. Defendant stated that his son was 18 years old. He worked at the Cave station and. at shearing. He died in the Hospital. Had received 80s flora Mr Orbell after his death, 20s for a dog, and 8s 4d from the Hospita Steward, together with some clothes. Had been put to considerable expense at the funeral, etc.

'J he plaintiff intimated that at the previous hearing defendant had stated that there was enough from his son’s effects to pay the claim. He only wanted to know that the things had been duly delivered. Judgment was given for defendant, the Bench stating that although there might have been some little amount coming from deceased’s effects the expenses probably swamped it.

Dyson v. Cameron Claim 26a, being 20s cash lent, with 3 years’ interest. Judgment for 20s with costs. E. Waddell v. Aspinall and Hayes, as Trustees in Paterson’s estate. Mr Aspinall, who appeared for defendants, stated arrangements had been made to have the case heaid at the next sitting of the Resident Magistrate. J. Walker v. Arthur Gibbs—Claim 20s for hire of horse and saddle. Defendant said the horse was lent to him. Had offered to pay for the loan of the saddle. Never arranged to hire the horse. From plaintiff’s statement, it appeared that no arrangement for hire was made. Defendant had used the horse, and he thought he was entitled to something. Judgment for plaintiff for 10s with costs. Judgment by default was given in the following cases : J. Winning v. Malarkey Claim £ll 2s U. Dr Campbell v. Alma Edgeler— Claim £2 2s. The Court then rose.