A SECOND CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 116, 17 May 1901, Page 5

A SECOND CHARGE.

ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF A f * RECEIPT. 2 - REPAYMENT BY THE ACCUSE" | Henry Johnston was furt*** charged with that he did on or ftj" November last, with intent to™s£p£ fraud, destroy a receipt signed & W. G. Poote, dated March 21. WM for the sum of £750, the propf ||| the Kauri Timber Company. |j'| George Lush, managing Kg the company, gave W? similar to that on the fs* r charge. fl W% Frederick Poote, timbe~-gg| a m$ a I tor, of Whakapara, near was the next witness. H" •*- > -" /a he and his brother trader Abl name of F. & W. G. Foot ' years past his firm hi ' business dealings Timber Company. Ts&&M&*iMim

three years these business matters were conducted through Mr. Johnston, the late manager. In March o£ last year witness was in town, and saw Mr, Johnston. The day before' the accused went to Melbourne in March Johnston asked him if ho would accommodate, the company to the extent of £750. Johnston said ho was called away in a hurry. H? asked if witness would allow him to use tho firm's name, as he had promised some contractors who were not in funds help during1 the month, and he hadn't time to arrange the finances. Ho asked witness to give him a voucher, for- £750, and to leave it. with Mr. Ward, the secretary. He said it was possible it would not be required. Ori his return this matter was to be' fixed up, but in ease of anything happening1 during- his absence he handed witness his own private cheque for £750, as security for the amount. Witness agTeecl to do as requeated. (A receipt for £750 was produced,. purporting' to be on account of timber sold. Mr. Cotter said it was in four pieces, pasted together.) Witness said he signed the. document in the firm's name, but did not receive, the Kauri Timber Company's cheque for £750. Mr. Johnston wrote out the produced receipt, anci witness signed it. Witness did not re« ceive any money but Mr. .Johnston's own private cheque. Soon after the accused returned from Melbourne witness saw him. He expected Johnston to refer to the matter, but as he did not do so on the first two or three occasions he saw him. witness brought the matter up. lie asked accused if it wasn't time this matter was fixed up aboni this receipt or cheque. He., asked witness to wait a little longer, wThich he did. The cheque was about eight. months old when witness approached Johnston again. He then told Johnston that the matter must be fixed. Accused put him off with the remark that it was a very good voucher for ■witness to hold: and at his request witness allowed the matter to stand a little longer. He* then went home to Whangarei. and reported the result to his brother. He, knew nothing further about it o- his own knowledge. This matter never appeared in any accounts rendered by the Kaurr Timber Company; the firm had not received any accounts from the company since this transaction. Witness gave Mr. Johnston's cheque to his (witness') brother. When he. gave the receipt it was complete, not torn t as it was now. Tn further evidence witness said that yesterday bis firm, F. & W. G. Foote, through Messrs. Earl and Campbell, repaid to the Kauri Timber Company the £750, which amount was supplied by Messrs. Earl * and Campbell as Mr. Johnston's solicitors. (Letter and receipt produced). The money was supplied on Mr. Johnston's behalf. William G. Foote, of Whakapara, brother of the previous witness, deposed that he came to town last February, in consequence of a conversation, with his brother. He knew the accused. Witness had then a cheque of Mr Johnston's for £750. He saw Johnston at the K.T. Co.'s office in connection with ihe cheque. Witness said:! "What about the cheque. I would like to get this matter fixed up." Johnston said: "I don't think you understand this Mr Foote. If is a private matter between ywir brother and myself." Witness said he failed to see that, when it was a business transaction between the firrrr and the Kauri Timber Company. Jolmston then asked if witness had the cheque with him. Witness said yes. Johnston said: "Then perhaps you had better present the cheque." Witness said:; "All right,, Mr Johnston." Johnston said the receipt was up at his (Johnston's) house. Then Johnston said that if witness would give the ceipt (the one Frederick Foote had given for £750) he would post a receipt up to witness without delay. Witness said he would call again any; time that, would suit Mr Johnston. They arranged a time, 4 o'clock next day. Witness called and met Mr Johnston, who produced the receipt (thai document .already produced). Witness at the time had Johnston's cheque in. his pocket. That was on February 15, witness believed. When they met Johnston ptis.scd the receipt across and said, "This is the receipt I got from-your brother." After witness examined the receipt Johnston said, "Give it bade to me and I'll destroy the receipt and you destroy the cheque, and that will settle the transaction." Witness passed the receipt back to Johi ston, who tore it up, while witne destroyed the cheque. Witness ut ly destroyed the cheque, and h$ thought that Johnston had suflW torn the receipt to desiroy it. then left, thinking the w£ aetion N was at an end. and 4s|L ' was no longer ind(-b^s*wcs^ pany in the sum of ,Jf&»iy||sP^ receipt witness got H^'£|:Mw!r Johnston's chequexf?^^a?^^S~ presenter but wa-