A PECULIAR CASE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 29, 11 March 1914, Page 5

A PECULIAR CASE.

ALLEGED FAILURE TO ACCOUNT. A MATTER OF 11/6. IrL the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr T. Wallace, J.P., and Mr H. Crowther, J.P., Charles Allison charged William Brunsden with-failure to account for 11/6, collected in 19Q8 from Julia and John Morrisey on terms requiring him to account for the same to the said Charles Allison. Mr Dacre appeared for Mr Allison and Mr Cuningham for the accused. Mr Cuningham pointed out that the offence was an indictable one, and as the period" of twelve months had expired, their worships."had power only either "to dismiss the case or tb send accused to the Supreme Court. Mr Dacre, for complainant, admitted that there was an agreement between complainant and accused, but the sum of 11/6 in dispute had not been received under that, agreement. There were other charges pending. Mr Cunijjgham objected to the last remark.

Charles Allison, the complainant, stated that. he was carrying on business in Sydenham in 1906, and in connection with the business employed a man named Harvey on terms similar to those in the agreement between complainant and Brunsden. This was in 1907 or 1908. Brunßden had ascertained that witness sold goods on time payment, and came and asked witness if he would supply a client qf his, to whom he was supplying drapery through another firm. Accused explained that he merely wished to accommodate his customers, and did not want commission. For four or five months witness supplied accused's customers. Finding the cus-' tomers were paying him pretty promptly, witness put accused on as a traveller, making a written agreement with him. "Whilst collecting under the agreement from his own clients, witness asked Brunsden to collect the unpaid amounts due by Harvey's clients, on the same terms as' he was collecting his own. Brunsden agreed, and was given a written authority to collect. Amongst those owed money on Harvey's order were Mr and Mrs John •Morrisey. Witness told accused that the collection was not proceeding satisfactorily. Accused represented that he had called' many times on the Morriseys without result. On November 16 accused •received 2/- Mrs Morrissey, and the books showed that it had not been accounted for.

Mr Cuningham objected to such evidence being put in. If books were to be quoted from they would have to be put in. <

Mr Daere mentioned that one witness was away. He suggested a remand. Mr CuningTiam objected to any remand, sta.ting that the ease was, one of the smallest and most trumpery .ease?, .ever brought into the Cditrt. - ' Mr Daere continued to speak saying that th 6 ease-was not a trumpjsjy one. Mr Cuningham that Allison had sued the Momss&jNfor the .balance due, and had " got .judgment against them. They wdre giveiiciedit for the amount alleged tcf -have been received by accused. . • . After further discussion, Mr Wallace said that he was very sOrry-the police had not had control of the case, as' probably they"' would have -made it a little clearer. - - r"

Mr Cuningham continued that an from his client the sum of for, commission on amouhts to be collected;; Judgment was given for Allison for,. £lO. On a counter-claim his client wasgranted £8 for commission,, including commission/on the amount' now alleged to be unaccounted for.

Complainant resumed his evidence, giving the dates and amounts' of thesums received by accused in sums of 1/-, 2/-, 2/6, and 3/-. It was all in. small sums. Accused professed r tp be accounting for all sums he had receivedMr Dacre explained that until tfal last moment last week his client ha 4 believed the police were taking up" the case. They had not done so.because the inspector was away. Mr Cuningham: You' cannot "put tK& blame on the police. Mr Dacre continued that thp witnesses could be obtained, and sa&d the Case should be adjourned. - % . Mr Cuningham objected strongly to this. ' ' <••• The Bench said it was an unfortunate affair. An adjournment had been grafted last Wediiesday, - and now witnesses were not there. V . Mr Dacre asked if the case mjght'b'e adjourned, until the , afternoon.^/He understood, the witnesses required would be in attendance then. ' s Mr Cuningham objected, the Bench said it could not very-well grant an adjournment. . -a. * Mr Cuningham went on to the easo'was q, very mean'and one, arising: entirely out of thebad system of book'keeping , followed , byAllison. Brunsden had sold fop Allison £658 worth, of goods, apd had. got £598 in payment, making practically only 10 per cent of looses. -And' fprthai balance Allison had sued Bruri&den. in the court, as he Jiad already stated. Allison had sued two other peoplf ,i3au dealings of this sort within the last\feij£ w'eeks, and had gd>ne down in eaeh'casij* "This is the most piffling, paltry esufc, ever brought into thq court, and I asjc your Worship to dismiss it,'' be concluded. "* V. "After further discusjsioii ttfeir Worships granted a remand until r.fternoon to allow of the being in attendance. .