RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 18 June 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

— Thubsday, June 17, 18S0. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq , R.M.) + » HeSLoP v, J.'OBEETSON. Mr Guinness appeared for the complainant, and Mr Lynch for the defenre. Mr Gninness in opening the case said, •be defendant was charged as the mma« ger of the National Bank, Limited. Keefton, with retaining certain raon ys the property of the informant. He said the question might arise as to whether the charge had faeeo rightly laid. He cited authorities to show that the case mitjht, possibly, more properly hare been brought under the categatory of larceny as a bailee. He held, however, that if the evidence should not support the present charge, but would support a committal un'er an a'legation for larceny, then the Court would be justified in committing. He called the following evidence : — Jolid George Heslop : I am a coins mission agent and livery stable-keeper in Reefton. I was a customer of the National Bant, but have not been a customer of the bank since January, 1877. On the 7th June, I received the telegram produced from Mr E. Beeves, [t advised me that he had remitted, through the National Bank, £15, that he had re* eeived on ray account from Mr Cook, Nelson. I went to the bank after 3 o'clock on the same day, and saw Mr Hobertson and Mr Lewis. I asked if any money had been received by them from Nelson for me, They were both together at the time, but I 1 cannot say who answered, but the reply I gat was that they had not received any money. I then handed Reeves' telegram to Mr Robertson, and he read it. He told me to call in the morning, and probably tbe money would be down, as it was after bank hours. Nest morning between 10 and 11 o'clock I called at the bank, and in consequence of something Mr Lewis told me I left, and returned in about an hour, and saw Mr Robertson. I asked him if the money had come down, and he said it had. He asked tne if my name was J. G. Heslop, and I told him it was. He asked me if I had any advice of the money, and I replied that I had, and produced Beeves' telegram again to him. Mr Lewis w*is in the gold office at the t'me. Mr Eobertson then produced a receipt and asked me to sign it. He made no remark at the time, and I lifted a pen and signed tbe receipt now pro* duced. After signing the receipt I handed it to him with the view of getting the £14 16* 61 for which I had given the receipt. He did not give me the money, but handed the receipt back to me to put the date on the stamp. He then asked Mr Lewis to witness my signature, and he did so. After putting the date on tbe stamp I laid the receipt over to him? Mr .Robertson then put the receipt away, and I stood for some time while they were overhauling several books and bundles of papers, and Mr Eobertson asked me if I did not owe the bank some money. I replied that I did not. He asked me if there was not a bill of mine there, and T I soid there was one of Coutanche's for £3 9s, and be asked me if there was not another, and I said there was not. Mr Lewis tHen asked me if there wak not a bill of Stratford and Coupe's, and I said there was, but I did not owe the money, and explained that I bad received no con* sideration for that bill. I again demanded the money, and Mr Robertson said hfl would stop the money as against che bill. I objected to his doing so, but have not since received the money or de< manded the receipt, I would not have given a receipt without I thought I was setting the money. I had no account at the bank on that date. Not a salable was said as to mv indebtedness prior to my giving the receipt. Cross-n Xam ; ne d . j peaged tQ be a cng _ 'omer of the hank in Januarv. 1877. On 24th August. 1878, 1 gave a bill to Strat" ford and Coupe, but no date was put upon it at the time, and about nine months after* drawing the bill, I reeeiv»d a notice from* Mr Menteath demanding payment. *I told him that I would not pay it, as I did not owe the monev. Mr Menteath subsequently notified me that he would sue me for the amount. I have paid no portion of that bill. When I went to the bank on the B f h June last, it was not in my mind that I was liable for Stratford's bill. On tbe Bih June last, Mr Eobertson asked me if I would go down to my books and find out the date of t%kbiU and the correspondence that «|e wlen place thereon, and asked me ,^!|furn at 3 o'clock. I did not return to tqe ba,nk at 3 o'clock, but after seeing Mr Lyne'b and telling him what 1 would do, I went and laid an information. Re-examined : I received no value for the bill to Stratford. ISfo legal steps ■have been taken by the bank tp recorer the amount of that bill. . The bank did

not i iform me that they h«d proved for the amount of the bill in Stratford's estate, and received a dividend. I sjw Mr Lynch, and he said he would see Mr Robert son. By tlte Bench : After giving the re ceipt and before leaving the bank I asked Mr Robertson whether he was going to g'vetne the money. He said no : he must do the best for his employers. I sskrd if it was a manly or gentlemanly way of getting the receipt from me. He said he could ha e s'uelc to the monpy without ihe receipt, but it was best to hare the receipt. Late in the afternoon after the e uniraons had been issued and served, I received the notiee produced purporting <o be signed by Mr Eobertson — it was left at my heuso. On the 20th June. 1879, 1 receive! a written notice from Mr Menteath of Stratford's dishonor of the I bill, and about a week before that received verbal notice of the dishonor. Isane Lewis • I am assayc, account* nnt, nnd feller, in the Kational Bank, at Keefton. Ido not produre the books of Hie bisnk— received notice so to do at 12 o'c'ock hist night, •an I bad not time, therefore, to produce a certified copy of Ihe account. Mr Heslop's account was closed with the batik on the 23rd April, 1875. Ido not produce the telegram received by us from our Kelson Branch. It is in cypher, and is in the possession of the manager. It was dated 7ih June and was received by us on the Bth June, and I think is marked delaved. It was to tbe following effect : " Plaee to credit of J. G. Hesiop, £14 16j 6.1/* Tbe telegram, as far as I om aware, is not des» troyed. I have not p-iid the money to Mr Hesiop. By Mr Lvnch : Under instructions from the b>mk I bare placed the money to Heslop's credit. Re«exatnined : The money is lying in the bank to the credit of Hesiop, but I am not authorised to pay it by Mr Robertson. My instructions from the mannger are not to pay Hesiop the amount. By Mr Lvnch j I was to withhold tin 3 money until the overdue bill for £34 wa3 sittifi^d.,' By the Court ; To the test of my knowledge no portion of the overdue bill has been recovered by the bank in the form of dividend frdru Stratford's estate. This closed the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Lynch addressed the Court for the defence, and pointed out that the wovding of the information was fau'ty, inasmuch as the statutory form of the inform mation bad not been followed. Tbe information charged the defendant with witholding a valuable " document/' whereas the lew required that the words should be valuable " security..' However be had no occasion to rely altogether upon that point. As to the allegation of " false pretences," there had not been an afom of evidence 'upon that head. The prosecutor had in fact given the very eyw deuce in disproof that the defence would have given. It had been distinctly shown that at the time the receipt was given not a word was siid, and this being tbe case the allegation of false prefenees was at once dissipated. Had tbe manager at the time said " You sign the receip', and I will then pay you the money," and afterwards refused to do so. eyen that would not sustain a charge of false pre« tences. It would amount simply to a breach of promise, but in the present case, there was no promise of any kind made. " False pretences " consisted in the representation of something as an existing fact, which was not an existing fact, and there was nothing of the kind in the present case. Had the mnnager represented that the money had been received from Jfolson when it had not been received or vice versa, that might have constituted " false pretences," and this »was clearly not the case here. Moreover, a receipt did not fall within the definition of a " valuable security," and for these reasons he submitted that the Oourt had no option but to dismiss the information. His Worship said tbat the evidence had failed to prove any of the facts necessary to establish tbe allegation of false pretences in obtaining the receip*. The transaction took place at the Bank counter, and the receipt was signed and passed over without a word being said. Hesiop was then informed that tbe money could not be p id until a past due bill had been provided for, thus showing that the amount had been actually placed to the informant's account. The action appeared to have been altogether wrong'y brought. The information would be dis« missed.