RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 669, 15 November 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. Gh FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Thubsday, Novembee 14. Beeach of Distillation Act Amendment Act, 1867. — John Newton, charged on the information of the Collector of Customs with having distilling apparatus in his possession, or on his premises, appeared on his bail. The police applied for a remand till the 23rd, for the production of material and important evidence on the part of the prosecution. — Mr Button opposed the application. He submitted that the Act under which the information was laid was not law. — Mr Patten here stated that "Hansard," published by the Government printer, notified that the Governor had assented to the Act. Mr Seed, the Secretary to the Customs department, informed him that the Act was to have been gazetted the day after he left Wellington. He expected the " Gazette*' would be forwarded here to-morrow by the Phoebe. — Mr Button here remarked that he raised the objection now, for hereafter he might probably have occasion to refer to it again. It was impossible for his client to know that he was incurring a penalty for the breaking of a law the very existence of which he was not cognizant of. — His Worship remarked that he would grant the remand. If it was afterwards ascertained that it was not law, then tho prisoner had been illegally remanded. — The' prisoner was then remanded till the 23rd instant, the former bail to be taken — prisoner in LSOO, and two sureties in L 250 each. Civil Cases. sl'kay v. bobeet habold, manageb of the union bank of axjstbalia in hokitika. Plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of L9B 3s 6d, being L 26 17s 3d, for balance of salary due as a clerk in the Union Bank of Australia, and L7l 6s 3d, three months' salary for wrongful dismissal. Mr Eees for the plaintiff, Mr Button for the defendant. The defendant had paid L 27 7s into Court. Eobcrt Hume Gordon M'Kay deposed that he received the following notice from Mr Harold :— [corr.] Union Bank of Australia, Hokitika, 23rd September, 1867. It. H. Or. M ackay, Esq., Greymoutli. v Sib — I am instructed by the inspector and general manager to intimate that you hare been dismissed from the service of this bank, in consequence of your having connived at or concealed an attempt at fraud on the part of one of it 3 officers. Tho agent at Greymouth has instructions to honor your cheque forsalary in full to this date. Your obedient servant, (Signed), Robt. Harold, Manager. Cross-examined by Mr Button. — That was the first intimation the witness received as to his dismissal. He was suspended by Mr Dargaville, who told him that he would relieve him from his duties, but it would be as well for him to remain in Hokitika. They had a conversation about an entry in the cash-box. The entry on the 21sfc of March is in Mr Grundry's handwriting. He was teller. The entry is for L7O 18s 6d. It is not a usual entry. Witness gave Mr Dargaville an explanation. He told him that he missed a credit slip. It was after Mr Grundry had been charged with theft that the explanation was given. Mr Grundry was accused towards the end of July. Mr Dargaville called witness's attention to the entry, and asked him to "gtve Ttn explanation. — Witness callod Mr_ Gruudry's attention to the credit slip. He produced the slip, • witness fancied, out of his trousers' pocket, but Mr Grandiy said that he did not. Witness believed the money was wrapped up in the slip, and told Mr Grundry m>. Witness never told Mr Dargaville that Mr Grundry besought him, with tears in his eyes, not to say a word about it. Mr Gnndry did remark " you had better not say a word about it." Ho said so in a defiant manner. Witness did not mention anything about this occurrence to the Bank authorities. Re-examined by Mr Eecs — Mr'Dargaville mentioned the subject first. Mr Purcell paid some money in. Witness entered the amount in pencil in his ledger and also iv Mr Pureell's pass-book. He afterwards found tho slip was wanting, and asked Mr Gundry for it. This closed tho plaintiff's case. Mr Button called Joseph Dargaville, who deposed that lie was Inspector of Goldfields Agencies for tho Union Bank. He went up to inspect the Greymouth agency after the robbery had taken place there, He had a conversation with Mr M'Kay about the robbery. Witness asked Mr M'Kay whether he had any suspicion that Gundry had been guilty of any other irregularities. Mr M'Kay said that on the 21st March Mr Purcell had paid L7O 18s (5d into the bank, and he had detected Gundry appropriating or taking the amount. On reference to the tellers' cash book au entry to that amount is added on to the day's work. He told witness that Mr Gundry asked him not to report him, and from personal feelings he did not do so. Witness asked him if he was certain that Grundry meaat to appropriate it. He said he was. That Gruadry said he meant to return it in a day or two, 1 and implored him with tears in his eyes not to mention it. Mr M'Kay told witness that when he (M'Kay) accused Grundry of not entering the money, Grundry after some hesitation and confusion pulled tho slip and money out of his pocket, and told him that he only intended to use it for a few days, and begged him not to report it. Cross-examined by Mr Kees —Mr M'Kay said lie had seen Mr Purcell pay in money and Grundry did not pass the voucher into him. This closed the case for the defence. Mr Button remarked that he considered the defence was quite strong enough. He would leave the case in the hands of the Court. Mr Eees contended that he thought His Worship would see there was no evidence of concealment of any fraud. If he had wished to conceal it, his client would have said nothing about it. Ho had volunteered the information. He submitted there was no ground for instant dismissal. His Worship stated that in his opinion it was one of the most impudent claims he had ever heard of in his life. It was the plaintiff's duty to have at once communicated the facts to the bank authorities. Judgment was given for the amount paid into Court, plaintiff to pay costs. His Worship, after giving judgment, added that he did not say anything against the plaintiff's honesty. He did not appear to have benefited by tho transaction. Alcorn v. E. Eeeves.-— A claim for L 23 13s 6d for goods supplied. Mr South, for the defendant, applied for a nonsuit on the ground that tho defendant had executed a deed of composition. Mr

Eees, for the plaintiff, submitted that he was entitled to recover, for the defendant had not carried out the provisions of the deed. He had not paid nor tendered the composition. His worship reserved judgment till the following day. Bank of New South Wales v. Charles Christopher Cullen.— Mr Button for the plaintiff, and with him Mr Harvey. Mr Sees for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of LIOO, the value of gold belonging to the Bank, entrusted to the defendant's care and possession on behalf of the Bank, and lost through the negligence of the defendant. Mr Harvey called the defendant. Charles Christopher Cullen, who deposed that he was at present an hotel keeper at Charleston. About the 26th of October last he received L 250 from the branch Bank of New South Wales at Stafford Town. He bought thirty ounces of gold at Piper's Flat. It was worth L 3 16s 3d an ounce. Witness kept a store at Piper's Flat. It was built of calico. The gold was placed in the drawer of the gold scales. The scales were kept behind the counter, and. some kegs stood on the counter .which would render it difficult to reach the scales. A person would have to sit on the counter to reach over to the scales. A tall man might reach across without sitting on the counter. Witness laid an information against a person named Daniel Byrnes for stealing the gold. Witness bought some gold from him. He then left the store, and returned again. Whilst he was there, witness, who was serving a customer, went out of the store, and left the two men in it. He did not leave any person in his employ to look after the store. He purchased tho gold from Byrnes about five o'clock. He missed the gold about eleven o'clock. At that time he sold drink in his store. There wore different people in and out of the store between the tune witness bought the gold from Byrnes and when lie missed it. He was in the store all the evening. Witness had known Byrnes ; he was' an old customer of his. He was not long away. He only went to fetch a shovel. The money or the gold have never been returned to the Bank. Witness obtained L 250 from the Bank. He has returned gold of the value of L 155 to the Bank. Cross-examined by Mr JJoes — He ■was asked by tho agent to buy gold for the Bank. The agent saw where the gold was kept, and never objected to the place as being insecure He said the Bank ought to provide the storekeepers with safes. He bought gold for the Union and New Zealands Banks. The agents of those banks never objected to to the place as being insecure. They knew whore he kept the gold. That was the only place of safety he had in his store. Witness kept the gold belonging to the other banks after the robbery in the same place. By the Court — Witness bought gold for the bank because ho thought it would attract custom. He got no payment irom the Bank. He used to take tho gold into a little back place at night where he slept. It would not have been safe there in the day time. Mr Eees contended that it was but right and just that the Bank should bear tho loss. Defendant had bought gold for the Bank without any profit to himself. Mr Eees quoted from " Coggs v Barnard" in Smith's leading cases. Mr Button commented upon the evidence, and submitted the defendant had been guilty of gross negligence. His Worship reserved judgment in the the case till the following clay. M'Beath v. Home. — Mr South for the defendant. For goods supplied. Judgment for tho amount claimed, (L3O ss), with costs. The Ceurfc was then adjourned till 11 o'clock next day.