LAW CLERK IN THE DOCK

NZ Truth, Issue 1145, 10 November 1927, Page 8

LAW CLERK IN THE DOCK

Solicitor Questioned About His Business Methods

ALLEGATIONS OF THEFT FROM ESTATE

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch Representative.)

"DRIGGS came to me after I 1 • work, but I was unable to portionate to his position as a mai then agreed to work for a third of "DRIGGS came to me and said he had a shortage of something like £ 337 m connection with the Simmonds estate and I had to find £100." In these words, Waldegrave Cra-croft-Wllson, the welf-known Christchurch solicitor, described In court the commencement «nd the climax of his association with Samuel Phoenix Brlggrs, a law clerk, who now awaits trial on a charge 'of stealing divers sums of money, totalling £ 337 16s. 3d., the property of the Simmonds estate and others. The hearing of the charge before Magistrate Mosley last week occupied the best part of a day and proceedings were lengthened by Briggs electing to conduct a rigorous cross-examination of witnesses from the dock, from which he handled his own defence. In this course he was cautioned by the magistrate -at the outset. "I don't want to hinder you or prejudice you, in any way," remarked the bench, "but do you think it is advisable for you to crossexamine witnesses m this court?" Briggs replied that he desired to do so, as he wanted everything to come out so that he could know how to prepare his defence m the higher court. Outside counsel would he engaged for his trial and he desired to pursue his cross-examination. "Very well," said the magistrate, "please yourself about that." The story unfolded m court by the police witnesses presented many amazing features and Briggs himself sought to bring to light some startling disclosures when he cross-examined his late employer, Cracroft- Wilson, on the alleged unbusinesslike manner "m which his practice was conducted. Briggs went further m an alleged statement he made to Detective Thomas and which was read out m court.

In this document, Brlggs was represented as having said that CracroftWilson kept no books m his office except receipt-books and .that he had allowed the business ito "work down to nothing "

"He knew little about what was going on m the office," the statement continued, "with the exception of court stuff, which he would look into ilong enough to enable him to go into court with a case.

"Cracroft-Wilson [would promise me every week to setitle down, but he never did so. No (business was coming m.

i "When matters "became desperate I expected that he would make some .effort to collect the •book debts, but I <was later told, that lie had called a meeting of his creditors and had asisigned his book debts to them, in.eluding the Simmon d s estate a.m6ng t'he creditors," he concluded The story of Brlggs' alleged fall Irom grace goes back to the month of January,' 1926, when Isaac Simmonds died, 1 leaving an estate which included a house m Kingsley Street and on which was a mortgage' for £ 260.

The affairs connected with the estate I were placed m Cracroft-Wilson's office. Charles Henry' Roud, a nephew of the deceased and an executor m. the estate, told th,e court that there were three beneficiaries. A cheque 'made out for £118 25. -9 d. (produced) was identined by Roud as one which was paid over by Simmonds before he died m part -payment off the £260 mortgage on the house property.. The body of the cheque, said Roud, was written out m the handwriting of Briggs. ■ , At the time of Simmonda 1 death, alleged Roud, accounts totalling £52 were owing and were to be paid out of the estate. Cheques were made out for the accounts owing and these were handed over, to Briggs to pay them. With the exception .of one account paid to Rhind and Company, it was alleged that these accounts were not paid. Briggs, armed with a sheaf of papers, then commenced his cross-examina-tion, "iVTio advised that you should be appointed an administrator?" .was his first question. "My mother," was the reply. , ' Briggs: Now th.c first time I saw you the main discussion was m regard to legal costs of the administration of the estate? — No, not on the first occasiort I saw you. But there was a discussion later about costs? — No, I don't think so. Did i not tell you m the office once that there was no cash to pay out-of-pocket fees? — I never heard that. You did not know that Mr. Simmonds was paying . £4 weekly for out-of-pocket expenses? — No. . Now, you" saw me a good many times about this estate? I was always m the office, was I not? — Well, I found it just the opposite. I found nobody there on numerous occasions. It' did not seem very businesslike. Do you know- that, Mrs. Gilbert— one of the beneficiaries — had a .fixed deposit receipt which was mortgaged?— I know it now. It was done without my authority. '; : The estate is worth £2100. ts there any suggestion that nothing has been accounted for except the'Se, cheques already produced?— . There is £7 10s. and £4 paid over by Mr. Simmonds which has not been accounted for, .but that leaves put of the question the mortgage and the deposit receipt already referred to. " The bench (to accused) :. "You sire not charged with ; the £7 and £4 items." /_ . /'■■' -:'' : -, .", v ■/■■.■ ■ ' : It was further by Roud, that the first 'thing he knew that anything was amiss was when he received a communication from an estate agent named Hart relative' to interest payments, v ' ' ' . • . He then saw Cracroft-Wilson about matters and at the interview, said Roud, the lawyer advised him that it was the first he knew of the business, . Cracroft-Wilson w,as also l alleged to have told Roud that he would; have everything fixed up before Christmas and that "Briggs was trying to get the money from the West Coast." , Late m the following January, Roud and Simmonds (a brother of the deceased) saw another firm of solicitors

afford to pay him a salary pro:ri)3d man with six children. He the profits. ... about the estate and aa a result of the correspondence Cracroft-Wilson sent £100 to the other firm. "This money was supposed to be £100 from the trust account of Cracroft- Wilson and belonging to the estate," sajd Roud. A further £5 was also paid m. Roud went on to say that he had always regarded Briggs as CracroftWilson's clerk, but he had always considered the solicitor to be responsible for all money paid to Briggs. Cyril Alexander Stringer, a solicitor, told the court how he came to be consulted m connection with the Simmonds estate. He saw Briggs, who called round to Stringer's office. "Briggs admitted to me having taken the money that had been paid m and which was the .subject of dispute and that he had wrongfully taken it," said, Stringer. Evidence was given by Charles L>. ! Hart, an estate agent, who described certain negotiations he had with Briggs relative to the mortgage on the house m Kingsley Street. Briggs allegedly communicated with him to the effect that he had instruc- j tions to pay off the mortgage, but — according to Hart — the money was never paid, nor was the mortgage ever reduced. Cracroft-Wilson then entered the box. He detailed the arrangements he had made with Briggs when he approached him for employment. Briggs undertook to come into the office on a basis of receiving one-third of the profits. "Yes. I know of the Simmonds estate, but that is about all I do know about it," said witness. "Briggs introduced the clients and I always left it to him. ' • "I was not even aware of what moneys were paid Into the office m connection with the estate, except one portion — and that was the question of costs.

"When Briggs said he was winding up the estate he told me not to worryabout costs, as he ihad paid £100 into the trust account. (Later he came to me and told me (that he had a shortage. "The amount was about £ 337 connected with the Simmonds estate and I had to find £100." Briggs put his former emjployer through a search--Ing 'cross-examina-tion. "When money was paid into the office, who usually gaVe the receipts?" was his first question. . . "You; — or anybody else who hap.pened to be there," witness replied. Was there a cash book? — There was not.

Or any other books other than the receipt . — My books are with my auditors.

I Then how were bankings traced? — They would be traced by the toanK | slips. Do you remember my paying- money into your trust account late m October of last year outside this. £100 already mentioned ? — Yes. What was the amount?— £7 10s.; one of them. "And the other? A third of that money would lie mine, would it not?" Cracroft-Wilson was emphatic that it would have been nothing of the sort. "Mr. Briggs, you are losing ground; that money was not yours." "I. am legally responsible for ,this £337," witness went on. And then he embarked on a eulogy of his former clerk. "Briggs "was a good clerk, sir," he told the bench, "and the fact of his being a married man with a wife and six children he probably fell to temptation where another man would not haye g done." Briggs: You did not know that small amounts were being used by me m the office as they came m? — No, I did not. Detective B. M. Thomas deposed to interviewing Briggs on October 10, when he allegedly admitted to the detective that he had the handling of the Simmonds estate. He also said that Cracroft-Wilson had nothing to do with the matter. "I explained to Briggs that it was alleged he had received the tnoney mentioned m the information and that he had converted it to his own use," said the detective. "The accused admitted that he had received the sum of £ 260 from Simmonds to pay off a mortgage on a house and , he further admitted to me that he had not paid off the mortgage or any part of it. . ■ "I.showed the accused the cheque for £118 2s. 9d. (produced) and he admitted that the body of the cheque was m his handwriting and that it was the one he had received from Simmonds. "He also admitted that he had paid this cheque into his own account at the post office bank." A statement made, it was said, m the handwriting of Briggs was then read. Having submitted... the document, which has already'been quoted, Detective Thomas concluded his evidence by saying that Briggs told him gambling had been his downfall. Pleading' not guilty and reserving his defence, Briggs was committed for trial: