Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE CHARGES AGAINST D. H. BROWN.

(BY TELEGRAPH —FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.) ' Christchurch, July 8. D. H. Brown was brought up on remand to-day, before Messrs J.P. Jameson, F. J. Kimbell, H. J. Hall, and E. Curry, and charged on three informations with embezzling sums belonging to the Bank of New Zealand amounting to £167 3s Id. Accused looked very much depressed. James Embling, manager of the New Zealand Bank, said he knew the Canterbury Mills at Ashburton. ; they were the property of the Bank. From the 28th February last year the stock of wheat and flour was also the Bank's property; The property remained in the Bank's hands till Ist February of this year. Brown was manager for the former owner, and when the Bank took over possession he managed for them. The Bank increased his salary from £400 to £500 a year, with free house. The Bank made arrangements with Kaye and Carter to appear as nominal lessees of the mills, and they managed the clerical part of the business. The j account with the Rank was called the "Canterbury Mills, operated by Kaye; and Carter." The account belonged to the Bank of New Zealand. Brown knew that ] the Bank was carrying on the mills, and that they were the property of the Bank. Patrick Hanrahan, farmer and baker at Ashburton, stated he had 187 sacks wheat in the mill, chiefly "Hunter's." It was there to be gristed. Brown agreed to charge Is per bushel for gristing, and he was to pay railway freight to Dromore, and charge it to witness. Brown gave him an advance of £106 5s on the wheat, and witness Was to repay the money as the flour was taken away. Brown paid £106 5s into the Bank to witness' credit. Witness made first repayment on account on September 12, 1889, when he gave Brown £20. The receipts produced were in Brown's handAvriting. Paid him another £20 on the 2nd October, and on 26th October, £67 3s Id, and the balance on 4th December, viz., £71 10s. Witness paid by cheque on the Bank of New South Wales, Ashburton. All the payments were charged to his account at the Bank. As the flour was taken away he made the payments. The flour represented the 187 sacks of wheat, none of which he had sold to Brown or the Canterbury Mill. Had sold no wheat to either. F. H. Watson, accountant Bunk of New South Wales, Ashburton, gave evidence as to the cashing of Hanrahan's cheques. The first cheque, for £20, was cashed over the counter, the second was paid in by D. H. Brown to the credit of his wife, F. H. Brown, at the Bank of New South Wales, Ashburton. This was on the 3rd October. The cheque for £57 3s Id was paid in by D. H. Brown to the credit of F. H. Brown on October 28. Witness produced paid-in slips in Brown's hand-writing. William Cheesman, accountant to Kaye and Carter, said he had charge of the books kept by the firm for the • Canterbury Mills. Brown kept a day-book, cash-book, and wheat-purchase book. It was his duty to go to Ashburton once a month, and take the entries from Brown's books, whose duty it was to account to witness for all mill transactions. There is no record in Brown's books of the transactions shown with Hanrahan, and the accounts marked "A and B." Witness produced the wheat-purchase book. At page 35 there was an entry in Brown's writing that on the 26th of August he purchased 200 sacks of wheat from Mr P. Hanrahan at 2s 6d per bushel; total £106 ss. On the 2nd of September Brown drew an order on Christchurch for this amount. Witness produced the order which came through the Bank, and was paid by cheque on the Canterbury Mills account by Kaye and Carter. The order was signed by D. H. Brown, for Canterbury Mills. The account belonged to the Bank, which Brown knew. None of the moneys represented by accounts "Aandß," as paid by Hanrahan, had been accounted for by Brown. This was all the evidence on the first set of Hanrahan's charge, and the accused was duly cautioned. The next charge heard was that of embezzling £71 10s, the property of the Bank. After Mr Embling had given formal evidence, Hanrahan went into the witness box and repeated his evidence in connection with the cheque for £71 10s, balance shown by the account. He gave the cheque to Mr Brown junr. F, H. Watson, Bank accountant, Ashburton, also went over his evidence already given in connection with the cheque which Brown paid into his wife's account. Mr Cheeseman also gave evidence that it was Brown's duty to account to him for all moneys received on account of the mills. The cheque for £71 10s was not paid into the Canterbnry Mills account, and the amount had not been accounted for by Brown. Accused wa# formally committed for trial on this and the previous charge. Accused was further charged with embezzling £106 ss, the property of the Bank of New Zealand, on September 2, 1889. J. Embling said the accused was authorised to buy wheat and pay for it by order on Kaye and Carter, Christchurch. W, H. Cheeseman said the order for £106 5s drawn in favor of P, Hanrahan for grain, and signed for Canterbury Mills by accused, had been paid by cheque on the Canterbury Mills account at Christchurch, There was an entry of a purchase of 200 sacks of wheat from P. Hanrahan on September 2nd for £106 ss. When witness found this entry accused produced the rough book produced to justify the order. The Bank owned the mills, find Kaye and Carter managed them. Accused knew this. Patrick Hanrahan said he knew no other P. Hanrahan or Patrick Hanrahan in the district. He had not sold accused any wheat on account of the mills last year or at any other time. Had obtained a loan on some wheat in the mill last

August, but had paid it all back, and got the flour away. Accused was committed for trial on this charge also. A further charge of having embezzled £151 ss, was heard. J. Embling gave his evidence as to the Bank's proprietorship, Kaye and Carters nominal lesseeship, and Brown's managership of the mills. Samuel Wright, farmer, Seaview, bedelivering his wheat in March 1889, under an arrangement with Brown that if he did not buy it witness was to pay storage. Witness delivered 798 sacks, containing 3192 bushels, all pearl. Sold no wheat to Brown in March, but on or about 12th of April sold him some at 3s 7|d. It was a verbal " deal." The purchase money w.is £603 9s 9d. Owed a contra for sacks and flour of £31 ss, which reduced the amount coming to witness to £572 4s 9d. Brown paid into witnesses' account £556 12s 3d, and gave witness no account. There was £15 12s 6d still owing. Never delivered more than the 798 sacks at the mill, and was quite certain he did not deliver 998. Did not, during the year 1889, receive such a sum as £151 5s from Brown, and did not know any other Samuel Wright in the district. ; The Court here adjourned for an hour. The Court resumed at 2 o'clock, and W. H. Cheeseman's evidence was proceeded with, which was much the same as that given in the previous cases, with the exception that in this instance he dealt with the order for £151 5s given by Brown, and one for £572 4s 9d. Those orders were paid by cheque on the Canterbury Mills account, Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch. When witness went down to Ashburton in May Brown showed him an entry on page 5 of his day-book in justification of the order for £151 ss. The entry was 200 sacks of wheat, bought from Samuel Wright by Brown for the Canterbury Mills at 3s 7Jd per bushel, £145 ; sacks £6 6s. The wheat came in between the 4th and the 29th of March. At the same time Brown showed him an entry on page 9 of his grain book justifying the order for £572 4s 9d ; 798 I sacks wheat, bought afc 3s 7]rd per bushel, from Samuel Wright, value £578 11s; sacks at 7s 6d, £24 18s 9d. Total, £603 9s 9d. In the grain book there was also a contra of £31 ss, which Brown deducted. This left a balance of the amount of the order, £572 4« 9d. R. McOwen, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Ashburton, said the order for £151 5s was cashed over the counter at his Bank. He knew the accused, who was intimately acquainted with the fact that both the Canterbury Mills and its account were the property of the Bank. Brown frequently cashed orders drawn on Kaye and Carter in favor of customers whose accounts were at other banks, ostensibly to save exchange. Witness knew only one Samuel Wright in the Ashburton district. A. H. Shury, manager of the Union Bank, Ashburton, said Samuel Wright, farmer, had an account at his Bank. A sum of £556 12s 3d was paid into S. Wright's credit on the 30th April, 1889, by D. H. Brown. Had no entry of any such sum as £151 5s having been paid into Wright's account during the year 1889. There was no other Samuel Wright that ho knew of in the Ashburton district. Mr McOwen (re-called) said that the cheque for £572 4s 9d was cashed across the counter on the 30th April to D. H. Brown. This closed the evidence on this charge, and Brown was cautioned and committed for trial. R. McOwen said the order produced for £104 3s Id was paid over the counter to accused at witness's branch. W. H. Cheeseman, Kaye and Carter's accountant, said there was no entry in Brown's "books or the books kept by witness from Brown's books of the £31 lla for pig-feed hoM to Andrew Dawson, nor of any money received on account of it. There was an entry of £9 2s 6d for railage charged to Dawson, for wheat on page 41 of Brown's grain-purchase book. There was an entry of 165 sacks contain- j ing 660 bushels of wheat, purchased from A. Dawson on 31st October at 3b, amounting in all for wheat and sacks to £104 3s Id. This entry was shewn to him by Brown to justify the order for that amount of produce drawn by him on Kaye and Garter, The order was paid by cheque on the Canterbury Mills account. Brown had never accounted to witness or paid the mills account the difference of £40 13s 6d between the order for £104 3s Id and the amount £63 9s 7d actually paip to Dawson. This was all the evidence in support of the charge, and Brown was committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in Christchurch. i Mr Stringer applied for bail for accused. There were five charges, and he asked that the bail be fixed at £100 on each charge, and two sureties of £500 each. The sureties were W. Harris (bootmaker) and E. C. Brown, manager of the D.I.C. Bail was allowed on the understanding that Mr Brown report himself daily to the , Timaru police. Mr Fisher said there were two other charges, but sufficient evidence had been taken for the Crown Prosecutor to frame an indictment if he chose from the depositions, so that no evidence would tyo led.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18900708.2.28

Bibliographic details

THE CHARGES AGAINST D. H. BROWN., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2461, 8 July 1890

Word Count
1,942

THE CHARGES AGAINST D. H. BROWN. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2461, 8 July 1890

Working