CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4291, 1 May 1879, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

■ . [Wednesday, Apbh. 30. I Before Gh L. Mellieb, Esq., E.H.] Dbtotk ahd Disoedkbiy.—T*ro drunkards were fined 10a and 2Q» re«pectirely. Obscbkb LakgtjAqk.—Daniel Paeohe wae fined 20a -, for vmg obicene language in a publio place. •• : . .

' LABCaNT 7bok A DwbilLing. — Jamee I Graham was charged with stealing & watch ■ and other property, value £4 19s, belonging ;to John Brooker. On the application of Mr 'Inspector Hickson he was remanded until iMay 6th.

; SIBAUKG MoNßT.—Bichard Harris, a little boy, was charged with stealing from a shop ithe cum of 2a 6d, the property of Samuel j Taj lor. The boy admitted the theft. Mr I Inspector Hiokion gave him a very bad ehaj racter as the misleader of other lads bis own i ageJp'He wa» drderied to , s>nt to the Burn!hainBefqrmatory ! for twelve*months. ■■"■'■ j " r "'SvSizzhvismrs.— Charles Wm. Greenwood was charged with eihbeatlinginoney, the property of Mr O. F. Barker. There were three ■charges against him of embezzling £3 12i, l£7 2s 9d,Snd Holmes, instructed by MTr Garriclry Appfeared on behalf of the accused* , r O. .P. Barker being sworn, said—l am a land anoLleetafei agent at Christjohuroin • The accruaed w»e in my employ as j clerk for about three-years, up to within a ;day <tr two of the Easter holidayβ-the day' jpraviousto Good Friday. He was my head Icierk.j Hk duties were general correjgpondence, keeping |he cash accounts, and [other, dnties .pertaining to the position of a jhwidttlerk., 'The duty of the accused was to fre;eeiv^;moiiej' : and'efYe raceipfe, alae to send to the' Bank daily. I know Mr Moresihead. Ha- called at xny office on Friday, f the Bth instant. ,Ttp accused and Moreshead petitpge.ther.a.tJmy door, and I went -with ;them into the office, and Mr Moreshead made a complaint thathehad had an account sent to pirn; a second time,' he. had. previously «aid. He was aisked tow ihe he had (paid.it, Hesaid he had torn up the receipt, JDut he' had paid it by cheque.. I called my accouatantjXMr Edwards, into the office, and my request he bropght in the rough cash jbook kept by-the prisoner. Mr Moreshead said he had. paid, the account some time in jAtip^tii;' risceipt side is in the prisoners I t looked through the .book to* jasqertain if Mr Moxeshead'e chflque., with which he said he had paid the account, had been paid inta my account, and could find no record, of it. It should have been entered in jthe book.' within a; reasonable time after its receipt. No such account. *$> credited to. nre in *ne book. Mr Moresnead presented the fcill prodcoed for' £5 ss, at the same time, the prisoner .being present. After ' some Mr •' Greenwood saying it jwae a mistake, I went to the Colonial Bank antf'gbtapajing in slip of the 26th August, which was the next date of money being paid into the bank the alleged payment of WS'-m'onejf. .'X got Che slip produced in the bond writing of, th»s>risbner for the sum of beariag i; ihe of Jg6th Augusfe.. jComparinf; the paying in slip, with the cash the cash ehonld iHave been on that jdate £16 19s 3d, the actual amount paid in pmounted to £11 14s 3d, making an exact aum ! of £5 5f1,-thfraameamonntas Mr Moresliead's cheque. The eheanes ehould have been £8 12t 9d, £2 2s, and £6 10s. The ao* »ns«d and Mr Moreshead remained !in my joffioe until I retnrnecl from ihe bank.* , I checked .the cash book i n the presence of the accused. IHe said it must be a. mistake, as he was habiC'ti? mixing up his own private caeh with mine.;,l. expressed my surprise at it, and eiia Jt was again*t my , rules, but would |give him the benefit of the doubt'of it being • mistake, provided nothing further w.as y found wrong with his accounte. He offered .to deposit £5 5s with mc. I refused it, and; fixed the following Monday evening to commence oheeking the : accounts. Tie accused attended at my,office, on "the following Mon? day- evening, when then Mir , Edwards', and the prisoner were preient. TVe commenced going through the rendered isocounts from ,the' rendered acodunts book! jWhUe r going through them there were two called'into question, but nothing further arose respecting the£<i»articnlM faccount then. jWe made another appointment for the followqng but the accu«ed did-not keep it. John Thomas Pearoe Moreshead, being sworn, ■said—l an> ai&urmerj reeiding at Ashbnrton. I was indebted to Mr Barker in the sum of £5 ss. I settled it by a crossed cheque, paid to-the prisoner in the office of the last witness, jon the 24th of August last. I said to the jprisoner I wae going to England, I have ,since received the bill produced for the same [amount, and I came to town on the 17th of April, when I e&.w the accused and the prose-' cutor in the letter's office on the following ;day. I saw the accused r and asked why I had received another bill after settling the account, and he told mc I had not settled itl' I toot him to tut? Bank, where I showed him" 3 my cheque. We afterwards came back to the office, and seeMog through the book could find no entry of it. Subsequently the prisoner offered Mr Barker £5 ss, and said that a mistake must have occurred through the •account getting mixed up with his own affairs. Mr Barker refused the money, and said he should look'through the books and see if there was any other mietake, and if there was not he would give him the benefit of the doubt To Mr Holmes—l cannot say whether I crossed the cheque, produced for £5 ss, or whether it was crossed by the aocused. I am generally in the habit of getting receipts if or money paid to mc, but cannot say whether I got one in , this instance. Beecham John Patrick, being sworn, said—l ihftTe been a clerk in Mr Barker's office for about' two years and s half. On the' 23rd Jlugust I received £15 6s from Benjamin White, which X handed to the accused. He *gave mc an acknowledgement for it by initialing the book produced. William Warren, teller in the Colonial Bank, being sworn, said —I received the moneys and cheques amounting to £25 12r, as specified in the Voucher produced. When Mr Greenwood paid in money he was in the habit of bringing a book, in which the sum was specified. He brought the' book on that occasion and initialed it. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Holmes put Mr Barker into the jwitness-box, who stated the cheque was crossed in the handwriting of the accrued. [It* Court reserved any decision in this case until the others had been heard.] The second charge was then entered on of embezzling the sum o£ £3 12s, the .property of O. F. Barker. The prosecutor was first sworn and deposed las follow!^:—On Monday, the 21et March and following day he'made an examination of his books, and on the Tuesday, looking over the i butts of the receipt book and comparing the blocks of the book with the cash book, he found that on the 23rd January, 1879, the prisoner gave a receipt for £3 12s to one Alfred Blackburn for transfer of a section in Chertiey, which amount was not entered in thf Caen book, but on the following day the prisoner paid into the Sank £4919 a 2d. The £3 12s was not entered into the cash book untilr the day prisoner left his employment. ! He compared the BanY book with the roughcash book, and they corresponded with the ' amount paid into the Bank to his credit. 29*6 excess had been paid into the Bank which would cover the amount deficient—£3 12a. ' On going over the accounts with the prisoner on the evening of the 21st, that amount was challenged by the witness as not having been received, but it was passed over, as they were > not certain whether the title had been given for which the account had Seen rendered. Subsequently, the witness fonnd that a receipt : had been given by Mraßlaokburn for the title. The -witaess was them examined on the third charge, and deposed that, on April 2nd, 1879, he found the prisoner gave a receipt to H. ' Butcher for £7 2s Sd, being the balance of purohase-money on Chertaey allotments. On diicavering this the witness searched in the* eastibook kept by prisoner, and found no entry of the-amount then or any other time, nor had it been subsequently in any way acepunted for. Had compared the Bank re-c*^*-bb^ji ( by, ■'tne i jwieoaer of amousti paid to wi6ri«ws'» credit;, and femnd that it agreed wittf %Vibae&Deblr ai to the amounts paid into the B.&ni. THe first payment made into the Bank after the alleged receipt of the £7 2i 9d was made en April 4th, and the

amount wu £939 Sβ 2d. On April 21st, when the a ecu ted was going over the account* with witness, Butcher's account wae referred to, and the accused itated that Batcher had paid the amount personally to Brown, and the memorandum produoed in the prisoner* hand-writing was to the effect that the amount had been bo paid. Butcher was a purchaser of allotments in Chertsey township from Brown, through the agency of the witness. Witness was answerable to Brown for the amount, and Butcher was accountable to him (witness) for it. Accused had made an ap. pointment with the witness for the evening of the 22nd, which he did not keep, and it was on that eTening that he found the block in the receipt book. To Mr Holmes—A message was received by witness during the day of the 22nd stating that accused would be unable to oome to the office that evening. The accused left the employment of witness entirely on his own ace aunt, and witness gave him a testimonial to the effect that he was thoroughly up to his business, and had given perfect satisfaction. The duties were of » very multifarious description. After leaving the employment of the witness accused went into that of Messrs. Draper, Charters and Co. in Hereford street. The business of that firm would in no way clash with witness's. Had never given his junior clerk, Mr Patrick, any instructions to jog the n?.emory of Mr Blackburn. It was possible that the rule of not giving a title to any person before the .fees were paid might; hare been violated. Was not aware that Blackburn had made any objection to pay the «urn of £3 12* on account of transfer fees. Witness would not swear that he had never instructed bis clerks to ask £1 as a fee for transfer when he was only entitled to 10a. Witness .never knew ithat Brown had received the sum of £7 2s 93. 'The accused had never informed him of it. Large Bums of money belonging to the witseie had passed through the hands of tho accused. Never told Mr Wm. Brown tha.t' he believed that after all that had passed, and the searching of the books tnat the scented was innocent, or that hie reason for prosecuting, was because the accused did not oome to his office on the evening of the 22nd. Surah Ann Blackburn, being sworn, deposed that she was the wife of Alfred Blackburn, station i master at Rskaia. Was in Ohrietchurch about four months ego. Went to Mr Barker's office and signed, a document. The signature jproduced was hers. Thejighiiture wae to the acknowledgement of, the receipt of a deed. Two b£ Mr Barkers clerks were present* Witness, received the deed and an open note :to take to her husband. Did not know what became of the note, but hed never delivered it to her husband, but told him its contents. :Did not remember paying'any money. The note was not a receipt for money paid by witness in Mr Barker a office. Tho note was merely a statement to Mr Blaokburn that the 'clerk would ask Mr Barker to reduce the cost of preparing the deeds, which witness' husband considered too high. Witness brought a note down, from her husband at Eakaia.. Could net say to whom she gave the note. ■She and her husband had searched for the receipt but could not find it, and had no recollection of ever having received one. Croasexamined by Mr Holmes—Witness had been spoken to by the witness Patrick during the day, he said "I am info? the bees to-day. I recollect you perfectly if you do not recollect mc." •Beecham John Patrick, clerk in Mr Barker's office, deposed that he recognised the previous witneee. Rsmen&ered her coming into Mr , -Barker's office, eoine tune last January. Th&' (deeds under the Land Transfer Act were [placed in his charge. ""Hie duty was to draw 'up the deed*, stamp arid-ttgister them, enter them in the. books in the office, and hand them toparties as they called for them. The last witness called, at the office for a deed, which witness gave her, and took her receipt : (produced) for it. The accused was in the 'office at the time, Mrs Blackburn paid him some money, but could not say how much. When die money was paid-the accused wrote out and gave her a receipt, while witness took a receipt for the deed. In crossexamination the witness admitted that he knew that deeds had been given out of tho office without the costs having been previously paid, Henry Toungßutcherdepoß6dthat.be was a commission agent parrying 6a business in Chriatchuroh. In the, early part of the -present month he was indebted to Mr Barker £7 2s 9d. Paid the money to Mr Greenwood, and received the receipt produced. Mr B. M. Morton came up at the timo witness paid ; the :naptait. There was another clerk; in the i office, but could not remember which it was. To. Mr Holmes—Witness purqhaged ~the land for, which the" receipt showed the part .-payment -from ■Mr Brown, of Chertaey, through Mr Barkqr. This concluded the evidence for the prosecu-" tion, and Mr Holmes, for the defence, called Mr Wm. A. Brown, of Chertsay.who deposed he had placed some land in uhertsey in Mr Barker's hands for tale. Mr Butcher was one of the purchasers. On the 2nd April was in Ghriatchurch, and Mr Greenwood gave him £7 2s 9d, as. part of -Mr Butcher's indebtedness. Subsequently had an interview with Mr Barker in hie office, and the latter wonted him to give evidence in the presence of Detective Walker. Declined to be examined in the presence of a detective, and said hewould have no objection to be placed in the witness-box. Afterwards Mr Barker said Mr Greenwood endeavored to explain certain discrepancies in his accounts as being made by him in mistake, and he ■ (Mr Barker) was not unwilling to take that view of. the matter, but afterwards, through indignation at Mr .Greenwood failing to keep the appointment he had made with him for- the evening of the 22nd, he had placed the matter in the hands of the police. At this stage the charge of embezzling the sum of £7 2s 9d broke down. Mr Holmes was about to comment on the second charge when his Worship interrupted him, and said he did not consider there was any case to go to a jury, and Mr Holmes then reviewed the points in the first charge, and asked the'Court'to dismiss that also. His .Worship considered there was a prima faoie case made ont in the first charge, and that it was for a jury to decide whether the discrepancy was the result of dishonesty or carelessness. The evidence having been read over, the accused was committed for trial at the next seia'.ons of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed.