R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 973, 13 January 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-THUBSDA'L Before Messrs 6. Beetham and A. Bish. J.P.'s. Chapman v Henry.-Embezzlement of three ohoques, the property of prosecutor, The Court said the case had been adjourned for the proseoution to produce evidence as to the payment of the money. Was this evidence forthcoming ? Mr Bunny replied that it was, but he first desired to draw the attention of the Court to a document given by the accused to Mr Chapman, whose evidence on this point he desired to take.

The prisoner objeoted to Mr Chapman being called until a receipt in full given by him was produced in Court, F. Chapman deposed that on the previous afternoon accused met him and wanted him to gire a receipt for the money, Witness olaimed his expenses. Witness agreed to this, subject to Mr Bunny's approval, and withdrew the proseoution on the money being paid. The accused: I object to this evidence in toto. No one was there but ourselves. F. Chapman : The accused gave me the I. O.U. for £9 7s 6d. The money, it was arranged, should be paid within six days. The 1.0 U. was for the 116 odd less expenses. Witness gave the acouaed a receipt lor the 1.0. U., but did not agree to with-, draw the charge in consequence of receiving the 1.0. U. In answer to the accused: When witness met the accused he said he wanted to get the money.

The accused: Did I tell you that I retained the money ponding any proceedings which might be taken by Mr Skipper. Witness: Yes, you told me that. Accused: Did you ask me to go round to Mr Bunny's office before you took the 1.0. U.? Witness: No,

Accused: Would you have appeared to prosecute to-day unless Mr Bunny had pressed you to do so t

. Witness: Mr Bunny did not press me. Accused: Would you not have withdrawn horn the case or had it dismissed 1 Witness: I don't think I should. Accused: What was your motive then in signing a receipt for all demands and then coming into Court 1 Witness: Simply because I found that the 1.0.TJ. was worth nothing. Accused: Why did you take it then J Witness: Jub{ as I take a good many more.pieces of paper. •. The'accused then put in the receipt which was as follows—" Received from James Robert Henry 1.0. U. for iS9 7s 6d in full of all demands on the said James Robert Henry.—P. Chapmak." Mr Bunny: You (aid,Mr Chapman, that you did not accept the LQ.U.'ai pay* ment in full of al) demands. ' . Witness; I accepted it pending yonr advice. I did not value the 1,0, ut. at

'anything. I read the receipt before ilfrbingit. The accused wrote it. laraolear that I took the 1.0. U. subjeot to your advice. ..■.-.■. P ?r y T : n D ri d l adviße yo« of the value of the 1.0. U. ? Witness: Yea. - . Mr Bunny: In consequence of tha advice did you of your own free will go on with the oase? ..',... Witness: Yes. In answer to the accused the witness " said he expressed his willingness to take an1.0.U,, but said he would take it to be baoked by somebody. He was perfeotly sober a,t this time. .. fc\. J. forns, auctioneer,-flailed, depoaeflki the sale of the chattels of Mr order of the accused, and to his ofivthem by three oheques, which he identified. He understood that ' they were sold by tha bailiff on behalf of Mr Chapman. He received no direot for atruotions from Mr Chapman. - In answer to the aooused: Was told that accused would retain the oheques till he saw whether Mr Skipper would take any prooeedingain the case. ' Acoused: Did I- say I would cash the cheques ? Witness: Yes. Thomas Wage, hotelkeeper ( Could not identify any of"' the oheques

produced. They might have been taken. by hia barman, He supplied the acoused and Mr Chapman with pen, ink, and paper on the preceding afternoon. They . appeared to be on friendly terms. A. W. Harrison, teller of the Bank of New Zealand, proved that thefirst cheque of £lO 10s 6d had been paid into the bank to the account of Thomas VYagge, and the second, for £l, was paid in by,D. F. MoOarthy, and the third, for £i 10s, by T, Wagge. D. F. McCarthy, storekeeper, called, said the family of the accused had dealings ■ at his store, and might have paid the £1 ohoque for supplies, but oouid not b» certain of the fact. The accused objected to Mr Bunny bnnpg up the £1 cheque when the charge he was defending was the £lO one. It was taking up the time of the Court for no earthly use.

Mr Bunny satisfied the Court that his • » questions were relevant. , Afloowd: Do you recollect, Mr MoCarthy, changing the pound for silver! Witness could not say. Mr Bunny addressed the Court, recapitulating the evidence and submitting that the accused should be oommitted for 1 trial on it. I The accused replied point for point. , arguing that a short time ago by not retaining money he had received m bailiff he had lost &. Mr Bunny had not shown that he had not opened an account . i the Bank with the money whioh he, i 5? nL OBITei The reKßon w hy he gave ' • thought Mr Skipper, if ha took proceedings, would do so within six days; if not, L ' he was P r m e P™d to risk paying over the I money. The money he deducted was * levying on distress £l los, cartage of goods 9s, and for his own trouble 14. If he wew guilty of a felony Mr Chapman by (jiving him the receipt was guilty of com. pounding a felony. Thei accused then called Mr Skipper.' Mr bkipper: I ail .an unwilling witness, '• I but if compelled to give evidence I mast "1 do so. Perhaps your Worship will allow ' me to say that of the money for whioh the bill of sale was given I have not seen a single sixpence, and Mr Chapman -knows U. After being absent from hbme for a few days I found.one day that some person had been put in possession of the premises, and had cleartd out all they could get out. They would have had a Rreat deal of trouble in doing it if 1 had been at home, The aooused told me that Mr Chapman indemnified him for what he did. I threatened to bring an action against both of them if thoy parted with a single sixpence worth of the goods, I said I would have Mr Chapman looked up before I had done with him, and so I will. loannot fix the date of the seizure, but it waß prior to the 16th of December. At first

I was very excited over the affair and if I could have got hold of the accused I would nave given him a good hiding. Afterwards I thought it better to give a plain legal notice to both Chapman and Henry. The acouaed said he was the only man in the place who could be got to do the dirty work, and that it was agreed that he should receive double pay for doinij it, Witness (in answer to accused): I threatened to knock your head off with a poker and would have done so if I had caught you, Mr Bunny: You say you received no consideration for the bill of sale,: Mr - Skipper? . > w ' tneßß: l "aid I received no money* Mr Chapman's endorsement to a bill was the consideration. The bill of sale was given, but not registered. It was also improperly worded, Afterwards it was given to Mr Sellar as the deposit money for the purohasa of a house which I occupy. Chapman had not to put his hand in bis pooket for months afterwards. I have Berved no writs on either Chapman or Henry, but am taking proceedings. Mr Chapman, I imagine, is the best off of the two. I shall go for Chapman if I have a chance. I did not demand from Lowes A lorns or from the defendant the goods that were seized, The Court decided to commit the accused for trial. Bail was fixed at LIOO for the accused, and two sureties of LSO each. As yet it is not forthcoming, and the prisoner will ]» sont to Wellington today to wait for the next sitting of the Supreme Court three months hence.