MAGISTERIAL

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2193, 18 May 1908, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL

SATURDAY, DIAY 10. (Before Mr. W. A. Barton S.DI.) DRUNKENNESS. Michael Purcell, for a fourth offence within 6 months, was convicted and sentenced to 3 mouths hard labor 111 Napier gaol. . . . Thomas Dwyer, was again convicted and fined 10s with 2s costs or 48 liouis imprisonment. PROCURING LIQUOR. To a charge of procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order against him, Michael 1 urcell pleaded guilty and was lined Lo witli 2s costs, in default of immediate payment 6 weeks imprisonment in Napier gad.

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL William Rowell, on remand, was charged with having, on April 6, at Napier, obtained the sum of £5 from Hector Ross by false pretences, to wit., a valueless cheque drawn on the Bank of New South Wales. Accused was represented by Dir. H. Bright, and Sergt. Hutton conducted the prosecution. Hector Angus Ross, secretary of tlie Criterion Hotel Company, saw accused in the Criterion Hotel, Napier. He was in the bar at the time and asked for tlie manager or clerk. Accused said he had no money, and wanted a cheque cashed. On going to the office with witness, accused produced a cheque book, and wrote out a cheque for £5. Witness kept tlie cheque until the manager arrived, when witness cashed the cheque. Accused said he was staying in Napier for a week. Witness saw the accused about a half an hour later at the railway station, when he called accused accused into tlie waiting room, and asked him what about the cheque lie had cashed. Accused replied, “What cheque?” and witness said that they did not care about cashing it, and asked for the money back in return. Accused agreed to this and it was done. About 1 o’clock accused returned to tlie hotel, and said that be had “got the needle” over witness getting tiie money hack. Accused then said “Will you change me another cheque?” and tendered a second cheque for £5 on tlie Bank of New South Wales, Gisborne. Witness, then cashed the cheque less 6d exchange. The cheque was paid into the Hotel Company’s account, and wfiji subsequently returned marked “account closed.”

Witness received a. telegram from Dir. Parker, reading:—“Represent cheque: money provided for.” The telegram produced was the ono lie received. In consequence of this the cheque was again presented at the bank and cashed.

Fredrick Parker, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, stated that accused was formerly a client at his Bank, having an operative account until last February. In Febuary, witness notified accused that liis overdraft limit had been overdrawn, and that any further debit operations would have to he provided for. He recognized the cheque (produced) for £5 which was presented at the Bank of N.S.W. by tlie Bank of N.Z. on Stli of April. The cheque was returned again marked “account closed.” On 13th April, Dir. Andrew, bootmaker, called on witness and said that he was desirous of paying funds into accused's account to the amount of,, £l4 15s. Witness declined to re-open the account and allowed him to pay the sum into the credit of Ills (witness’) No. 2 account for the purpose of providing for throe cheques of the accused’s which were in circulation.

The original cheque for £5 was again presented on April loth when, it was paid. Witness did not remember giving Andrew any receipt for the money paid in. If the money had been paid into accused’s account witness would not have returned the che-

ques to Andrew, and they would only have been delivered to the accused’s order. To Dir. Bright: Accused was not notified by the Bank that his account was closed. At the time tlie money

was paid in witness was not aware of any criminal proceedings having been instituted against accused. He hail honored accused’s cheque previously when his limit had been exceeded."

Re-examined by Sergt. Hutton: No money was received from accused after he was informed that his limit wsa overdrawn, and no arrangement wa6 made with him.

Henry John Andrew, bootmaker, said that accused came to him on Saturday, April 11, and asked lor the loan of some money. Accused said he had given cheques.to the amount of £l4 los and asked him to lodge that sum in the Bank to his (accused’s) account. Accused said the cheques would be coming back and ho was anxious to meet them. Witness put the money in the Bank on tho following Monday, April 13th. He saw Dir. Barker and gave him the sum of £l415s. Later on "Sir. Barker handed witness three cheques including one for £5. The amount lent had not yet been repaid. To Dir. Bright: No sugggestion was made by accused that any criminal proceedings .were likely to be taken against him. Accused remained in Gisborne until April 17. Witness assisted in clearing up accused’s affairs to put him on a more satisfactory footing. Edgar Leonard Dlaude, solicitor’s clerk, said that on Fob. 26th lie delivered a letter to the accused. Tlie letter was a demand for the payment of £177 ls Id owing to Mr. F. Hall. This concluded tlie case for the prosecution, and JUr. Bright addressed tlie Court lor the defence, stating that there was no intention to defraud. He outlined the ease for the defence and called the accused.

William Rowell, who stated, that he did give the cheque in question to the hotel, but he liad no intention of defrauding. Tlie cheque was drawn on the Bank of N.S.W. where witness had an account. He intended going to Wellington to collect £62 odd owing to his wife, and to wire tlie amount hack to Gisborne, to meet this and other cliequess which had been drawn. Witness did not get the £O2 at Wellington although he had a written authority from his wife to collect tlie amount. Witness then returned to Gisborne, and arranged to have the cheques met in the wav detailed by the witness Andrew. ‘ The first he knew of any criminal proceedings was when ho was arrested on April 19th at Auckland, on hoard tlie s.s. Wimmera. Dir. Barker told witness that tlie cheques had been met and lie need not worry. Witness wanted to g 0 to Sydney to start life afresh.

To Sergt. Hutton: He travelled from Napier toJWcllington on the proceeds of the £5 cheque. It was not in consequence of gambling transactions that he decided to go to Sydney. His Worship considered a prima facie case had been made out. Accused would lie committed for trial tlie Supreme Court at Gisborne Bail was allowed, self in £SO and two sureties of £25 each.