DISTRICT COURT OF WESTLAND NORTH.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 804, 25 April 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT OF WESTLAND NORTH.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Ward.) Monday, April 24. reotna v. Edward hareiß. The prisouer stood iudicted with having stolen a cheque for £B, the property of William Logan, ou the 22 nd of February. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Previous to the Crown Prosecutor addressing the jury, the prisoner asked that all witnesses might be ordered out of Court. The Crown Prosecutor explained the circumstances of the cast-. It ap-' peat-ed that Log.m was anxious to forward the sum of £S to a man, named M'Kenzie, at the Inaugahua reefs. Logan obtained a cheque from Corr, enclosed it in a letter, and handed it to M'Farlane, who gave it to the prisoner. The prisoner broke the seal of the letter, and paid away the cheque in exchange for goods. William Logan: I went to John Corr about the 21st of February. I gave him £B, and received his cheque for that amount, which I enclosed in an envelope, addressed—John M'Kenzie, Anderson's reef, Murray Creek. That was done in the presence of Corr and Bobert M'Farlane. I then gave the letter to M'Farlane, to forward by the first opportunity. I cannot swear to the cheque produced, as I took no particular notice at the time. The cheque is for £S, payable to M'Kenzie, and dated Februarv 21.

By the Prisoner.- Corr and M'Farlane were present when the cheque was given. Pobert Gray wrote the letter, and addressed the envelope. It was addressed " John M'Kenzie." I received £2 from M'Farlane shortly after giving him the letter. John Corr: I recollect February 21. I know William Logan ; he was in my store on that date. I gave him a cheque for £8 in exchange for cash. I identify the cheque produced as the one that I gave to Logan. Logan put the cheque into a letter, and it was closed in the ordinary way. I did not see the address. Logan, M'Farlane, Gray, and Corr were present at the time.

By the Prisoner : I saw you some days after February 21. I believe you heard in my store of a letter having to be forwarded. I cannot recollect what I stated in the Pesident Magistrate's Court, respecting the address of the letter. There were one or two letters left at my store for transmission to the Inangahua workings. Eobert M'Farlane : I recollect February 21. I was with Logan and Corr, at the latter's store, on that day. I neither saw money nor a cheque change hands. Logan gave me a letter. 1 saw Logan put some paper in an envelope. The envelope was then sealed and addressed. I did not see it addressed. I received the letter from Logan, to be sent by first opportunity to M'Kenzie. I gave the letter about two hours afterwards to the prisoner for that purpose. I told him that the letter contained money. He took it away, and returned in a quarter of an hour to know who was to pay the carriage. I told him M'Kenzie would pay, and the prisoner said that he would bring a receipt fio.n M'Kenzie. I never got the receipt. By the Prisoner: I gave Logan £2 on account of the cheque, after Logan had obtained the cheque. Logan and I are partners in a share at the reefs. I swore in the E.M. Court that the letter was closed in my presence. I saw the address of the letter. It might have been J. M'Kenzie, but to the best of my belief the word " John " was on the letter. Tou might not have left tbe bar after receiving the letter and prior to asking about payment for the carriage. The 21st of February was on' a Tuesday. Your hand-bills might have said that letters were forwarded every Monday. I did not know that the time had passed for your leaving the Buller that week. Hugh Griffith Haghes : lama chemist. _ I recollect February 23. I saw the prisoner several times, but I cannot say whether 1 saw him immediately before the 23rd. I said in the K..M. Court that I saw the prisoner on the 22nd, but I found subsequently that date was wrong. On the 23rd, the prisoner purchased some goods, and tendered the eheque produced. 1 paid him £1 odd as change. The following morning, the prisoner requested me to hold the cheque over until two p.m. The substance of the reason for asking me to keep the cheque was that he did not wish some person to know. I do not know who that person was, He told me that the cheque belonged to some person up-country; and that he changed the cheque for the purposo of paying for goods for which he received orders, as the persons did not give him the money to make the purchases. I told him that I thought it rather a liberty to take with another person's cheque. He replied that it was nothing out of the way under the circumstances' I paid the cheque into the bank the same day.

-By the Prisoner : Tou did not say that yon knew M'Kenzie well, and that you had his authority to use the cheque. Tou appeared concerned about the cheque. I knew you in Hokitika, but not personalty. I knew nothing of your character. I was under the belief that the goods you purchased from me were on commission for persons up-country You purchased articles on several occasions.

John M'Kenzie : I reside at Ander-

son's reef, Inangahua. I know William Logan. He owed me £8 in February last. Ido not know the prisoner. I never saw him until the day of his committal for trial. I have never received the sum of £B. I did not know of any sum of £S being forwarded to me by Logan, I received no letter from Logan. By the Prisoner : I know a Murdoch M'Kenzie, on Shiels's reef. I believe he is now a 1; Addison's Flat. I do not know a William M'Kenzie, nor a James M'Kenzie.

Harry Guildford Smith, of the Bank of New Zealand, identified the cheque produced as having been paid into his account by Hugh Griffith Hughes. ' William Kerr, Agent of the Bank of New South Wales, identified the cheque as signed by John Corr, and presented by the Bank of New Zealand on February 2 A.

This closed the evidence for the prosecution.

No witnesses were called for the defence.

The prisoner then addressed the jury. He stated that he should ask them for an acquittal, firstly, on legal grounds, and secondly, on the merits of the case according to the evidence laid before them. His Honour would direct them upon the legal objection he was about to raise, It was that tho indictment was bad, in so far that when the caso was ponding in the E.M. Court the ownership of the cheque was vested in Eobert M'Farlane who was then the prosecutor. The indictment set forth William Logan as the owner of the property Clearly, both persons could not be legally regarded as owners, and M'Farlane having declared himself the owner, and the law having recognised him as such, tho present indictment must be bad. His Honour stated that he must at once decide against the prisoner on the point raised. The indictment was perfectly good, as the property belonged clearly to William Logan.

The prisoner stated that he was at once prepared to admit the general correctness of the testimony that had been produced for the prosecution. He would admit that he received the letter, that he opened it, took out the cheque, and converted it to hiß own use, but he had so acted without any felonious intent. As many of the j ury wore aware, he had commenced a pony express between the reefs and Westport, and the enterprise gave promise of being successful. He took his wife and family to Eeefton, Inangahua, and put up a building for their accomodation, which also served the purpose of a reading room and circulating library. On the reef he became acquainted with a James M'Kenzie, a miner well known to most of them, and who had placed him under considerable

obligations. This man knew his circumstances and that he was short of money, and lent him money and even clothes. In the course of business he had brought down large quantities of gold, and money to pay to storekeepers in town. He had also carried large sums of money from persons in town who held interests in the reefs to pay the men who were working and protecting their shares. He need hardly point out that frequent and unusual facilities had been presented to him in that line of business, had he desired to act fraudulently. This James M'Kenzie had expected a remittance, which would be contained in a letter, to be left at Powell's store. M'Kenzie had told him that he could make use of the money in the same manner that he had done previously, and, on receiving a letter from M'Farlane, addressed to J, M'Kenzie, he opened it without the slightest hesitation, under the impression that it was intended for the M'Kenzie with whom he was upon terms of the closest friendship. After cashing the cheque he remained several days in town transacting business, and that was confirmed by the witness, Corr, so that his action subsequent to the cashing of the cheque, was not at all reconcilable with that of a guilty person. He must admit that he

had evinced some anxiety to Mr Hughes who cashed the cheque, to regain possessession of the document, but that wa3 solely from a desire that Corr, the drawer of the cheque, should'not become aware that it had not reached its destination. However perfect an understanding existed between M'Kenzie and himself, Corr could not be supposed to be cognizant of it. and it was, therefore, not singular that he should have been desirous to conceal from Corr an act which, unexplained, wore a suspicious aspect. On his way up to the reefs he met James M'Kenzie and from him he first learnt that the cheque was not his property and the terrible position in which he had involved himself. Distress of mind and exposure confined him to his bed for four days, and, but for that loss of time, he would have been able to proceed on his journey, to have disposed of his Home papers and periodicals, and to have made up the money to John M'Kenzie, whom ho had seen that day for the first time. He returned to town for the purpose of settling the matter, an act which he believed the jury could not but construe in his favour, and he was debarred from further steps by the action of M'Farlane. James M'Kenzie, as it was well known, had since sailed in the Maid of Erin en route for Sydney, and he was thus unable to produce him as a witness. These were the circumstances of the case and he trusted that the jury would hold them sufficient to exculpate him from any felonious motive and to give a verdict of acquittal. His Honour sn id that it was scarcelynecessary to address the Jury, as the prisoner had admitted all that had been advanced by the prosecution. For his part, he placed no credence in his statement with respect to Jami s M'Kenzie, between whom and himself the prisoner would have the jury believe there existed an extraordinary friendship. It was evident from his defence that the prisoner was a man of some education, and on viewing the cheque, it bore on its face evidence altogether irreconcilable with the prisoner's statement. The cheque was distinctly payable to John M'Kenzie, so that any misconception in the prisoner's mind, assuming eveu his version to be correct with respect to the address of the envelope, and his belief that it was to be transmitted to James M'Kenzie, must have been dispelled on viewing the cheque itself. But notwithstanding that he converted it to his own use. With these observations he would leave the case in the hands of the jury-

After retiring for a few minutes, the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty," with a recommendation to mercy, on the ground that the prisoner had exhibited penitence in a desire to redeem the cheque the moi-ninn-after it had been cashed. The prisoner said that ho wag a comparative stranger in Westport, and could only call the evidonco of the gaoler as Jo character. James Arthurs Maguire stated that the conduct of the prisoner, during the six weeks he had been placed under his charge,had been uniformly and exceptionally good.

His Honour, in passing sentence, sai^ S kUt he should not deal lightly with the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted. He should, however, take cognizance of the recommendation of the jury to mercy, of the favorable testimony of the gaoler as to his conduct, and of the fact that ho had already undergone six weeks' imprisonment. The prisoner would he sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. ABSENT JtfROBS. The following jurors who failed to attend prior to the jury being sworn, were fined 40s each, unless cause were shown:—Janu 8 Dougherty, JohnConolly, Michael Sullivan, William Harrison, Myles M'Padden, Alfred Brown, George Dunn, George -Jervis, and Daniel M'Lood. The absent jurors were again called, and in the majority of instances, satisfactory cause being shown, as also their being present within a quarter-of-an-hour of the opening of the Court, the fines were reduced to ss. Alfred Brown was fined 10s. and Daniel M'Lood 20s. The Crown Prosecutor stated to the Court that George Jervis was absent in Nelson, and he had desired him to excuse his absence on the ground that he was engaged in business of a temporary character, which he had anticipated being able to complete in time to enable him to be present at the sitting of the Court. His Honour directed that the fine of 40a should stand against Jervis, and that ho would be allowed until the next sitting of the Court, to show cause why the fine should not be inflicted. BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION. "In the matter of Edward Smyrk, James Ashmer Mullin Turner, George Blackburn Michael M'Mahon, and Eobert Henderson and John Henderson, bankrupts, the healing was adjourned until the next sitting of the Court. His Honour made an order in re J. A. M. Turner, that a meeting of creditors be held on Monday, the Ist proximo, for the appointment of a trustee, when the supervisors would be at liberty to examine the bankrupt upon oath.