A CHEQUE FOR £600.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 126, 28 May 1914, Page 2

A CHEQUE FOR £600.

______T> BY AN EMPLOTEE. SLIT FOR MI-AJM'I. >IT,lATl_'_.. (_ON"TIt.\CTIN<; ItV DEPUTY. Frederick Schlaich pleaded "Not guilty.'' liefore Ids Honor .Mr. Ju_tico Con|«'t ..Jul .1 jury of twelve this mornk". nli.ii .-liarg*»l that ..:i IJeciauber l_th. ;n \ii.-kl:tn.l, he had received .1 ___,- M u.. ,1 UiiM 4 1 ;,. be paid to fiughi - r.v.d ' n-ar. and had fraudulently ..milled t-. a.-cMiini fnr it : and, farther, thai lie hiui stolen ihe sum "t .£l!lo 4 I 'inni lhe lirni of M.-.r.-. H»i_lic- .nd ( ...wir. I'ic Hon. .1. A. T01... I_.r., cnnJuct- . . the ■.-• f,.r the I'rown. proceedings l.ci._ j tin; t r-_n _ t ..f 1.1-i.a.tc |.t.)-.'.'i:lf.n by '■" lirtu of Hiillie. .in.! 1 -is-.ir. \li .1. It. Reed. K.i .. wiih him Mr. .Miry, _|>|M_ir__ Mr. '!'..!<■ explained I'.al in I _ .-ember. 1011, schhHi "ti- cii.-',,_tc,| l.\ ; i<- linn of Ullgbc- an.l l 11--I' Union! ngenl. aiid general.nicrclwiit.. ... .\u.-_l.iiull '" aci ,1- lii.ii brunch in m.'.-cr in Welling ton 11: .1 -tiltii'v id !.'•'. ;. ■!■ _.'••.. M-iilaicii had ,1,-c, ..u-7 1..-,, ,-, l.v 111.-. 111 Welling!..:: .;: ':..- "Wil n.t-i.mil. In tlm (n.vcrn tt.-ii- - ml r.i.c:- in i-i — mm 11 mime. but :' vvn- di-tim-ilv iind.T--f.in i that j ,tl,e., ive v taken on behalf "I the Urn. j Jn .1 iiiu.irv ..1 1!>I_ >.-hl:ii.'li was trans- I ifer'c.i ;,. Am*land, nnd remained there I gen.-ml a-sistant. He continued li lendei for 1 lovcininenl contracts, to be fll Hilled hy Mushes and ( us.ur. and 111 due cMiir-c these were carried mil and the money pan! nvr to the linn. The vtiiinus enntracts wee debited lv th* I Marion- ilovernment depart tuenis. rh.. j invoice.. Ling arranged by S_hl;i_h. On j May Bth, III!.:, there was 11 contra 1 let to supply 2') tons ol -ai ammoniac to the [._.! and Telegraph Department at _.:in 17 ii per ion. This n.is fnllilled 1 be thi tim'i of Hughes and Cossar on December 10th, and on the loth SebUucii I received n cheque for _010. a nd paid it | int_i his own account. A tew day- later he left the firm. He did nut ,-iatc that he had received the cheque an! sonic Bays later, when questioned by a mem- , _er of the firm, be .ta-ted Ural, he hild nor, yet received the money. (Jn February ji-ilb ho was formally asked for El)'' .money, and replied that he would hold it. to envrr any personal liability in existing contracts. WTien the lirni expressed disapproval of this prwecding. and suggested that if Schlaich had any 1 fear of contingent liability tlu- money j should be paid into the hand.- of some independent person, he then set un a-*- a reason for retaining the money that h. claimed against the firm for alleged defamation of character. Morton Cook Gossar. of the linn of Hughes and t.'ossar, Durham Street, gave evidence as to the te.rtm- of the engagement of Srblnic.h by .his firm. 11 was (intended at tirsß he said, tiui.t <-oni raits with the various (iovcrnment departments should 1". taken 11 the ir.iinc ot Hughes ami C'ossar. Il was .-mnc time before they found that the contracts were being taken by .S-hlaivli in iiis own name. lie had. given a reason to Mr. Hughes for this, nnd 'was allowed to continue as he had begun. The larger timonuts received for contracts were always paid into the credit of the firm by Schlaich. The orders had always l>een fulfilled punctually, and no complaints had ever been received regarding delivery. Schlah-h left the linn's employment on lleccnvber ilr.l, 1911.. Ip to that tano the lirni hart not been informed in any way of the cheque for ,£6IM). On December '21th Scblai.-h had sent in a letter stating that he could r.o longer remain in the employment ol the firm, that lie. -hud instructed his solicitors to take proceeding's regarding defamation, for which the firm was alleged to be responsible, and that he gave ■warning to ■them to be careful what they said about him. Asked in February about the cheque for £000. Schlaich had replie.l that he Wits expecting it any day now. In erns--e.Yaminai.ioii ::n- witness Btateii 'thai, his lirni had also issued 11 civil writ against Slaic.h ;:n recover Lhe morr.y. lie knew that Shiich had Hied-a defence in which he claimed the sum of £.01 from the linn fur slander. He tknew that vyaieh had claimed ihe sum , of £1.000 for damages from the firm of Hughes and CofisaT. bnt. no notice 3ml | been taken of tbe claim. j The case is proceeding. 1