Tuesday, 7th October. Wednesday, Bth October.

Otago Witness, Issue 1456, 11 October 1879, Page 11

Tuesday, 7th October.

Wednesday, Bth October.

Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a

" Common Jury. ) SENTENCE.

Matthew William Hawkins (aged 48) was brought before the Court for sentence for the offence to which he had pleaded guilty on the previous day. The Prisoner, when challenged, replied thab he had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him. His Honor : I have carefully read through the depositions that were taken before the magistrates in your case. They show that for some yf ara you have had the entire control, or almost the entire control, of funds of a Building Society ; and they show also, from your own admission, that you have robbed this Society to the extent of over LI4OO. Your depredations were not committed at one time, but they were committed during a period be • ginnins: a& far back as 1876. Your acts, therefore, wore deliberate, and cannot be said in the least degree to have been the result of any sudden overpowering temptation. It appears also from the depositions of Mr Reeves, the chairman »f the Society, that he asked you for an account of lh»» assets and liabilities of the Society. It appears further that there was under contemplation the amalgamation of the Society which employed you with some other building society. Clearly, therefore, the discovery of your frauds wa3 impending, and could not have been postponed much loager. This, of course, you knew, and knowing that, you anticipated what would take place by making a confession to the solicitor of the Society. The case therefore stands in this way : You were entrusted with the control of large sums of money, and ypu have abused your trust, not in one single inBt^nce, but by depredations extending over a considerable time. It is said you bore a good character. I can quite believe it, for had you not borne a good character you would never have been in the position to commit these frauds. You have, in fact, made use of your good character t» rob your empl >yars. In passing sentence I _ shall, however, take iato consideration the circum&tanse that you have made a fair confession, and that you have pleaded guilty. Still, the sentence mast be one that would operate as a deterrent to persons who are employed in similar positions to you. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept in penal servitude in the Colony of New Zealand for the term of six years. There are two indictments, and the sentence in both cases will be the same, but the sentences will take effect concurrently.

CATTLE- STEALING. % Alexander Rocard was brought up on an indictment charging him, on three counts, with feloniously killing and stealing a bullo'ckj the property of John Waldie, at Waikouaiti, on the 6th of June.

The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr Haggitt (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the prosecution, and Mr Denniston defended the prinoner. The facts of the case, as stated by the Crown Prosecutor, showed that the prosecutor, John Waldie, was a farmer residing iv the neighbourhood of Half-way Bush, and fchat ke had some cattle running in the Waikouaiti district. Mr Waldie's cattla were all branded "WB." One of these beasts was missed for some time, .and its skin was subsequently sold by the prisoner to Mr Charleton, a butcher at Blueskin, to whom tho prisoner had previously offered to sell the carcass of a beast he had shot on the ranges. At the time Mr Charleton purchassd the hide of the animal a constable was in the shop in plain clothes, and he asked Mr Charleton to keep the hide on one side until he had made inquiries respecting it. The prisoner's account of bow he became possessed of the hide

was that the bullock had ruahed him, andihe had shot it; but the Crown Prosecutor submitted that if the statement were true, still tha prisoner had no right of property in the animal, and had no authority to dispoße of the bullook or of ita skin. If the Jury were satisfied that the bullock wa» Waldie's property, and that the prisoner had shot it, attempted to dispose of it, and sold its skin, without authority, they should find the priscner guilty of the ©ffenca charged in the indictment. The case as opened was proved on the evidence of J. Waldie, G-. E. Charleton, and tha constable stationed at Blueskin.

Captain G. R. Smith and Lieutenant Jacobs, of the Naval Brigade, and Mr J. Jaoiieson (City treasurer) gave evidence of the character of the prisoner, to the effect that they bad known him for some time, and believed him to be thoroughly respectable. Mr Denniston, in addressing the Jury on Ivhalf of tho prisoner, said that he admitted the facts stated by the Crown Prosecutor in opening — namaly, that the accused shot the bullock, that it belonged to Mr Waldie, and that it 3 skin had been Bold to Mr Oharleton by the accused. Tha question for the J ury, however, was whether this had bsen dona with any intention of defrauding another of his prepsrty. The statement of the prisoner was not that he had shot the bullock in self-defence, but that he had gone out pig-hunting, and from, the appearance of the animals he believed they were wild, and had shot them, and had proceeded to dispose of. them openly. Mr Donniston referred to the evidence of good character, to the fact that the brand on the animal was only visible on the inside of the skin, and that the accused had made the same straightforward statement throughout.

His Honor summed up, and the Jury, after an hour's deliberation, acquitted the accused.

TRDE BILL.

The Grand Jury returned a true bill in the case of James Smith, on an indictment for murder.

The Grand Jury, having answered all the bills laid before them, and having no presentment to make, were thanked by his Honor and discharged.

THE CHARGES AGAINST T. O. REID.

Thomas Chalmers Reid was charged upon an indictment, containing six counts, with having fraudulently and unlawfully applied certain moneys, amounting to L 1446 7s 6d, the property of the Colonial Building and Investment Society (Limited) to his own use, or to the use of his brother, J. C. Reid. The several counts were placed on the indictment bo as to charge him separately with fraudulently dealing with the funds, either as a director or as a shareholder, and with appropriating the money unlawfully to his own use, or to the use of some other persons other than for the purposes of tho Company. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr B. C. Haggitt) conducted the case, and Mr J. E. Denniston defended the prisoner.

Mr Haggitt, in opening the case, said that the charges contained in the indictment, the matters the Jury were to try, were founded upon the 80th section of the Larceny Act, 1867, which corresponded exactly with the terms of an English Act, 24 and 25 Vie , cap. 95, section 81. The word " property" in the section was defined in an interpretation clausa to mean every description of property —real, personal, money, debts, and bo on. The section made it an offence if a director of a body* corporate or of a public company fraudulently took or applied to his own use or benefit, or for the benefit of seme other person j or if a member of a company fraudulently dealt with the company's money in a similar manner. The charge had been framed in the form in which it appeared on the indictment to be in accordance with the provisions of section 80 of the Larceny Act, 1867 ; so that whether the fraud had been committed by the prisoner as a director or as a shareholder, or whether the money had been appropriated to his own use or that of any other person, he would be amenable to the provisions of the seotion. This had been done in order to meat a possible objection which might arise after the evidenco had been given. On the sth of July, 1875, a company was incorporated under the provisions of the Joint-stock Companies Act, 1860, by name ' the Colonial Building and Investment Society. That Company had a memorandum and articles of association, which were registered in due course. The memorandum of association, which waß equivalent to a deed of partnership in ordinary cases, provided that moneys might be advanced on real estate er household property, on corporation or road board rates, on wop], sheep, cattle, agricultural produce, ships' freight, cargo, bill of landing ; but not on bills of exchange or promissory notes, or on any security^ not specified in the memorandum of association. There was, therefore, no authority for any director of the Company, whatever powers he might have vested in him, or for a board of directors to appropriate the moneys of the Cempany, except on the 'expressed securities contained in the memorandum of association. The Company, when so incorpo ■ rated, commenced to carry on business. Mr Basch was the first secretary of the Company, and was succeeded by the prisoner, who was appointed secretary at a salary of LICO per annum and a commission upon the business trauaacted, and remained in office on those terms until July 31st, 1878. At this time the prisoner gave in his resignation as secretary, and generously offered to perform tho duties of the office "free, gratia, and for nothing,' and elected himself a director of the Company by means of proxies which he obtained from shareholders. After this the prisoner induced his co-directors to make Itiru managing director, and from that time he took upon himself the entire charge and control of the Company's affairs, and also took upon himself the disposal of tke Company's monsy as he in his absolute discretion thought fit to employ them. The charge against the prisoner vow was that during the period ending the Ist of June, 1879 (on which day the circumstances induced him to cease to have any further connection with the Company) the prisoner appropriated the sum of L 1446 7s 6d of the Company's moneys, either to his own use or to the use of his brother, John C. Reid, and that the moneys were bo longer available to the Company, or even likely to be available; The prisoner kept books, in which he entered moueys received from time to time, and according to these books ha received on account of the Society, during the period from July, 1878, to June, 1879, the sum of L 2597 16s. A resolution had been passed by the Company that moneyd.iwhen they exceeded the sum of Lls, should be banked, and, iv compliance with that resolution, the sum stilted should have been banked ; but instead of doing that, only L515 10s had been during that period paid into the bank. Other portions of the mone^r, acnording to the prisoner's own statement, had been paid for the benefit of the Society; but giving him the benefit of these sums there remained L 1446 7s 6d, the amount mentioned in the indictment, to be accounted fcr when he ceased to be connected with the Society. In order to balance his books the Srisoner nrfade entries to the following effect :— ohn Reid, L 35 0; do, L 227 ss : do, L 194 23 6d; do, L 350; do, L 175; do, Llso— making

altogether L 1446 7s 6d, the amount charged in the indictment. These sums, it was apparently intended to be shown, had been paid to John Chalmers Reid, who would tell them that he never received moneys to anything like these amounts ; and certainly he had not received them at the times mentioned, and evon if he did receive them the prisoner had no business to pay the money to him, as in so using it he had misappropriated it, and had brought himself within the provisions of the 80th section of the Act. The contention, however, was that the prisoner had appropriated the money to his own purposes, and this would be proved, first by the denial of John C. Reid that he bad received the moneys, and secondly from the prisoner's own cash-book, in which he had debited himself with tbe moneys he had from time to time abstracted from the funds of the Society. The Crown Prosecutor explained that the books and acceunts had come into the hands of Mr Leary, as the prisoner's creditors' trustee in bankruptcy, and as the liquidator of the Colonial Building and Investment Society, and that the Jury would have largely to depend upon Mr Leary 's evidence to trace the appropriation of the Company's moneys by the prisoner. Francis Russell Smith, registrar of jointstock companies,^produced the articles and memorandum of ' association of the Colonial Building and Investment Company (Limited), and also the certificate of incorporation of the Company. "Witness continued: The third signature on the articles of association is my signature. I have before me the minute-book of meetings of directors. The date of tbe meeting at which the book is opened is 18th February, 1876. I was chairman of the meeting, and signed the minutes. Oa the 18th February, 1876, T. Chalmers Reid was appointed secretary. Mr Reid was present at a meeting of directors. Witness oontinued : At the meeting of directors on 21st February, 1876, Mr Reid accepted tbe position of secretary on the terms agreed upon at the previous meeting of shareholders. The minutes of 24th March, 1876, are in the prisoner's handwriting. One of the resolutions therein is as follows: — "Resolved, that the Secretary pay in to the Company's bankers all moneys received on account of the Company, when they shall have reached the sum of Lls, within 48 houra after receipt, less a sum ©f L 2 or any smaller sum the Secretary may desire to retain as change." The minutes of meeting of 31st of July, 1878, are, I fancy, in the prisoner's handwriting. From the minutes it appears that the Secretary, at that meeting, handed in his resignation as paid secretary, and offered his services as honorary secretary, when it was resolved— " That Mr Reid's resignation as secretary be accepted, and that his offer to aot for a year without salary be accepted.", I was not at the meeting of 19th September, 1878, but the minutes are in his handwriting, or in a handwriting similar to his. (These minutes, which were unsigned, were headed " Minutes of meeting of directors," and stated that Thomas Chalmers Reid had been appointed managing director.) The minutes of the general meeting of July, 1878, are apparently in Mr Reid's handwriting. (At this meeting Mr Reid was elected one of the directors of the Company). The proxies produced are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, in Mr Reid's handwriting. Peter Masterton, a shareholder in the Colonial Building and Investment Company (Limited), deposed : I have been a shareholder in the Colonial Investment Company since 1878. I know the prisoner's handwriting. The minutes of meeting of directors of 24th March, 1876, are in prisoner's handwriting. The minutes of 31st July, 1878, are also in his handwriting. I was present, and signed the minutes, I was also chairman of meeting of 19th September, 1878, and signed the minutes, which were written by the prisoner. (Several other entries in the minute-book were also identified by witness as being in the prisoner's handwriting. ) I did not authorise him to apply any of the moneys of the Company to his own nse or to the nee of his brother, John C. Roid. He never consulted me on the subject, or told me ho had done so. I have had conversations with the prisoner as to the affairs of the Company. I asked him several times to call a meeting of the directors and give us a statement of the Company's affairs. I cannot give dates, but I repeatedly asked him to do so. He always made excuses — such as that he was too busy, that the books wanted making up, that he was trying to sell the Company, and would soon call a meeting and submit the proposal to ns. He always pat me eff. To Mr Denniston: The shareholders' minutebook shews a)1 tho meetings I attended, and, so far as I know, all that were held. lam not much of a business man. I am a bookseller. The practical result of what we did was to leave the management «f the Company in Mr Rdd'a hands. When tbe books were taken over they were not balanced. So far as I know, the books produced are all the minute-books. As a director I cannot produce any other books.

Richard Henry Leary deposed as follows : I am an accountant by_ profession, and a member of the firm of Bastings, Leary, and Co. In this case I am the trustee in bankruptcy of the prisoner's estate, and also the liquidator of the Colonial BuiWing and Investment Society. The books now in Court were in my custody, and produced by me. I produce the register of shareholders of the Company. It is the register of the shareholders, though not kept in proper form, and is apparently the only one kept. Witness continued : The book was kept by Thomas Chalmers Reid. I find there a number of transfers of sham from other persons to Thpmas Chalmers Reid. This is in the handwriting of the prisoner. The earliest date is September 19tb, 1877, transfer from R> L. Stanford to T. 0. Reid of two shares. The next is frrm Alexander Batbgate of 10 shares. Prisoner appears to have been a shareholder of the Company during the whole of 1878. In June, 1878, he appears to have held 128 shares. His Honor: Looking at that book what should you, as an accountant, call it ? Witness : A shareholders' register. It has also be«n used as a transfer. It answers the purpose of a transfer-book. In the book I find a number of proxies in the prisoner's handwriting, of various dates in 1878. They appoint the prisoner, as a shareholder, to act on behalf of other shareholders at a general meeting to be held in July, 1878. I have the cash-book of the Company before me. The total receipts by the prisoner, according to the entries in his book for the year ending July, 1878, wera L 1434 18b 4d. From July, 1877, tbe Bum of L 36 2<j 8d was brought over. According to tbe books, L 893 9s was paid into the bank ; L 332 0a od, advances j L 43 Is, charges ; L 6 16s, interest ; L 23, deposits repaid ; L2O, refund to shareholders ; LB3 10s, commission — leaving a balance of L 33 Is 7d. The" prisoner'ajconnection with the Society ceased apparently on June 17th last. His receipts from the end of 1878 up to June 17th, exclusive of the balance, was L 2597 15s Id. Of this amount L 515 Is was paid into the bank ; L 1446 7s 6d was put down to the name of John Reid. This was made up of the following sums :— John Reid, L 35 0: John Reid, L 22 7; do, Ll9O 4a 6d ; John Reid, L 350; do, Ll5O. They are consecutive entries. The only subsequeat entry is far re»t,Lloo 16a Bi, apparently paid to the

prisoner himself. The business of the Company waa casried on in the prisoner's own office. There are no dates throughout, excepting the heading " July 21, 1878, to June 19, 1879." That is the state in which I received this book as liquidator of the Company. When I first asked prisoner, he refused to give any information whatever regarding the Company's affairs. As trustee of the business estate, his own books came into my possession. I have his ledger, containing transactions with his customers or clienta. In that ledger there is an account with the Colonial Building Company (Limited). The amount due by him to tbe Company is L 1493 14s 3d. The account was not balanced when I received the book.

Witness continued : The entry was made by the bankrupt after his bankruptcy, in my office. I found that the books were not balanced, and I asked Mr Reid to balance them up. It was in coneeqnence of that this entry and other entries were made. I also requested that he should make the entry in pencil, so that I should know it from those previously mada Previous to asking him to balance up his books, I have no recollection of giving him written notice —aa is my usual practice — summoning him to answer questions. The only time I examined him on oath was at a meeting — he summoned himself. Witness' examination resumed : Until that entry was made to balance, the amount L 1494 14s 3d remained to the credit of the Colonial Building Society in the books in the name of T. C. Reid.

Cross-examined : The ledger account did not represent the balances. AH the books of the Company have been handed to me. The cashbook bears evidence of having been entered up at one time from documents. It is not a daily record. Mr Reid, when refusing to give me information as to the Company's affairs, added that he was acting under the advice of his solicitor.

John Chalmers Reid deposed: I live at Timaru, and am an insurance agent. At one time I managed a farm there. It stood in my brother's name, but was supposed to have been sold to me. I went on to the farm in October, 1876. I had no money then, The farm was supposed to be sold to me six months afterwards. I had no money then. It was carried on by dealings in live stock chiefly .m. m I never borrowed any |money from the Colonial Building and Investment Company. I was not awareof its existence until I saw a report in the paper after my brotber'a bankruptcy. In the year 1879 1 received some money from my brother, but I cannot tell the amount.

Mr Haggitt : Did you receive L 1446, or anything like that ? Witness : Oh dear no. I went over the matter with Mr Leary, and we came somewhere near it. He sent me orders for LSO or L6O, and I got a cheque for L4O. Between July, 1878, and June, 1879, 1 did not receive one sum of L 350. I did not receive L 227 5s in one sum, nor L 194 7s 6d, nor L 350, nor Ll5O. Cross examined : I am an insurance agent. The Mutual Life Association of Australasia has the benefit of my services, I took to that oc cupation after seeking the Bankruptcy Court, and shortly after concluding my experiences as a farmer. I can't Bound my praises as » farmer. Fifteen years ago I was a seafaring man, and have since occupied various positions, including a, Sunday- school teacher—^a preacher. My brother wrote to me offering the farm at Timaru. There have been losses on the farms. I treated the farm as my own: I thought I was buying a good thing, until the bad times came. I made an estimate on January 29 th, 1879, which I sent to my brother. At that time I thought the farm would realise a profit for the year of L 1479. I knew that my brother was a financial agent. He stated in a letter that the money he supplied me with came out of his own pocket. It is not true that I constantly gave bills to a large extent which were met by my brother. I cannot tell how much was paid to my acaccount in this farm; but I should say the farm is L9OO or LIOOO to the bad. My brother in his ledger has the loss stated at L13.0C0, but I do not think it is so much as that — that amount is made up with law_ expenses. He sold the place to me without title, and agreed to supply me with money. James Russell Weafcherspoon, ledgerlcseper at the Colonial Bank, deposed : Between the 20th July, 1878, and 20th July, 1879, the sum of L 559 10s was paid to the credit of the Colonial Building and Investment Society. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr Denniston took as an objection that the prosecution had failed to prove what was necessary to the case, viz., that the accused was either a member or director of the Colonial Building and Investment Society (Limited). In the first place he submitted that it must be shown that the moneys were received by him as a director or member of the Company. If the accused was in any position at all connected with the Company he was its manager, and received the money in that capacity. Unless it was proved that the accused was either a director or member of the Company, the accused was not liable for the offence charged. The whole proceedings of the alleged election of directors were legal; and the doubt Mr Haggitt had expressed as to the possibility of not proving that Mr Reid was a director was more than justified by the event. His Honor : Your contention is that though he has acted as a director, yet from the minute-books and the articles of association put in by the Crown, it appears that he was not legally elected.

Mr Dennistcn submitted there was not only a want of proof that the accused was a director or a shareholder, but that the evidence proved that he was not a director or member of the Company, and that in fact the proceedings were irregular, and that there were no directors. No man, he submitted, could estop himself by his actions from proving that he had not committed a crime, and the fact that he had acted as director and member did not prove that he was such, and until a shareholder was on the register he was not a member of the Company.

Mr Haggitt submitted that in the minutes of meetings of shareholders, and of directors, under his own hand, the prisoner was admittedly a director ; that if estopped by his acts from proyirjg that he was not a director in a civil case, it was the evidence that would eßtop him; and that as the same rules of evidence applied in criminal and civil proceedings, there was evidence to go to the Jury. With regard to the question of membership of the Company, he submitted that the prisoner could not take advantage of his own default and claim that he was not a member because as secretary he had failed to keep a register ©f shareholders: besides which, there was under the prisoners own handwriting, evidence of transaction after transaction by which shares were transferred from other shareholders to himself.

His Honor said he did not wish to decide at present as to whether there was sufficient proof of the accused having been a director or a ehareholder of the Company. There appeared to him to be sufficient doubt on both points to justify him in reserving the points for the Court of Appeal, and he would accordingly reserve them. Mr Denniston then addressed the Jury oa beb»tf of tbe prisoner, He naid that tbe

gentlemen who had previously served on juries would remember that they had been told that it was their duty to do two things: to expunge from their minds everything they had heard concerning the case outside the courthouse, and to put aside all feeling against the accused. The first of these requests he thought it was impossible for jurymen to comply with, for men could not wipe out of their minds the knowledge of what they had heard and read about for a long time past ; but he would ask them to do what he was sure they would do, and what it was most clearly their duty to do, in censidecing the case, to put away any feeling of animus, or dislike, or want of sympathy which had been created by what they must have read and heard. Their duty was to deal with the accused simply and solely on the evidence as it was before them, and not to allow articles, rumours, letters, reports of public meetings, or covert attacks of all kinds, which had made the accused so prominent during the last few months, to influence them. The question for the Jury was whether it had been proved that the accused had fraudulently appropriated the money of the Company to his own or to bis brother's use. As a matter of fact, the accused found theCompany in difficulties, and, in conjunction with other members, had endeavoured to resuscitate it. In order to do this, it had been decided to conduct it upon altogether a new basis to that set down in the memorandum of association. He admitted that the desperate course taken to resuscitate the Company was not a legal one, andjwould.be no answer in a civil action, but that it was important as showing that no fraudulent appropriation of money had been made. The altered basis of operations upon which it had been agreed the Society's transactions should be conducted made it simply a general financial agency business, with power to advance money on personal or other security. The accused was appointed manager, and the question was whether anything he was alleged to have dona was inconsistent with such a class of business. He considered the accused had merely used the money of the Society in such a way as he considered best for the Company, and had advanced it to John C. Reid, upon what he believed to be, and what was represented as being, valid security. The headland front.of the accused's offending was that he had advanced large sums of money to his brother, believing that they would be repaid with profit to the Company. It was, he submitted, clear that the accused had acted as his brother's financial agent, and the fact that the entries in his own ledger showed the amounts withdrawn from the Society was greatly in favour of this view. It was not at all likely that such an account would have been had the transaction been a fraudulent one. No one would expect that a bank clerk who embezzled funds would keep a private account of the amounts he embezzled, and it was just as improbable that the accused should have kept this account if he had considered he was dealing with the money of the Company in a fraudulent manner. Mr Denniston criticised the manner in which Mr J. C. Reid had given his evidence, and asserted that he had displayed greater eagerness than the Crown Prosecutor to secure a conviction. If the Jury believed that the accused commenced to act for the Company in the hope and belief that under the new powers given him as managing director he could help to resuscitate the Company, and that as part of the financial business he was led to make advances, which ultimately, to his great surprise and his complete ruin, proved to be lost, Mr Denniston asked the Jury to find that neither for himself nor for his brother had the accused fraudulently appropriated the moneys of the Company. His Honor said he was afraid he would require some time to make himself familiar with the different accounts ; and as the Jury would have to return in the morning, he would like to know whether the gentlemen of the Jury would like to go on with the case at night or in the morning. The Foreman replied that the Jury would prefer an adjournment until the following morning.

Hia Honor : Very well, gentlemen ; then I will sum up to-morrow morning. In tbe meantime, be good enough to take the greatest care not to talk to anyone about the case, and do not discuss it amongst yourselves ; it is just as well you should say nothing about it till you are asked formally to discuss it to-mor-row morning.

The Court adjourned at 6 p.m:, and will resume at 10 o'clock this (Wednesday) morning.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and

a Common Jury.) THE CHA.BGES AGAINST T. C. REID.

The case against Thomas Chalmers Reid of having, as a shareholder or director, fraudulently dealt with the sum of £1446 7s 6d, the property of the Colonial Building and Investment Company (Limited), was resumed.

Mr Haggitt for the Crown, and Mr Dennieton for the prisoner. His Honor asked if the sum of £350 mentioned in one of the counts was a portion of the £1446 7s 6d which the prisoner waß charged with misappropriating under the count now being heard.

Mr Haggitt replied that the count had been inserted in the indictment in order to meet an objection which might have heen advanced, but which had not — namely, that specific items must be alleged. As things had shaped themselves, the count was unnecessary.

Hi's Honor then summed up, and in doing so said that the learned counsel for the defence had taken the objection that the prisoner was neither a director nor a member of the Company, and as there were certain legal doubts on the subject, he had decided to reserve it, to be determined hereafter by the Court of Appeal. The Jury retired at 11,4 a.m., and after deliberating for about an hour and a- half they returned a verdict to the effect that the prisoner was guilty of fraudulently appropriating the sum of £1446 7s 6d, but not guilty of fraudulently appropriating the money for the use of John C. Reid ; the Jury finding the prisoner " Guilty" on the first, second, and fifth counts, and " Not Guilty" on the third, fourth, and sixth counts of the indictment.

Thomas Chalmers Reid was then indicted on 10 separate counts with having, as director and manager of the Colonial Building Society, received from Alexander Adam, on behalf of the Society, the sum of £20, fraudulently appropriated the same, and having failed to make or cause to be made entry of the receipt of the same in the Company's booka. The Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The Jury retired at 3.35, and at 4.30 p.m. returned and gave a verdict of "Guilty" onal 1 counts except those abandoned by the Crown Prosecutor, and in .which the prisoner was described aa manager of the Company.

Thomas Chalmers Reid was further charged on an indictment of four counts with having, as a member and director of the Colonial Building and Investment Company, fraudulently appropriated the sum of £100, the amount of one of the bills of exchange alleged to have been drawn by John C. Reid. J

His Honor having briefly summed up, the Jury returned a verdict of "Guilty" against the accused on thia, indictment. The same points were reserved for the Court of Appeal as in the previous cases. T. C. Reid was then charged on an indictment of 10 counts with fraudulently appropriating the sum of £3 of the Company's money to his own use and benefit.

In this case the same course was adopted, and the Jury returned a verdict of " Guilty" on all counts.

Mr Haggitt said there were several other indictments against the prisoner, but he did not purpose giving further evidence, as he had secured a conviction on one of each of the severaljclaßses of indictments ; and that in regard to the other cases, there being no evidence offered, the Jury would simply be asked to return verdicts of "Not Guilty." The prisoner was then arraigned on six other indictments, and no evidence being offered on any of them, the Jury returned a verdiot of "Not Guilty." These indictments were— for fraudulently appropriating the sums of £5, £50, £250, £81 Is 9d, and £150, and for embezzling various sums amounting to £1434 13s 4d.

His Honor : The prisoner will be remanded to his former custody until the decision of the Court of Appeal can be had on the points reserved. The Court adjourned at 6.10 p.m.