WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 331, 22 August 1868, Page 2

WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, August 18. (Before His Honor, 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 UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. T. W. Melville was charged, on remand, with having on the 27th April last obtained money under false pretences, from Alice Trafford. Mr. Home appeared for 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 aj 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, I should not have paib the money. By Mr. Home : —My name is Alice Holt. I swear it. My name is not Anni Trafford. I have two names. I cannot say where I got the name of Alice. My name is Alice Anni Trafford, but I do not go by the two names. I got the license transferred the day I 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 Itookpossession. There was also a beer engine, and they were all sold, and I bought them. I might have said that the property sold of mine, was not worth more than from £3 to £4. 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 not 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 time. The amount of ground rent, the bailiff said, was £35, but I do not not know how much it was. I signed iin 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 drew up an agreemeut, 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. Tiie license was not 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 in. By his Honor :—The agreement 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.C.E. hotel was situated as shown by a plan produced, and witness was agent for the lessee, Mr. James Johnston, of Greymouth. 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 arrangement 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 in her own name.

B. PBalmer, clerk to the previous witness proved the execution of a lease from Johnston to Melville. In reply to Mr Horn, witness said the new agreement wa-i 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 procedure 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 out 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 punishi able by law. His Honor considered there was a very broad distinction between the case Mr Home had read and the present one, and he did not think that he would be justified in withdrawing the case 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 evidence of the prosecutrix, and called Mrs Myers, who proved that prosecutrix had t 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'DowelPs.

Frank O'Brien, bailiff of the Besident 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 fresh 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 by 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

■ Traftbrd, with stabbing her. She then, swore on more than one occasion, that Trafford was not her husband, but had admitted to witness that he was hei' husband. She was subsequently committed to trial for perjury. 3Trom his knowledge of her the witness would certainly not believe her on her oath. She had offered to find sureties for her husband and release him from gaol, and also find him money if he would quit the country and 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. Y. Brooke Hotel, which I left at ten o'clock; as I cleared out of the place I had a barrow in my hand, and Avas knocked down by a man with a piece of wood. Saw a man running away, but did not see prisoner until 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'g, 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 say, I thought he had a broad brimed hat on. I dont remember meeting you in the street and accusing you of the assault. By his Honor —I am now in the hospital, and have no recollection of charging prisoner with the assault. Margaret Ashton examined—l knew the prisoner on the Saltwater for eighteen months, and at Westport for some weeks. He was in my house the night in question. He went out at 8 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 he 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 many times I have been convicted of theft, prostitution, or drunkenness, as it has nothing to do with the case. His Honor—Tou must answer it. Wituess —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, —I 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 him in custody and cautioned him in the usual manner, but while going to the lock-up he stated he committed the assault in self defence. I went to the hospital with prisoner and he was identic fied by Smith, who stated that he

knew him at Maguire's meaning the gaol By the Prisoner, —I Know the three Witnesses in this case, I consider them Very bad •characters. Br Thorpe proved that a kick or fall or a sfcraifi would occasion the injuries the prosecutor was suffering from.

In 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. Somner had known prisoner for a number of years in Dunedin, where he always 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 Ashton 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.

"Wednesday August 18. (Before his Honor Judge Clarke.) The Criminal sittings of this court Were concluded yesterday, only two cases remained to be tried. A case Begina v. M'Donald was first brought forward. Prisoner in the information was charged with stealing gold, and had been admitted to bail. Mr David Leslie and Mr Peter Mango being his sureties. On the trial being ■called on however, the principal person interested, in the shape of the accused. was absent, and Messrs Leslie and Mango were called on to pay their surety money, the recognizances being estreated. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES. John Lea hern was charged with having in May last obtained goods from Ehrenfried Bros., under fraudulent representations. Mr Tyler appeared for the defence. The evidence in this case was published about a week ago, and it is unnecessary to repeat it at length. The substance of it was that the defendant who had been for some two years a publican in "Westport, got into difficulties, and eventually levanted. A kind of creditor's committee was called, when it was resolved to defray the expenses of a warrant, and Detective Lambert was despatched and brought defendant back on a warrant procured from this bench by the present prosecutors. It seems that a day or two before his departure he had called at Ehrenfried's and told them hewasjabout to enlarge his hotel, and at three different times got goods amounting to £l3 4s in all, as was alleged under fraudulent pretences. The Crown failed to sustain the charge, and his Honor directed the jury to acquit the •defendant as there was not evidence to support the information. He was accordingly released, but soon afterwards arrested as a debtor, on a warrant "from the Eesident Magistrate's Court here. This concluded the Criminal bnsiness and the court then adjourned for an hour. CIVIL SITTINGS. On re-assembling the only case remaining for trial, was proceeded with before a special jury of four. BANSON V. PORTEB. This was an action to recover the of £2OO for timber sold and delivered, and for work and labour done in the erection of the Imperial hotel in Gladstone street.

Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, ;and Mr Campbell for the defendant. Before the case was gone into, Mr Tyler drew the attention of his Honor to a set-off that had been put in for £4ll 155., and to the second plea. In reference to the former he submitted that the amount was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore that it could not be admitted. If defendant had any such claim against plaintiff he must recover it by another action, with regard to the second plea, it was of so vague and indefinite character that it was impossible for the plaintiff to specifically answer it. He therefore suggested that the set-off could not be allowed, and that the plea referred to should be struck out. His Honor, after hearing Mr Campbell, said the plea was bad on the face ■of it, and it was therefore struck out. He also concurred with Mr Tyler as to the set-off, and this also was set ■aside, and the case proceeded on its merits.

Mr Tyler stated the case, which was simply this. The plaintiff entered into a contract to build the Imperial hotel, the amount of which was £539 19s 3d, 'On this £253 was paid, and plaintiff recognised a set-off of £54 lis 3d, leaving a balance of £231, which was

reduced to £2OO, to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. In December last year an arrangement was made between the plaintiff and defendant, whereby the former was to buy the latter's interest, (one-half share) in the hotel, and for it, as defendant alleges, plaintiff was to give a clear acquittance of all dues and demands from him (defendant), in addition to the sum of £SO cash, and £96 more on a clear transfer being made. An agreement was drawn up in which the acquittance was not mentioned, but where the two above sums were referred to, and the plaintiff subsequently withdrew from the bargain, and gave up or sold the interest he had purchased. He now brought this action for the balance of money due for building, Mr Tyler his counsel contending that all parties were bound by the four corners of the agreement put in, whereby provision was made for the payment cf the two above mentioned sums, and that nothing could be urged in de-. fence otherwise than therein contained If the defendant had grounds he could commence a cross action, but that in this case he had no substantial defence.

Mr Hanson, the plaintiff, was examined at considerable length, and there was a host of witnesses yet to be brought forward, so his Honor after hearing that evidence, adjourned the Court till 11 o'clock this day. Thursday, August 19. (Before his Honor Judge Clarke ane a special jury of four.) BANSON T. PORTER. This case which had been adjourned from the previous day was resumed, the plaintiff having closed his case with his own evidence on "Wednesday. The jury wished to recall the plaintiff in order to examine him in reference to some points that they were not clear on, and Mr. Eanson accordingly was again sworn. In reply to a question plaintiff said that the £SO which should have been paid by him on the agreement being signed, had not been paid, as he never could get a lease. His Honor enquired if he had ever taken possession, and he replied that he had gone into the house but as he could never get a title, he had not paid the money. If he had got the house he would have cancelled the debt now sued for, besides paying the two sums of £SO and £96. He was nine weeks in the house bnt found he was getting into debt by remaining and gave it up. He admitted having been in partnership with Fred Smith, Adam Porters former partner during that time, and goods were obtained by the firm of Eanson and Smith. His sole reason for withdrawing was that he could not get the deeds from which a lease could be drawn. Several witnesses were examined by defendants counsel, whose evidence went to prove that they had supplied goods to Sanson and Smith for the Imperial Hotel, His Honor told the jury that the defendant had called witnesses that had nothing whatever to do with the case. The question was simply what was owing to the plaintiff. The jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £lB9 10s. and costs ; being £lO 10s. less than the amount claimed.

The court then adjourned till this day at 11 o'clock. The appeal cases will be proceeded with to day, and are two in number only. A case will be brought forward for the opinion of the court under the 72ud. section of the Groldfielde Act The Bankruptcy business will then be gone on with, but it is not of an important character. There are six applicants for final discharges.

Sad news is again to hand from the North. We extract the following from the" Westland Observer," of Monday last: —"The East Coast forces have been again repulsed with nine men killed, including Captains Carr and Cumming. Beinforcements are urgently requested. Colonel Whitmore's forces appear to have attacked the escaped prisoners, and to have been defeated. Later accounts state that two men were killed and seven wounded. Captain Kepa " Kemp," of the Native Contingent, has arrived at Wanganui to offer the services of 250 Kupapas, as volunteers, to assist M'Donnell. News of M 4 Bonnell's attack is hourly expected." Captain Cumming it may be remembered, was in charge of the detachment of Armed Constabulary that visited Westport. We observe by the Gazettt that the following gentlemen have been appointed Eegistrars of birth, marriages, and deaths, in their respective districts. C. Broad Esq., Charleston ; J. B. Dutton Esq., Cobden; W. S. Mundav Esq. Westport; to have effect from the Ist proximo.