S.M. COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXI, Issue 284, 4 June 1909, Page 6

S.M. COURT.

YESTERDAY. ' {Before Mr S. McCarthy, S.M.} ALLEGED ERA!']). (Continued from yesterday). v On resuming after lunch Mr Lloyd explained that Pawson had produced cheque butts drawn on hank at Raotihi. Pawson, continuing his evidence said he had made no payment at Ohakuno except, by cheque. Had made no payment to himself. In the first book produced no cheques were made payable to himself. Cheques were drawn by himself in that book hi favor of Paterson. Witness" was questioned re matters of bank account at Raetihi. Sometimes cheques were sent from Dannevirke to pay small accounts. Cheques were sent from Dannevirke for his own wages. Had all cheques in ledger (produced) ; did not know he was debited with balance in ledger at Raetihi on 3lst Dec-ember, 1908; could not say whether ho considered the matter a week before or after he demanded a statement ; knew the bills in question were bills belonging to the firm. W. Dobson deposed he was an accountant; signed cheques and paid monies into bank for the firm; was not their accountant; never saw exhibits "C" and "E" before; heard bills had been passing; never had cheque for proceeds so far as he was aware; Paterson lodged money with 'firm's account; knew the presumed bogus bill was one mentioned in "bill book (produced) ; understood the same of the other bill ; second one was paid first; one was not; was arranged Paterson was to get £100 per year. What Pawson had stated in evidence was correct. Accused admitted not having paid monies contained in the bills to firm at Dannevirke. Mr Wallath (re-called) was in Court when McDiarmid gave evidence relative to a payment made to Wallath by Paterson . On 6th June it was simply a return of money" by him to tho Koru Sawmilling Company. Counsel for accused applied for a dismissal on the ground that a partnership existed, that a dissolution had not taken place, a-nd that tho -. matters of the two bills in question were a -private contract between the parties. Quoting authorities in support of his contention,' he submitted that a, prim a facie- case had not been made out. Mr' Lloyd, for the prosecution, submitted that a prima facie case had been made out. Quoting authorities in support of his contention, ho briefly reviewed the evidence,- and submitted that ' the case should be sent ' to the jury. ?r The Magistrate, in summing up;

said he had not to say whether the accused was guilty or not guilty. After reading the charges he said from the evidence adduced the accused had not treated the prosecutor with the frankness that the prosecutor had treated accused; it was clear tho accused had sold the timber on behalf of the firm and received the bills on behalf of tho firm. There was a decided difference, in the present case and a case of common theft or a case of embezzlement, being as it was a case between copartners ; he did not think it was a. case for a criminal prosecution. He would.dismisss ihe application without costs. His Worship then asked what it was proposed to do with the remaining cases. Mr Lloyd said that if his Worship held that no matter what accused had done prior to November last in the way of receiving monies on behalf of the company was an answer to the charges then it was no use going on. His Worship replied that he had not held that. He had dismissed the case on the facts as submitted to him, but ' he was not aware of what the facts would be in the other cases and could give no opinion about them. He quoted a case which he had heard in Auckland, and which he had dismissed in order to show that where a partnership existed a very strong ■•' case indeed had ' to be made out before the Court would convict on a charge of theft preferred by one partner against another. Mr Lloyd, after consultation with his client, announced- that ho was prepared to withdraw the charge of fraudulently converting a cheque of £10, but desired to proceed with the charge of fraudulently converting a cheque for £47 7s received from Boon Bros, on terms requiring him to account for same to the. firm of E. 1 Pawson and Co. An adjournment was then -asked for, and on resuming Mr Lloyd asked leave to withdraw all the remaining charges. " Counsel for accused said that Mr Pawson was prepared to apologise to accused for the trouble and expense h© had put him to, and the parties had agreed.- to -sign a. dissolution of partnership, and he "hoped that all differences between them would then .end. '* ..'■ . ■ His Worship hoped so too. Tho Court then adjourned.