RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 766, 21 January 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Fridat, Jan. 20. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) UTTERING A VALUELESS CHEQUE.

_ Kobert F. King was charged, upon the information of Hermann London, storekeeper, Caledonian Terrace, with having, on the 17th instant, issued a valueless cheque for thesumof £2, and by that means fraudulently obtained goods to the value of 2ls and 10s in cash.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the prosecutor's evidence was taken.

He first saw the prisoner on the 16th instant, when he supplied him with goods to the value of 12s, and, on being asked for themouey, the prisoner represented that he was a atorekeener and butcher from the Lyell, end was at Caledonian. Terrace, looking for a man named Pollock, who had been dealing with him at the Lyell, and left in his debt. Prisoner" gave a cheque for£l, upon the Bank of New South Wales, Westport, and witness returned him Ss change. The following morning early, prisoner came to the store and obtained more goods, and a few hours later returned and got a few additional articles, amounting, on both occasions, to 9s. Prisoner asked for the cheque given the previous day, stating that he would give one for £2 ; that the cheque would be right, if it were for £2OO. Witness gave him the cheque which the prisoner tore up, and he (London) drew up another cheque for £2, which the prisoner signed.. The prisoner scratched the pen through the printed words New Zealand, as the cheque had been originally a blank form on the Bank of JS T ew Zealand. Witness inserted the words " New South Wales" at the prisoner's request, and some time after, when in company together about 200 yards from the store, gave him lis change. Witness proceeded to Westport and presented the cheque at the local agency of the Bank of New South Wales, when it was returned, marked "no account." He then lodged an information. Cross-examiued by the prisoner. I ennuot sny whether I knew you in the Grey. I was ill there, but was not hard-up after my recovery. I never got a cask of butter from you, and you did not ask me for payment on Monday or Tuesday. I am quite certain that the first cheque was not drawn upon the Dunedin branch. Walter Puflett, a baker in London's employ, gave corroborative testimony ; and the agent of the Bank of New South Wales, Westport, proved that there was not, neither had been for three years past, any account at the local branch of the bank in the name cf Robert F. King The prisoner made a statement to the effect that the first cheque was drawn upon Dunedin; that London himself drew the second cheque, and had omitted to draw it upon the

right branch; that London owed hitn money, and, promising to pay, had given him cash and some goods in the meantime. If- the cheque were presented at the bank in Dunedin, it would be honored.

His Worship thought that the case had been very clearly proved. If even London owed the prisoner money for previous business transactions, it ceuld in no way affect the present charge. The prisoner's version of the case he could not attach the slightest credence to. He could not believe the statement that the first cheque was drawn upon Duuedin, u,a it was very unlikely that a sto.ekeeper, at the Caledonian Terrace would deliver goods in exchange for such a document, and pay money by way of change. If there were any truth in the statement of the prisoner having an account at Dunedin, he would have been easily able to apply for an adjournment to procure evidence. He thought the chrge very fully proved, and the sentence of the Court would he that the prisoner be imprisoned for three months with hard labor. MELVILLE V. LANK. His Worship proceeded to give judgment in this case. This was an action for the recovery of £75 upon a dishonored promissory note. The case was one of a very peculiar character, and a decision was not easily arrived at. The defence was that there had been no consideration, and that the document had been obtained by fraud, or that if there' had bean any consideration it was so totally inadequate as to be held as obtained by fraud, and consequently null and void between the two parties. The evidence produced by the plaintiff was cohesive, arid the various witnesses corroborated each other sufficiently to render the entire evidence of some weight. At the same time, seeing that, the defendant, according to the statement of the plaintiff, came to him in a state of utter destitution, it would seem very improbable that he should have supplied him daily for three or four months with small sums of money. And assuming that he had given him os a day during that time, the amount would still have fallen far short of £75. There were some items, in connection with rifle shooting at the gallery of the plaintiff, referred to as forming a portion of the consideration, but he could not recognise these or others evidently resting upon a very loose basis. The evidence of the defendant entirely contradicted the case set up by the plaintiff, but his statements he also foundJHt impossible to give full credence to—from the fact-that his memory would appear to be defective. Lane denied ever having signed the note, but he thought the evidence, in connection with the draft of the document and the signing of it, was sufficiently clear. Ho also could not accept as altogether 'trustworthy Lane's statement that he had only received haif-a-crown from the plaintiff, and that too out of a pound note previously given by him to the plaintiff. He believed that Lane's memory failed him. He, however, could not but think that the entire evidence in respect to the consideration was very unsatisfactory, and that theinadequatenessof the consideration must render the document void as between the plaintiff and the defendant. In addition to the note not having been given for value received, he could not overlook the circumstances under which the note had been given. He could not but think—and Lane's denial of ail k'joowledgeinconuection with signing the bill was strongly suggestive of ! his state of mind at the time—that he ; was neither then, nor as a general thing had since been in a fit state either to take care of money or himself. There w r as the evidence of all the plaintiff's witnesses that Lane would insist upoji giving his note of hand, and that Melville at the time insisted that it was unnecessary, and that he did not require it. It appeared to him that if Lane had been indebted to the plaintiff, it would have been a very reasonable thing to expect that Melville would have been if anything more anxious to get such an acknowledgment of his demand than even Lane was to give the note though unsolicited. There was evidence also that the defendant was to take Melville and his family with him to San Francisco, defraying the cost of their passage. No good reason could be assigned for his making such a proposal, and it appeared to evidence an eccentricity and extravagance of conduct on the part of the defendant, which, no doubt, was equally apparent when he gave the promissory note. The plaintiff, it appeared, had taken advantage of him when in that condition, and had taken the note. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he should give judgment for the defendant. Mr Fisher applied for costs, which his Worship declined to allow. JOHNSTON V. CHAPLIN. A fraud summons had been issued in this case, and the defendant failing to appear, his Worship directed the issue of a warrant for defendant's arrest, upon the application of the plaintiff. LICENSES. An accommodation license was granted to William M'Nain for a house, at the Nakawa.