WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 328, 19 August 1868, Page 2

WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, August 18. (Before His Houor, Judge Clark.) The criminal sittings of the District Court opened yesterday, the legal gentlemen present being Messrs. Pitt, Tyler, Campbell, and Home. Mr. W. Pitt prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. OBTAINING MONEY TTKDEE FALSE PiIETEXCES. T. "W. Melville was charged, on remand, with having on the 27th April last obtained money under false preteuces, from Alice Trafford. Mr. Home appeared tor the defence.

The case had been remanded from the previous sittings of the Court. Some little difficulty arose in the selection of a jury, the Crown and the defendant, freely exercising their right of challenge. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case which will be found in the subjoined evidence. Alice Trafford deposed :—I rented the Q.C.E. Hotel from defendant at a rental of £2 10s. per week, and paid him £2O in advance. I asked him if there was any ground rent on the house, and he said there was not a penny due on the premises. Mr. White subsequently wrote out an agreement, and I then paid the money and obtained the receipt produced. I then took possession of the place; on the day the agreement was written out, and have had possession since. I was in the house five weeks when the bailiffs came in and seized for ground rent all that was in the house.

I paid the £2O on condition that there was no ground rent due. If he had not said there was nothing to pay, [ should not have paib the money. By Mr. Home :—My name is Alice Holt. I swear it. My namo is not Anui Trafford. I have two names. I cannot say where I got the name of Alice. My name is Alice Auni Trafford, but I do not go by the two names. I got the license transferred the dayl took the house. It was not taken in my name, nor the name of my husband. My property sold under the distress to the best of my opinion was of the value of £3O. There was some furuiture, lamps, chairs, tables, and fittings left by defendant when I took possession. There was also a beer engine, and they were all sola, and I bought them. I might have said that the property sold of mine, was not worth more than from £3 to £l. I know Mrs. Myers, and I would not swear I did not tell her so. I might have told her so, to get rid of her. I know Brighton. Ido remember swearing Trafford was Tint my husband, and was committed for trial for perjury, but was acquitted for no one could, prove it. Mr Tyler granted me another lease after the sale. My husband was in gaol when I took the house. The money I paid, was my own wages, and I paid it when I got the transfer. Mr. White was present when I asked defendant if the ground rent was paid, but he said he did not hear it. The room was a small one we were in at the . hne. The amount of ground rent, the bailiff said, was £35, but I do not not know how much it was. I signed an inventory of the goods left, on the furniture, a"beer engine, forms, chairs, tables, &c. Thomas "White proved that he knew Alice Trafford and the defendant, and drewup an agreement, when the former took the Q.C.E. Hotel of the latter. The aggreement produced was the same. Witness asked Melville if there was any ground rent due, and he said there was not a penny. By Mr. Home : —I know the prisoner. He owed me money at the time and does now. At the time Melville had these premises my partner made a complaint about the shooting gallery. It was given out by Melville that these premises belonged to a man named Miller. The license was nut transferred to Trafford, but I forget the name of the person. Mrs. Trafford did not, when I was present, ask if there was any rent due. I do not know whose name the old license was

By his Honor : —The asreemeut put in, was not signed by Mrs. Trafford but she signed another, that was left in possession of defendant. Mr. E. K. Tyler proved that the Q.O.E. hotel was situated as shown by a plan produced, and witness was agent for the lessee, Mr. James Johnston, of Grreyoiouth. As such he had frequently applied for payment of rent due by defendant, and had received portions of it. On the 10th of April he padd £5 and on the 27th another £5, promising to pay the balance as soon as possible. He never denied that there was a balance due for ground rent. In June witness on bealf of Mr Johnston put in a distraint.

By Mr Home, I never saw or heard of defendant having given Johnston a promissory note for the rent. Mrs Trafford repudiated her signature to a document signed in my office. That was a fresh arrangemeat for her to carry the house on, and when I applied for rent, she denied that any was due, as that she had signed the agreement. Subsequently she did pay rent, and acknowledged her signature. She has taken the premises iu her own name.

B. fßalrner, clerk to the previous witness proved the execution of a lease from Johuston to Melville.

In reply to Mr Horn, witness said the new agreement wa< to Mrs Trajford and he knew that she had denied the signature to it, which he had witnessed. Detective Lambert was called but proved nothing of importance. Mr Home submitted that the case must drop altogether as it was one for civil pi'ocedure and not for criminal proceeings at all. In support of this he read a ruling of Justice Littledale in Hex v. Codrington, and argued ably to maintain the objection. The agreement oat of which the prosecution arose said nothing whatever as to rent in advance, and defendant was bound by nothing else than what did there appear, on these grounds he urged that the information must fail, and that there was really no case to go to a jury. Mr Pitt remarked that that was good law at the time when the decision quoted was arrived at, but since then the law had been extended, and now the offence charged was one punishable by law.

His Honor considered there was a v*e r y broad distinction between the c a so Mr Home had read and the present one, and lie did not think that he would be justified in withdrawing the caso from the jury. Mr Home then addressed the jury for the defence, characterising the case as one of the most flimsy that ever occupied the time of that Court. He called on them to disbelieve the eviIdence of the prosecutrix, and called Mrs Mvers, who proved that prosecutrix had old her that Melville had been committed, and that she was very glad as she would get the house for half its value. She added that her loss would not be much, not more than £3 or £4. Witness asked her if she had not sworn the value was £3O, and she said that did not matter, for the bailiffs had been very kind to her.

By Mr Pitt —The conversation was in the street, near Smith and M'Dowell's. Erank O'Brien, bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court, proved that he executed a distress warrant on the Q.C.E. about the 3rd of June, and some things were sold, fetching about £l6 or £l7. The stock in the bar, fittings, lamps, &c, were sold. Sergeant Williams said that on Alice Trafford going into the Q.C.E. the licence was transferred from Miller to Perotti, and after that again to a man named Peter Williams. When the licence was transferred Miller was in Taranaki, but he gave a written authority for the transfer. The license had expired and no frOsh one was taken out. Mrs Trafford lived on the premises now.

In reply to his Honor, witness said he did" not know Miller's signature, but took the one produced to be it. C. Whitefoord, Warden's clerk, corroborated the previous witness as to the transfer of the licence.

The Crown Prosesutor was next called bv Mr Home, to prove that defendant was agent for Miller, to whom Melville had sold the property, but his Honor ruled that it was not material, and after being sworn, the witness sat down.

Constable Neville was called to prove that in November last year, Alice TrafFord charged her husband, John Trafford, with stabbing her. She then swore on more than oue occasion, that Trafford was not her husband, but had admitted to witness that be was her husband. She was subsequently committed to trial for perjury. From his knowledge of her the witness would certainly not believe her on her oath. She had offered to find sureties for her husb.-md and release him from gaol, and also find him money if he would quit the country aud leave her alone. Mr Home again addressed the jury for the defence, and Mr Pitt replied.

His Honor pointed out the law in reference to false pretences, after which he remarked that the evidence for the prosecution was extremely weak and the case wholly dependent on the evidence of the prosecutrix, who was a woman whose oath could not be believed, He thought that the jury would pause before sending-a man to gaol on the evidence of a woman, who, it was shown clearly, had repeatedly perjured herself. The jury after a short consultation, returned a verdict of acquittal.

CRIMINAL ASSAULT. James Darmstadt pleaded not guilty to an indictment, charging him with assaulting one Jno. Smith, in Herbert street, on the morning of the 4th August. Mr Pitt, Crown prosecutor, stated the case against the prisoner. I know Jno. Smith and was in company with him on the evening in question at the Gr. V. Brooke Hoi el, which I left at ten o'clock; as I cleared out of the place I had a barrow in my hand, and was knocked down by a man with a piece of wood. Saw a man running away, but did not see prisoner unti now. The witness then said he had seen prisoner when Smith was going to the Hospital, and that Smith called after him and said he would see him again, and that he was a scoundrel for what he had done to him, to which he made no reply, but went towards the wharf.

His Honor asked prisoner if he had any questions to ask witness. By Prisoner—l was drinking with you that night, and had several pots of beer, which I paid for ? Prisoner. How many times were you convicted while on the Coast ? Witness objected to answer that question, but his Honor said he should answer it. Witness, twice.

Jno. Smith examined—l was in company with Wright on the morning of the assault, at Lumley's, left at one. Wright was knocked down and I was also knocked down with *a kind of batten, when down was giddy, but saw a man running away as 1 got up. The man who struck me did not speak. I am a nightman, and after doing my

work felt ill, and went to Dr Thorpe] and to the hospital the same day; cannot say prisoner was the man who struck me. \ By the prisoner—Do not think you resemble the man who struck me. I could not sav, I thought he had a broad brimed hat on. I dont remember meeting you in the streot and accusing you of the assault. Bv his Honor—l am now 'in the hospital, and have no recollection of charcincr prisoner with the assault. Margaret Ashton examined —I knew the prisoner on the Saltwater for eio-h teen months, and at West port for some weeks. He was in my house the nhdit in question. He went out at R o'clock, and I opened the door for him, and remember Smith and Wright leaving my house at I o'clock in the morning, when I went out, and saw prisoner crouching down near the house with a batten in his hand, with which ho struck Wright first and knocked him down, and then struck Smith and knocked him down. I then went for assistance, and on my return saw prisoner running away. By the Prisoner —This was about 1 o'clock in the morning. I decline to answer how manv times" I have been convicted of theft, prostitution, or drunkenness, as it has nothiug to do with the case. I His Honor—You must answer it.

Witness —About twice, once at Addison's, but never-of prostitution. I live with Wright, but am not married to him. I was not convicted at Mokihinui, Hokitika, or the Grey. Inspector Franklyn examined,—l saw prisoner between twelve and one o'clock on the morning of the sth, at the house of a man named Abraham's. I previously got the description of a man named Dempsey as the person on who assaulted Smith, as he did not correspond with the description I asked if Dempsey was there, he said he was, I asked him if he was the man who assaulted Smith and he said he was, I then took bim in custody and cautioned Sim in the usual manner, but while goi iZ to e lock-up he stated he committed the assault in self defence. I went to the hospital with prisoner and he was identified by Smith, who stated that he knew him at Magaire's meaning the gaol By the Prisoner, —I Know the three witnesses in this case, I consider them verv bad characters. Dp Thorpe proved that_ a kick or fall or a strain would occasion the injuries the prosecutor was suffering

from. Tn defence, prisoner called John Gordon, who said he saw Wright strike and ill-use prisoner whilst the latter was drunk, on the night previous to the alleged assault. Mr G-eo. Somuer had known prisoner for a number of years in Dunediu, where he alwavs bore a high character. Mr Clarke also spoke highly of the prisoner's character Prisoner addressed the jury, and stated that he was called into the house by Margaret Ash ton and robbed of thirty shillings, besides L 4 in notes, and that it was to prevent his being further illused and robbed that he struck in self-defence, that he was very drunk, and had been the aggrieved party in the case. The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of not guilty.