R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1358, 20 April 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

[Before H. S. Wabdell, R.M., and A. ' Bish, J.P.I (Continued.)

Cross-examined; by Mr Skipper— Accused acted for the Company during January and February, He obtained two proposal in January, and accounted for them,' Aooused had authority to receive money and issuereceipts on receiving a proposal. Had he accounted for the money from Hapeta there would have been no complaint, it would have been in the usual form of business. The reoeiving of money from Hapeta was not wron?, but not giving the Company's receipt was an in'eplarjty, He was not authorised to receive tljo money without giving the Company's receipt. He was not stating anything that was false m stating that he was acting for the Cora: pany. The Company had sued, accused for the amount of Hirschborg's and Mitchell's premiums. Defendant also sued the_ Company, but., as, he did not appeat the case wasdisnjiasedt ' Mr Sfeippor—Have you received a letter from the defendant jqst before his arrest? Witness—No. Mr Skipper—l "am informed that defendant has written a lett§r. , MoArdle—There were some letters among the accused's effects. The letter was found pongst the latter, and on being opened by Mr Simpson proved to be a statement that the accnsed had omitted to place on his account the amount of £3l6s, which he had received from a Maori. He had, however, lost the proposal and forgotten the name, He intended to find out who the Maori was and remit the money on obtaining a fresh proposal. • • ' His Worship remarked that the ■ letter was not of much value as witness was only now maie aware of-its contents when the information was being heard. Mrs Hapeta deposed—That Mr Mills had said if she died her husband would receive £4OO, whether her death took .place.by accident or otherwise, and if she met with an accident which disabled her she was to receive a weekly allowance for 26 weeks. When the proposal was filled accused did not give a receipt but saidtlie policy would be a sufficient receipt. Ho said there was no need to submit tho proposal for approval. She considered her life was insured as:soon as the money' was paid. Cross-examined by Mr Skipper! I never told Mr Mills that the reason I wished to insure in the Accident Insurance Co,- waß because I had restive-horses and might get hurt. . . v . . , Hapeta recalled said lie believed Mills told him before he paid the money that it did not matter what his wife died of, he would get £4OO, If it was for insurance against accident only, he would not have paid the money. Hiß Worship ; Why did you sign your name to the paper'when " no" was written instead of" yes" to one of the questions. Witness; Prisoner said he would put " no" and it was a matter between my. wife and him.,, I only hsd to .sign the cheque, ; y : The Court: Did you understand from the defendant that the insurance was complete as soon a? yon paid the money ? Witness: ?es, because he said he would send the policy from town in a few days, Ho said nothing about submitting the proposal to the Company. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Skipper submitt'ed'the information was had as it did not state'what constituted the false pretence. ■ His Worship held that as it was not an indictment it was not necessary to set out the false pretence. Mr Skipper submitted that' tlie case had not been proved and that it must fall to the ground on the probabilities of it. The principal witnesses were a man and his wife-the latter an intelligent oduoated woman; and a Maori well known to be a shrewd man, who could Bpeak English as well as he could, and ,their evidence should' be taken with caution, The accused was prepared To pay the; money if Hapeta wished to oarry out the proposal. The false pretence was not proved., and the Court should give the Recused the benefit of the doubt, f V W< Barber deposed that he saw.aooused staying at the Club Hotel. He had a private room for showing books,; Never B»id anything about wanting to find Hapeta/ - . ' ' , To Mr Bunny-Hapeta and his . wife were in the habit of frequenting the Club Hotel; occasionally. There was no difficulty m finding them at any time. ).'.,ThiiwMthecose:> :i - Mr Bunny asked leave to address the Court, but his ; Worship ruled that: he could not do io,m io cam of this kind

it was usual for tlie defendant to bare the last word.

After some little argument on the point, their Worships retired to consider their judgment. On re-taking? their seaU, . the E.M. eaid they had decided to deal with the case summarily, and would rule that the false pretence had not been proved, Mr Bonny wished to address the Court on a point of - law, and after a-.rather * exoired argument with' thejßenoh was allowed to do so,' when lie: proved by reference to tno cases in the LW'Timei" that although the falsa'pretence was not proved, the Court; could convict for larceny as a bailee without an-amended charge. .■■ .■•>< ,y, •v-, , His Worship admitted ; the correctness: of this view and invited Mr Skipper to show cause against it.; That gentleman, however, ifas not prepared just'then 'to dosn. :

The B,M. said he felt somewhat i . embarrassed by the position the Bench was now placed in. Had they been awarethat Mr Bunny simply wished to address on a point of law. and not od the facUi. when he wished to address, the, Ooort • after Mr Skipper, the case ..would have a been materially altered. The prisoner, l; however, had no doubt: felt that after hearing the deoiaion of the Benoh hi) war as good as discharged, and he (the B.M;)' felt great reluotance to reversing the daoislon. , The best way out of the difficulty would be to discharge the accused oh the ; present occasion, and lay a fresh infor* : mation against him for larceny, to. be heard.on Friday, at lOo'olrick.' . Mrßunny in accepting this decision! '; aaked. that the accused be kept under the surveillance of the police. ;V His Worship, Of Coiirse. ; ' civil. 1 ;;. !!£ Lowes & lorns v John Prenter-Debt £6loa. Judgment for amount and costs. D, F. McCarthy v 0, Petersen—Debt £l6 18s. Judgment for amount and costs. Walter Morison v John- Macara.— Claim £8 6s, balance of amount due for Bervice of Kingfisher., i!l was paid into Court whioh plaintiff refused to accept. . Plaintiff deposed that he had borrowed a little mare from defendant to£v : travelling with Singßsher. ifbJHRk proved in foal at the-end of the season plaintiff was to receive £lss. Defendant however, took the ,mare away before-the season was over, and plaintiff told him he would chargo full jtate,. The mare we§ brought back again,'"'but plaintiff lent another horse to defendant in exchange. Defendant had paid £1 and'told defendant the mare was not in foal, but he (defendant) knew better. - > Defendant sworn stated that the plaintiff went up to Mr James Macara's place;i - and began ftdmiriqg the tqare, saying it ; was" a nice canny little thing" and would suit him to lead Kingfisher with. JJefeudaut struck a bargain with, plaintiff that... „ the latter could use the mare, and if' at - the end "of the season Bhe was injoal defendant would pay him £2, if not plaintiff was to pay defendant 12 for tho use of lu ft To plaintiff—l remember asking yon for the £1 back that I had paid you, and also telling you the mare was not in foal.. ■ I was only chaffing you, Plaintiff—l have you on your oath now and can get the truth out of you. Did the mare have a foal 1 Defendant—Yes. His Worship gave judgment for Bs more i than the amount paid into court, making t' a total of £1 6s, each party paying thoir (iTfn costs. Too Long, the Obinese gardener, was then oalled up to answer ilie'ohareq qf driving after dark lyityout lights. Hiq Worship couldn't understand a word Top said, arid Too aeonqed equally foggy with regard to Ms/Worship's utterances. 'As , . defendant had waited patiently about thp Court since 9 o'clocjs in thp rnorning, and it was noff si?, his Worship intubated , that he pould depart jn petp, atjd ho • went, looking more mystified than ovfi]?. Sergt McArdle was instructed to make Too Long understand what it was all abont. .......