R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3145, 5 March 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERS-TUESDAY,'

(Before Mr H. S Wardelli, ,B 11.) E, Hi Beeoliam v Thos. H, Lyons. Larceny as a bailee of a cheque for' £2l6s. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant. In opening the case Mr Pownall > said the 'case was a -somewhat complicated one. Mr Beechara wrote out a cheque payablo to Lowes and lorns, and enclosed.it in a stamped ■■ envelope. The cheque was.never . received by Messrs'Lowes and lorns, a. • and proof would ba forthcoming tijP show that accused had cashed tho 1 cheque, to do which bo must have opened the envelope and abstract , the cheque. " . («•;;

E. H. Beecham, sworn, examined ' by Mr Pownall:-On the • 22nd December wrote .£■ cheque; on the Bank New South Wales, at Hastings, for lfis. Tlie cheque was enclosed, witli an order, Tho order was received from Lowes and lorns on the Bth December. The order in the envelope was drawn by the accused in favor ' of Messrs Lowes and ;lorns. The envelope was stamped. -Came into - Masterton on 23rd Deceraber to take , delivery of horse. Saw Lyons on that dato in Masterton. Lyons offered to post or deliver the letter, as lie wasjin town, Told accused tbe letter was an acknowledgment, of tho order, on which he volunteered to deliver 'the letter. Witness then handed the. letter to accused. On January 23rd went to see Lowes and lorns, and ascertained that the cheque had . not been received from Lyons. Mi' Skipper' hero acknowledged that tbe cheque had been oasbed by his client., Plaintiff: On tho lOtli Febn>yfej| tho matter was placed, in tbe sohoT* tor's hands.' Cross-examined by Mr Skjpper ; Acknowledged owing- Lyons £i2 10a for breaking in a horse. 3ftceived a - letter from Lowes & lorns.Tequesting witnesß to pay the amoifnt of order as soon as convenient, The chequo was drawn at the residence of witness, * and brought into Masterton signed. • His ban!tingaccoiintwasinHß6ting§; Accused' told: witness that he owed I.owes & lorns for horse feed, etc. Did not remember telling Lyons, that ' the cheque was in'the envelope. Did *- hot show Lyons the cheque, - Understood that Lyons,wts to' pay the cheque to Lowes & lorns, Accused nevief-told yitpjass that heowed only LI to LoWe's & lornsat' tbe'tipip, bid not lead wittieas to believe' that the balance of tbe cheque was coming ' to himself. Did .not ask for'receipt' of cheque, as he ixpected witness to post it, 31 ay Lave; told accußed tlifet a cheque me'n'cfcedin payment of made about the stamp:; jiaye ospjained joi acousei| fehe ji jjw drawn' uv'er i'nd' abovo' 'this -order'off' 1 ' • account of exchange 1 'lold 'a'coused ~ the exact amount ofclieque enclosed'. Positive that accused .never sajd owed a less amount tbq cheque liois| 'Lowes Moms, Accused neverled wjt»" kess to believe that apportion oftjw

■ V a > proceeds of cheque bolonged.to him. His reason for giving ncouscd the ..ohequo was that ho wa3: lato, about l|ftv9 o'clock, and wanted to get homo, •■■■■ ; v ßliought the man was honest enough : : to post the letter. Mr Skipper! Mr Lyons says it to in the middlo of the day. Witness : Indeed it was not. . Cross-examined by Mr Skipper: "Am positive accused never saw the cheque. Envelope was stamped, - but not scaled. ' Did not care what became otthe cheque so long as Lowes ond lorns were satisfied, About 23rd January, Lovjcs and lorns told witness thevlooked to him for amount of cheque. Had uscertained by Ajibsequent inquiries- that Loves aipfcims had not received amount owing. Told Lyons that il Lowes and lorns were not settled with he would take further proceedings. Sont the order with the cheque to be receipted by l.owos and lorns; Had not since received it. Was well satisfied with the breaking horse. Had not been with proceedings by Lowes and iorns, and had not received account from them. Had not taken proceedings before, becau'so bo did not succeed in tracing the chequo until about the 20th February. Was told by Mr lorns that Uio linn had nothing to do with Lyons but looked to witness for money. Was told that Lyons had offered the money, which the firm would not accept, looking to witness for payment. By Air Poivnall: Lyons offered to post or deliver the letter containing" the order and cheque.. Would not have allowed Lyons to take any part of the cheque, bad he known liim to be indebted to Lowes and lorns. Josopb lorns, sworn, examined by Mr Pownall: Remember receiving from Lyons order on Mr Beecbam fori:! lGs on Cth Lecember, Underwd that to be the amount due by Mr Beecbam, Forwarded it to plaintiff tho same day, At the present time, l.yonsow;d witness more than the amount of the order. Lyons was not given to understand that ho was to receive o portion of the cheque. Had received no money from Lyons .•CiSmce the order was given. Mr Beecbam showed witness the block in bis cheque book for £2l7s. Still looked to plaintiff for the payment of the .£2 IBs. At tho Earn Fair, Lyons tendered one pound and some silver, saying it was part payment of the amount of the tfrder. Told him he looked to Mr Beecbam for payment. _By Mr Skipper: 'l'he order was given by Lyons for two bags of oats, valued at bSsonthe Cth December. Accused was previously indebted for other goods. Guaranteed £1 to Messrs Sellar & Ohennells for rent due by accused, Was subsequently told by Mr Ohennells that the amount had been paid. Witness hesitated supplying the oats, and «used suggested giving the order. \ not consider tho order of any value,■until Mrßeecimm's acltnow . ledgment was received. When the liability was transferred from Lyons to Jjecchuiu, tho firm exonerated the former from liability. Had never applied to Lyons for the payment of the account. At the tiuio tho order was given, Lyons was indebted to them a trifle over £3. By Mr Pownall: Treated tho tjackuowledginent of the order by Mr as a direct indebtedness. T. D, I houipson remembered receiving a cheque drawn by Beecham, payable to Lowes & lorns from Lyons, which witness cashed, deducting one shilling for exchange. , ■By Mr Skipper: The cheque was made payable to bearer, or would not have casiied it. Was not certain of the date, but thought it to be in January, J. H. Rowe, bank accountant, J® nbered a cheque being paid into tlie.oielit of .Mr Thompson on 28th Decoaiber. The cheque \m drawn on the Bank-U.S.W. at Hastings. Thought the cheque was payable to bearer. T. A. Lyons stated that throughout the whole transaction he was conscious of no guilt. Admitted taking the balance in the exercise of his right, and had tendered the amount incurred in the order to Mr lorns. Accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, bail being allo wed, himself for £SO and two sureties of £SO each,