RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 194, 26 October 1871, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S CO URT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M ) Thuksdav, 19th Oct. O'Neil . v. . Hanson. — Hanson was charg 'd, on the information nf O'Neil, that he did, on the 18di October, . violenfly boat and assault him. O'Xeil stated that on the day in question, he whs overtaken by aceusud, aud struck by him repeated blows on the •*U\<s, shoulders, and head, by a sack He gave no provocation, and declared his life iv danger from the threats of accused. W. Mears, being called as evidence for the complaint, declared that he had seen no assault whatever. He had seen both parties on the day named, but aaw nothing like an ass mlt. Case dismissed.

Friday, 20th Oct.

(Before the same Magistrate,) ; / Rae v. Davies and Currk v. Davies. — Mr. Copland for prosecution, and Mr. Gooday for defendant.

D.ivies was charged, on the information of James Rae, that he did, on the 21st day of September, obtain from him the sum of £10, by giving for same a valueless cheque.

Davies was also charged, on the information of Andrew Cume r 'that lie did, at Tapanui, on the 23rd day of September, buy a horse, saddle, and bridle, in payment of which he gave a valueless cheque for the sum of £23.

Andrew Currie, being sworn, deposed to his having sold the horsa, saddle, and bridle to accused at Tapanui, on the 23rd day of September current, for which the accused gave him a cheque on the Bank of Sew Zealand, Lawrence, which cheque was duly presented,- and returned to him, there being no funds. , : James Rae, being sworn, deposed that on the 21st September last the accused cama to his ho.tel, at the junction" of Teviot and Switzers roa'da, and asked him for £10, which was given to him, in lieu of which* he gave a cheque for the amount on the Bank of New Zealand, Lawrence, which cheque was July presented, and returned to him, there being no funds. • ' . •'.-,. ,• ._ .;. Mr. Forbes, ledger-keeper, Bank of New Zealand, deposed— l knaw. the % ac-, 1 cuaed. 'There was an account of moneys paid into Davies' account wijfch our Bank -^produced a copy from ledger—^objected to by Mr. Gooday agfMing a copy. After Borne legal sparringi ♦ Mr. Forjwa

went* for Bank ledger. Still Mr. Gooday objected ; he wanted the original slips which are filled up when moneys are deposited. The Bench ruled that the ledger was the original documents to all intents and purposes.) • On the 30th of August tilers was a credit of 10s in favour of accused. Ou the 19hh September, the sum of £1 12s Gd was paid ou a cheque of accused's, making him in debt to the bank in the- sum of. 22s 61, On the 20' h September, another cheque of accused's was presented for £5 ami paid, thus making his overdraft£ 6 2s 6d. On the 7r,h October, thia overdraft was paid by Messrs. Herbert & Co. on account of Davies. to my knowledge, had no pass-book. He might have had one had he asked for it. On the 21st September, there was no sum of £10 to h ; s credit. 1 saw him after the £1 12s Gd cheque was paid, and informed him that his account was overdrawn. He told me he would pay it when lie had settled with Herbert & Co. Upon paying the other cheque for £5, I ajjain saw -him. He informed me that the moment he had settled with 'Herbert & Co. he would pay the overdraft: He told me lie had £50 to tike from Herbert & Co. Rae's cheque was only presented once at the Bank.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I do not remember seeing Davies iv the Bank. There was nothing to his credit when he drew the cheque. Curries cheque was dated oh the 23rd September," presented o*n he 25th, and marked "no funds."

James Gaiter, being sworn, deposed — lam a mate of accused. The receipt produced is for a fourth share in bullocks and bush plant (amount £30.) I did not pay the c'ish, because when we squared up, Davies was deficient in the sum of £100, foo which he could give no account. He toll us that he had made a mess of matters, and that he would give up his share to make up the deficiency. BLwitt was present when accused made everything over to us. We had not settled with Herbert & Co. at this time.

At thia stage a document was produced by Mr. Copland. Upon being read by Mr. Gooday, he objected to its production, as it purported to be a release as well as a receipt, and ought to bear a 10s stamp.

The 1 !ench remarked that there wa3 a special clause in the Stamp Act regarding documents in criminal proceedings, and document now produced came within the meaning of the Act.

At this stage of . the proceedings, a tournament on a small scale took place between counsel — the one lamenting the inexper ; ence of the other in criminal proceedings ; the other retorting by expressing his admiration of the superlative abilities of his venerable friend. The Bench had on more than one occasion to interfere to, cal hi down the rising ire of the learned counsel.

Witness continued — The document produced was a receipt for £24 133 from Herbert & Co. in full of all demands, ex•:lustve of some unsawu loya in the bush. Davics g..t ni-nti of the money. He was present at the time. After the agre.uient he gave us, he had no property, subsequently we sold Herbert »fc Co. the logs and bullocks, Davies had nothing to do with them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — Davids' interest was included in the £24 13s. Ho was"" present -when we got the nwe/. He could give no account of the' £LOU deficiency. IJe tried, whilst wt were making out a list of receipts, to put some nf them in twice to reduce the .'im.mnt of the "deficiency. When' 'we arrived at the .amount, PavL-s wrote our cheques for each vof our shares. Mmv was for Ll4 9s. We were not satisfied with the am-'iint, and we stopped payment, of all moneys. We had a disagreement afterwards about the deficiency, and about his mortgaging the bullocks to Herberc & Co., without our knowledge, for LSO. I put n.i money into the i artnership. Scott put in LSO. The balance on account of bullocks and plant was p .m in la- -our. We bought thi bullocks from Jerusalem Smyth. There was a bii. given for the balance. 1 believe l^aviet did this.

Archibald Leckie and John Scott, mates of Davies, were called. Their evidence was substantially the same as that of Gaiter.

John Ilowitt, of Herbert, Howitt & Co., being sworn, deposed— l recolluct the 22, nd September last. I received a letter from Gaiter stopping payment of all cheques. The statement ot account pioduced \ shewed to accused nnd mates. L24 12s lid was coming to them. I had a conversation with him ;<bout tiie bank account, ahu\ told him that it was L6 2s lid overdrawn. 1 told him that unless he forwardtd the amount, I would keen the same off his account. I was not legally, but considered myself morally /bound to meet the overdraft" which was done, and the amount kept off lhem. • This concluded the evidence in tne first case, when

Mr. Copland addressed the Bench in a lengthy speech, going over the wholefacts of the case, and availing himself of various legal authorities, concluding by stating that he had made out a prima facie case, and that now the matter should be left to the decisionof a jury to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The Magistrate stated that lie had come to a different . conclusion. That taking the whole evidence, aud the whole circumstances of the case into consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the learned counsel hud not established a prima facie case, therefore he would discharge the accused. The case of Currie v. .Ddvies was then called, when Mr. Copland rose and stated that he had a request to make, viz. , that the hearing of the case now before the Court sjhould he heard at;d decided before other Magistrates. There would be no inconvenience or delay in adopting this course, as there were other Magistrates at hand, and quoting legal authorities in support of the course he asked for.

The Magistrate asked- htm his reasons for making; the request.

The learned counsel replied that from fche decision arrived at by the Bench in the last cast), that he could. nut hoar- the* present .casfe %1 without being biaiefd and •partial.* *'

The Bench at once refused to listen to the learned counsel's request, and remarked that already the bench had commenced to take evidence iv the 1 matter, and would £nwh4t.

The learned counsel, not being satis fied, was continuing ' determinedly to address the Bench, whereupon the Magistrate stated that the .course pursued by counsel in the case was taking np the time of the Court unnecessarily. The learned counsel knew that he (the Magistrate) had the power to prevent couuael from appearing on either side. Nay, more, that he could hold the enquiry with, closed d<>ors. IJe had, fcherefoie, come to the conclusion that counsel should not be heard ou eiiher side ; whereupon the learned gentleman sat down, stating th.it at all events he would watcli the case for the prosecution.

The witnesses in the tirst case were then called iv order, and their evhleme read over to them, and signed. The additional questions asked were of no material importance.

The Magistrate then stated that this matter was materially different from the last. The accused, miyht have had some reason to expect that out of the whole accounts he mi>>ht be enabled to get something ;* but in giving the last cheque on the 23rd September, he could have no hope whatevtr.

The accused, having nothing to say, was, ou this last charge, committed to stand his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court, Dunedin.

Witnesses were hound over in there recognizances to app.ar.