In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Wilkinson dealt at length with the nature of the charge, emphasizing that acused obtained the money on the strength of a cheque which he pretended was good and valid. At that time he was a gentleman rider, and was a legal practitioner, and Mr. Hammond would naturally suppose that the document handed to him was a good cheque. The point for the jury was not whether they were in sympathy with Mr. Hammond or Mr. MacDonnell. In the Police Court the complainant had been asked a good many questions as to whether he was a litigious person. The whole point was that the accused did not say "Will you oblige me with $100?" or "Will you advance me a loan?" or "Will you help my friend?' but "Will you cash my cheque for $100?" It was quite possible a' person might make an telephoned to complainant, nothing more would have been heard of the matter. The matter came to a head when he failed to keep his appointment with Mr. Hammond, who then exercised a right which ought to be exercised and took proceedings. It was not a grateful position to be in. It was a position most people would rather avoid, but that was no reason, for casting doubt on the word of Mr. Hammond as to what happened on the day in question. The jury need not look at the matter from any personal point of view: it would be sufficient for them to consider it as a case of against Y, eliminating the question as to whether one or other of the parties was a popular man.
Det.-Sgt. Beer gave evidence of serving the warrant on the accused at No. 1 Broadway on the evening of May 25. "I quite understand," he said, when it hud been read over to him. Just prior to this, when witness had told him who he was, accused said "Good lord, what is this about?"
In answer to Mr. McDonald, witness said that accused had a rash on his arms and that his face and lips were swollen.
MR. HAMMOND'S EVIDENCE, Mr. J. T. Hammond, the complainant, was next called, and said he had known the accused for a few months, but had never consulted him professionally or had any financial transactions with him. At Kiangwan races on Saturday, May 19, accused went up to him and asked if witness would cash his cheque for $100. Witness agreed and gave him $100. As he was turning away, Macdonell asked if witness intended to cash the cheque at the.R.C., and added that he preferred this should not be done. Witness answered that he would put it through the bank. Witness only looked at the amount and the name and paid no attention to the date (which he afterwards found was April 21).. It was because he took it home in a bag in which there were some winning sweep tickets that he remembered the day was Saturday, the 19th. Witness could not say whether it was the Saturday or the Monday that accused spoke of as being the best day he had ever had. On the Tuesday morning accused rang up on the telephone and asked witness if he would mind his coming round and taking up the cheque instead of putting it through the bank, and witness sa°1 he had no objection and would leave the cheque with his shroff and accused could take it upon handing over the money. He did not call. On the innocent mistake as to the amount he had in the bank, but it was not possible that a gentleman, and par-
Thursday witness went to the bank and found accused had no account there. Later in the morning, acticularly a lawyer, would make cused rang up on the telephone and mistake as to whether he had a said he had not been well, but would banking account or nog. If the ae, call tee afternoon promptly at 3 cused had paid the money on the o'clock.
Nothing was then said following Tuesday, after he had about the cheque. He did not turn
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.