(4)
of his (Mr H's) embarrassments about a thing wrong in the manager of a Bank buying shares if he has money to pay for them. "It may indeed be doubted whether Mr Nelson as a regular trafficker in shares and other concerns is able to devote that undivided attention to the interests of the Bank which its shareholders expect and whether such occupation is within the legitimate sphere of action of a Manager of a Chartered Bank."
The letter was put in evidence but not read. It appeared to be understood that only the part which was read in Court should be published.
The case stands remanded for a week and will be adjourned from week to week, the Magistrate explained, until he heard from the parties. The Court, it was stated, has only the power to remand a case for eight days at a time.
He (Mr Johnson) need hardly say that these paragraphs were utterly false and malicious, and the mere fact of their being addressed to Mr William Jackson during his temporary stay here, in his (Mr Johnson's) opinion, aggravated the offence. Mr Jackson answered the letter yesterday, and then handed it over to Mr Nelson.
The Magistrate asked what was the date of the letter.
Mr Johnson said the letter was dated the 29th. Mr Nelson on receiving the letter felt bound to take the proceedings that had been taken.
He (Mr Johnson) did not intend to proceed with the case, after what had occurred, further than was absolutely necessary, but he would call Mr Jackson and take his evidence.
Page 399
SECOND DAY,
Wednesday, April 7.
APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE SUMMONS REFUSED.
Further proceedings were taken to-day. Mr Brereton, who appeared for the defendant, reminded the Magistrate that when this case was last before the Court he applied for an adjournment for two days, for coming before the Magistrate would be hoping that in the meantime the necessity would be removed. He wrote a conciliatory letter to the complainant, which he hoped would have had the effect of ending the matter, and he made it part of the letter that if Mr Nelson chose to proceed with the case, that he would remain, as Mr Pitman might have to go to Japan.
MR JACKSON'S EVIDENCE.
Mr William Jackson sworn said I am in the service of the Chartered Mercantile Bank and am at present inspecting the Branch Banks in the East. I received this letter produced some time in the afternoon of Monday, the 29th. It is signed John Pitman. It came with the chit book; one of the boys brought it. I answered the letter yesterday. I have read the paragraphs you read. There is certainly no truth in them. There is no truth in the statement that Mr Nelson has been a trafficker in shares and has not devoted his attention to the Bank.
Mr Brereton: The letter does not say that he has not. It is a mere expression of opinion.
Mr Johnson: (to witness)-Are you as Inspector perfectly satisfied with Mr Nelson's management of the Bank?
Witness: Certainly.
Mr Brereton, in cross examination: You have been manager of a Bank here yourself?
Witness: I have.
Mr Brereton: You have purchased shares?
Witness: I had better say I have, for I dare say I have.
Mr Brereton: You have sold shares?
Witness: Yes, I do not have them now.
Mr Brereton: Do you consider that there is anything wrong in the manager of a Bank buying shares?
Witness: I do not think there is any.
The Magistrate said all this might be a very good argument if it had not been agreed, when the case was last before the Court, that the further proceedings in this case should be held over until Mr Nelson's return from Shanghai in three weeks' time.
Mr Brereton said he had only asked for an adjournment for two days as he had only then, when the case was last before his Worship, received his instructions from his client. From what he had been able to see of the case then he believed distinctly that it was a case which should not come before the Court at all.
(5)
The Magistrate said he would be very willing to suit the convenience of the defendant, but that was the Law on the subject.
He reminded the defence that further proceedings were taken to-day. Mr Brereton, who appeared for the defendant, reminded the Magistrate that when this case was last before the Court he applied for an adjournment for two days, hoping that in the meantime the necessity for coming before the Magistrate would be removed. He wrote a conciliatory letter to the complainant, which he hoped would have had the effect of ending the matter, and he made it part of the letter that if Mr Nelson chose to proceed with the case, he would remain, as Mr Pitman might have to go to Japan. That letter Mr Nelson received, he believed, on board the steamer by which he went to Shanghai, and he decided to proceed with the case and to proceed to Shanghai at the same time.
Mr Johnson objected to the case being disposed of otherwise than as had been agreed upon. He reminded His Worship that the case was last before the Court, and it was upon a certain course that the case was then agreed to be held.
The proposal for dismissing the summons was refused. It was only at the request of the defendant's Solicitor, an adjournment came from the other side.
Mr Brereton said he only asked for an adjournment for two days, and that for the simple reason that he had only had his instructions from his client shortly before coming into Court, his appearance when the case came on.
The Magistrate said his mind was particularly clear as to how the adjournment came about. The defendant was not ready and applied for an adjournment; plaintiff was ready to go on with the case then.
Mr Creagh said it was distinctly agreed that the case should be postponed from week to week till Mr Nelson's return, which would probably mean for three weeks' time, and we are ready to go on now. If Mr Pitman gave bail now, the case could be remanded for any length of time and until his return from Japan; without that it could only be adjourned from week to week, until and if you adjourn the case then it must be for three weeks, until our client returns from Shanghai.
The case was by agreement adjourned for three weeks from that day, and he did not desire unless by agreement to reopen it now.
Mr Johnson said he was certainly not prepared to go on with it now; how could he be?
Mr Creagh, the Magistrate, referred the parties to Section 36 of No. 14 of 1845, which is as follows:--
"Any Magistrate, if he shall think fit, may remand any person who shall be charged before him with any felony or misdemeanor upon his personal recognizance (with or without sureties) and every such recognizance shall be conditional for the appearance of such person before the same or some other Magistrate, for further examination, or to surrender himself to take his trial at the Supreme Court, at a day and place to be therein mentioned, and the Magistrate shall be at liberty from time to time to enlarge every such recognizance to such further time as he shall appoint, and every such recognizance which shall not be enlarged shall be discharged without fee or reward, when the party shall have appeared according to the condition thereof: Provided always, that when any Magistrate shall take the recognizance of any person to appear at the Supreme Court, the Magistrate shall be bound to return the depositions taken in the case, and to bind over the witnesses to appear and give evidence in like manner as if he had committed the party to take his trial at such Court."
Mr Creagh said it was quite customary for an order to enter into recognizances to be made in summons cases.
Mr Brereton here said that Mr Pitman had no intention of going away without applying to the Court. He had at the same time an objection to entering into recognizances as was desired.
Mr Pitman would have to give bail of course. This quite removed the force of the argument brought forward by the defence that Mr Pitman would be inconvenienced.
Mr Johnson was not sure. Mr Pitman had told the Court he was likely to leave the Colony for Japan.
The Court was aware that the clause provided for the defendant being bound over with or without sureties.
Mr Brereton said that if Mr Pitman had to go to Japan he would come again before the Court. He argued this was not a case in which the Court could fairly call upon him for bail. It was simply a summons and nothing had been proved.
Mr Creagh said it was quite customary for an order to enter into recognizances to be made in summons cases, and he presumed Mr Johnson would be satisfied with Mr Pitman's personal recognizances.
Page 400
SE
(4)
of his (Mr H's) embarrassments about a thing wrong in the manager of a Bank buy- year ago.
ing sharea if he has money to pay for "It may indeed be doubted whether Mr them. Nelson as a regular trafficker in shares and The letter was put in evidence but not other concerns is able to devote that undi- rend. It appeared to be understood that vided attention to the interests of the Bank only the part which was read in Court which its shareholders expect and whether should be published.
such occupation is within the legitimate The case stands remanded for a week and sphere of action of a Manager of a Char-will be adjourned from week to week, the tered Bank."
Magistrate explained, until he heard from
He (Mr Johnson) need bardly say that the parties. The Court, it was stated, has these paragraphs were utterly false and only the power to remand a case for oight malicious, and the mere fact of their being days at a time. addressed to Mr William Jackson during his temporary stay here, in his (Mr Johnson's) opinion, aggravated the offence. Mr Jack- son answered the letter yesterday, and then handed it over to Mr Nelson,
The Magistrate asked what was the date of the letter.
boen taken.
Mr Johnson said the letter was dated the 29th. Mr Nelson on receiving the letter felt bound to take the proceedings that had He (Mr Johnson) did not intend to proceed with the case, after what had occurred, further than was absolutely necessary, but he would call Mr Jackson
and take his evidence.
SECOND DAY,
Wednesday, April 7.
APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE SUMMONS REFUSED.
Further proceedings were taken to-day. Mr Broreton, who appeared for the de- fendant, reminded the Magistrate that when this case was last before the Court he ap- plied for an adjournment for two days, for coming before the Magistrate would be hoping that in the meantime the necessity removed. He wrote a conciliatory letter to the complainaut, which he hoped would MR JACKSON'S EVIDENCE.
have had the effect of ending the matter, Mr William Jackson sworn said I am and he made it part of the letter that if Mr in the service of the Chartered Mercantile Nelson chose to proceed with the case, that Bank and am at present inspecting the he would remain, as Mr Pitman right have Branch Banka in the East. 1 received to go to Japan. That letter Mr Nelson re- this letter produced some time in the after-ceived, he believed, on board the steamer by noon of Monday, the 29th. It is signed which he went to Shanghai, and he decided John Pitman." It came with the chit to proceed with the case and to proceed to book; one of the boys brought it. Shanghai at the same time. Now it was a answered the letter yesterday. I have very hard thing for the defendant that he heard the paragraphs you read. There is should be brought here before this Court certainly no truth in them. There is no day after day at the call of the complainant truth in the statement that Mr Nelson has and to suit his convenience. It was a very been a trafficker in shares and has not usual thing for a case to be postponed, as it devoted his attention to the Bank.
was proposed to postpone this from time to time, at the request of the defendant, but it was a new thing to have it so postponed from time to time at the request of the com- plainant. He had to ask the Court to dis- miss the suramons. Nobody's interest could suffer through this; a fresh summons could be taken out. Mr Pitman might have to go to Japan in the course of a few days.
Mr Brereton: The letter does not say that he has not. It is a mere expression of opinion.
Mr Johnson: (to witness)-Are you as Inspector perfectly satisfied with Mr Nel- son's management of the Bank?
Witness: Certainly.
Mr Brereton, in cross examination: You have been manager of a Bank here yourself?
Witness: I have.
Mr Brereton : You have purchased abares?
Witness: I had better say I have, for I dare say I have,
Mr Brereton: You have sold shares ? Witness: Yes, I do not have them now. Mr Brereton: Do you consider that there is anything wrong in the manager of a Bank buying shares ?
Witness: I do not think there is any
The Magistrate said all this might be a very good argument if it bad not been agreed, when the ease was last before the Court, that the further proceedings in this case should be held over until Mr Nelson's return from Shanghai in three weeks' time.
Mr Brereton said he had only asked for an adjournment for two days as he bad only then, when the case was last before his Worship, received his instructions from his client. From what he had been able to sea of the case then he believed distinctly that
( 5
The Magistrate said he would be very it was a case which should not come before the Court at all. He had hoped that he willing to suit the convenience of the should be able to avert the necessity for defendant, but that was the Law on the He reminded the defence that farther proceedings. He wrote a most con- subject. ciliatory letter, and if he were to show that the sole object of having the case opened letter to the Bench it would be found a most on that particular day when it was last satisfactory letter; be had hoped it would before the Court was to have Mr William
Jackson's evidence taken. have proved so to the complainant.
Mr Johnson said the whole of what was Mr Johnson objected to the case being dis- posed of otherwise than as had been agreed now brought forward was discussed when He reminded His Worship that the case was last before the Court, and it upon.
certain course when the ease was last before the Court he was agreed then that a
be held had been prepared, his client had been pre- should be taken; that course
The proposal for It was only should now be followed. pared to go on with the case. at the request of the defendant's Sulicitor, an adjournment came from the other side.
Mr Brereton said he only asked for an who was not prepared, that an adjournment was made. If Mr Pitman was likely to be adjournment for two days, and that for the leaving for Japan or Shanghai, he would simple reason that he had only had his ask that he be called upon to give bail for instructions from his client shortly before
coming into Court, bis appearance when the case came on.
The Magistrate said his mind was parti- Mr Creagh said it was distinctly agreed! that the case should be postponed from oularly clear as to how the adjournment week to week till Mr Nelson's return, which came about. The defendant was not ready would probably mean for three weeks' time, and applied for an adjournment; plaintif We are ready to go on now, If Mr Pitman gave bail now, the case could said.
case then
1t
our
be remanded for any length of time and until and if you adjourn the bis return from Japan; without that it could must be for three weeks, until
client returns from Shanghai." The case only be adjourned from week to week,
Mr Brereton asked whether the case could was by agreement adjourned for three weeks from that day, and he did not not be gone ou with now.
Mr Johnson said he was certainly not desire unless by agreement to reopen it Under the clause he had just read prepared to go on with it now; how could now.
he was quite satisfied that he could remand he be?
Mr Creagh, the Magistrate, referred the the case not only for a week but for any parties to Section 36 of No. 14 of 1845, length of time, that is to say any reasonable length of time. Mr. Pitman would have which is as follows:--
"Any Magistrate, if he shall think fit, may to give bail of course. This quite removed remand any person who shall be charged the force of the argument brought forward before him with any felony or misdemeanor by the defence that Mr Pitman would be He presumed Mr John- upon his personal recognizance (with or inconvenienced. without sureties) and every such
re-son would be satisfied with Mr Fitman's cognizance shall be conditional for the personal recognisances.
Mr Johnson was not sure. Mr Pitman appearance of such person before the same
or some other Magistrate, for farther ex-bad told the Court he was likely to leave amination, or to surrender himself to take the Colony for Japan.
The Court was
that
bis trial at the Supreme Court, at a day aware that the elanse provided for the de- and place to be therein mentioned, and feudant being bound over with or without the Magistrate shall be at liberty from sureties.
Mr Brereton said that if Mr Pitman had time to time to enlarge every such re- cognizance to such further time as he shall to go to Japan he would come agaiu
the Court. He argued appoint, and every such recognizanca which hetore shall not be enlarged shall be discharged this was not a case in which the Court without fee or reward, when the party shall could fairly call upon him for bail. It was have appeared according to the condition simply a summons and nothing had been thereof: Provided always, that when any proved.
Mr Creagh said it was quite customary Magistrate shall take the recognizance of
any person to appear at the Supreme Court, for an order to enter into recognisances to the Magistrate shall be bound to return the be made in summons cases,
Mr Brereton here said that Mr Pitman depositions taken in the case, and to bind over the witnesses to appear and give evi- had no intention of going away without He had at the deace in like manner as if he had com-applying to the Court. mitted the party to take his trial at such same time an objection to entering into re- Mr Pitman Court."
cognisances as was desired.
399
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.