THE PARKERSON CASE

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8793, 14 May 1894, Page 2

THE PARKERSON CASE

HEARING IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT. .* The charges of embezzlement against Edward Parkerson were heard before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., at 2 p.m.jon April 18th ia the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court.

There were six charges against the accused of embezzling money'the property of his employers, Harper and Company, amountiug m the whole to £1050. Mr Stringer appeared on behalf, of the Grown to prosecute j Mr Buasell for the accused. Mr .Striugor said he would take the two informations dated Ist September,lß9l, and 7th September, 1891. The first charged the ac<Aised with embezzling £50 and the second £400. Hs did not think it was necessary for him to say anything in opening, as "ihe cases were simple. He would vow call evidence. James Hoole deposed—l am a carpenter. Some years bsrek I gave a mortgage to Hawdon's trustees for £225 in the tirst instance. In addition to the mortgage, I gavo Hawdon's trustees, Messrs C. O. iJowen and E. J. Lee, a guarantee of two friends of mine to the extent of £50. Messrs Samuel Ward and Charles Abel were the guarantorsMessrs Harper and Co., solicitors, were the agents for Hawdou's trustees. On the Ist September, 1891, I discharged the guarantee by paying £50. My wife "took the money to the office. I did not see the accused about the payment. 1 sent the money to Messrs Harper and Co.'s, and gob the receipt produced endorsed on the guarantee. (Receipt put in). I do not know the handwriting on the receipt, Percy John Fryer deposed —In September, 1891, I was" acting on behalf ot Mrs Hannah Ferguson as her agent. She was indebted to Messrs Harper aud Co., and the c.mount was compromised for £400. I arranged that £400 should be taken bjHarper and Co. iv full satisfaction of their claims againet Mrs Ferguson. In the early part of September, 1891, I received a draft for £400 from Scotland on Mrs Ferguson's behalf. ' I cashed the draft at the Union Bank : I then paid the money to the accused, Mr Parkerson. I paid him the £400. I made anf appointment with him and got a receipCTrom him in the meantime until a formal -discharge was prepared. I surrendered the receipt when I got that. The discharge is the document now produced. (Document put in dated Bch September, 1891). Alexander Millar deposed—l am an accountant now acting for the Official Assignee, and formerly accountant for Harper and Co. James Hoole, the witness giving evidence here, was indebted to Harper and Co., as agents for Hawdon's trustees, on mortgage, with a guarantee as collateral security. The guarantee produced is the one given. The receipt endorsed thereon is in the handwriting of the accu&ed Mr Parkerson. Money received on .account of clients should be entered in the cash-book of the firm. There is an entry now in the books of the receipt of the £50 under the guarantee. It was not so entered at the time of its payment. Mrs Hannah Ferguson was indebted to the firm of Harper and Co. in about £500. Ib was arranged to compromise this sum for £400. The document now put in my hand is a release in consideration of the payment of £400. The blank and the words "four hundred pounds " in the release has been iilled up in Mr Parkerson's hand writing, and he is also the attesting witness. The receipt of the £400 was not entered in the books of Harper and Co., as it should have been at the time. I remember in December, 1892, in consequence of some information I received, having an interview with Mr Parkerson, the acpased. Mr . Parkerson spoke to mc to the amount from Hoole of'£so and the sum of £400 from Mrs Ferguson, and said he had received the money. He said the amounts should be charged to him and credited to the clients. Subsequently I made the entries regarding these amounts in the books. Up to that time there were no entries in the books of the,firm to show that these amounts had been received. These moneys were lost to the firm. Mr "Parkerson, the accused, was at the time indebted to the firm in a very large sum. He was indebted to the firm to the extent of some themsanda of pounds, none of which has been paid. Cross-examined by Mr Russell—When Mr Parkerson told mc he had received these two sums, he also told mc of other sums he had received; t. That was in December, 1892. Mr Russell—Did he tell you what justification he had for tajiiijfjjfthe money 2 Witness—No* ' V :i " : Mr Russell—Did he not tell you that Mr Leonard Harper had instructed him to take these sums : Witness—No, he did not. Mr Russell—Did he say nothing about Mr Leonard Harper then ? Witness—No. Mr Russell — When were the debits charged against the accused 2 Witness —In February, 1893. The amounts were charged, I believe, by instruction from Mr George Harper. I also charged the approximate sum of £?000 as interest. Mr Russell—Was it intended to charge interest in this £2000 on these sums which he said he had received. Witness—Yes, approximately. Interest to the amount of £2000 was to be charged, and to be definitely stated afterwards. George Harper deposed—l was a member of the firm of Harper and Co. in the year 1891 and until the bankruptcy of the firm in March, 1893. The accused Edward Parkerson was a clerk in, the employment of the firm, and was so prior to 1891. He was also in the employment of the firm till December, 1892. I heard Mr Williams' evidence as regards the £50 from Hoole. I did not authorise the accused to take the money or the £400 paid by Mrs Ferguson in December, 1892. Accused admitted to mc that he had received certain moneys, and subsequently gave the details of them to Mr Millar in conformity with my instructions. I did not know till then that he had taken these moneys. In February, 1893, Mr Millar being away from the office ill he had with him a piece of paper having the amounts on it which Mr Parkerson had admitted having taken. I got them, from Mr Millar and instructed Mr Atkinson, who was acting as temporary accountant, to enter the amounts up in the book on the opposite or debit side of Mr Parkerson's account in the ledger, so that the record of the amounts might be preserved. That was what happened. The bankruptcy of the firm was imminent at that time. Mr Parkerson was indebted, to the firm, so far as the account was made tip at that time, in a very large sum. I don't know how much it really was, because it was not; made np. There was no prospect of obtaining it from Mr Parkerson at that time. Since then he has become bankrupt. The entries were made in the book by my instructions myself, as a record. That was my intention. ' ] ■ Mr Beetham—lt was not intended as an acknowledgment of, the receipt of .those sums? v Witness—No. Not: at all. There were no date 3, &c. There was no telling how Mr Millar's illness might turn but. Mr Stringer—Then I may put it, this way, Mr . Harper, that it wa3 not intended as a condonation of the taking of the amonnts by the accused. Witness—Not at all. ♦ Mr Beetham—You had better identify those entries, Mr Stringer. Mr Stringer—Very well your Worship, I will sand for tne ledger. Cross-examined %Mr Russell—l did not know at this time that Mr Parkerson had taken those sums. He was under notice to go as from the 18th Xovember. He saw mc about the beginning oi December in tbe presence of Mr Henry Cotterill, when he abruptly told mc that there were certain sums oi money he had received which required explanation. Mr Rnssell—Did you go into the question of the money then ? Witness—No ;I do not think I did. The question was discussed generally whether we should have a release or not. Mr Rnssell—Was the releaee as regarded the particular items, or his particular indebtedness ? Witness—l was asked to allow cheques to be drawn as if these amounts had been paid in the ordinary way. The question was discussed whether we should have a release for these irregular receipts, and later on the matter was left open until I tjad seen into these particular amounts. Mr Russell—Did he give any justificatino or reason why he he had taken this money?

Witness—Yea,' lie took out of bis pocket of paper and bauided them to mc, I reaiftbem. Theyyere without any date —undated. The body waa filled up in each case, in Mr Parkerson'a handThe body of one if not T>oth was filled qp in his handwriting. They were by Sir Leonard Harper. Tney very small pieces of blue paper, aboat \be size of bask pay-io »h'p».' Oae

\ purported to be—l am from . recollection—a memo- to Mr Miliar. Mr Russell—l am not asking you for these particulars. Did h* , say that Mr Leonard Harper had authorised him to tako Uie money? Witness—He produced these pieces of paper as his authority. Nothing more passed theuj except that it was left for further consideration as to his release, ana subsequently I declined to release him. The accused was in the employ of the firm for a great many years. Before I was in the firm he was in its employment. Mr Russell—Was he allowed to do business on his own account ? Witness—l don't know. I identify the entries in the ledger now produced as in Mr Atkinson's handwriting. Mr Russell—This is Mr Parkerson's ordinary account, is it not ? Witness—l do not know. There are some other items put down beyond the special entries. The items were put down from the list I got- from Mr Millar. This is the ordinary account oil which the sum of £2000 interest was charged. Mr Russell —Do you know whether Mr Parkerson and Mr Leonard Harper weuc into large financial operations together? Witness—l know from what my brother told mc since that he guaranteed Parkerson to the Bank, to the Trust and Agency Company, and Mr Charles Clark. I know of my own knowledge that Mr Leouard Harper guaranteed Parkerson to the U.B.A. and Air Charles Clark. The firm backed W. and E. Parkerson's bill to the Bank, which was supposed to be collaterally secured by a mortgage. The bill was for £700, I believe, but I am not sure. Mr Russell—Did not the firm guarantee Parkerson for £8000 to the Bank of New South Wales wit h regard to a property ? Witness—No, I do not know anything about this. Mr Russelt—Did not the firm guarantee a first mortgage to the Trust and Agency Company ? Witness—No. I am sure the firm did nob or the Trust and Agency Company would have been down on the firm long ago. The firm guaranteed £2500 on a second mortgage. The second mortgage was lost. The firm had to pay the £700 bill. In 1885 1 wrote a private letter to Mr Parkerson, recommending his leaving the firm. The letter is lost. Mr Parkerson has said on oath that the reason given in that letter for my asking the accused to leave was that he could not control the No. 2 department and my brother, Mr Leonard Harper. That is the gist of the letter. I thought my brother required far more control than Mr Parkerson could use over him. At that time there was some financial pressure. Mr Stringer—l do not see, your Worship, the relevancy of this cross-examination. What has what took place in 1885 to do with this case? Mr Russell—l am leading evidence to show that Mr Parkerson might have received authority from Mr Leonard Harper to deal with money which Mr Oeo. Harper knows nothing about, and that as the firm was in financial straits extraordinary methods were resorted to. Mr Stringer—The answer to that is this— no one partner - could give a. servant of the firm authority to embezzle money the property of auother. Mr Beetham—Yes, that is clear. Mr Russell—l want to show that as the firm was, in great financial straits, Mr L. Harper might have instructed the accused to tako certain sums of money. As to the contention of my learned friend as to the rights of partners, that might be a matter for settlement amongst the co-partners. Examination continued—No. 2 Department was the financial department. The others were the legal departments. Before 1885 and since, except for a short period, whilst Mr L. Harper was in England, No. 2 Department was managed by Mr L. Harper and Mr P*rkerson. It was in 1886 that my brother went to England. Mr Russell—Then ever since 1885 Parkeraon and your brother have been financing to keep the firm going ? Wicnes3—l believe so. - * Mr Russell—And the financing of that department was lefb entirely by you to them ?

Witness—Yes. Mr Parkerson would take his instructions from Mr L. Harper with regard to his department. Mr Russell—Di.l they'give you to believe in 1892 that they would pull the firm through its difficulties ? Witness—My brother was very sanguine always, and Mr Parkerson was also confident that the difficulties would be gob over. , Mr Russell—Right up to the last ? Witness—Yes j I thiuk so. Thomas W. Maude —I was a member of the firm of Harper and Co. in 1892, and till June, 1892. I was away in England from May, 1891, to March, 1892. I had no knowledge of the receipt of these moneys by Mr Parkerson. That is the £50 and £400. Mr Stringer—When did you first beoome aware of the fact ? Witness —Only since I have been in the Court. I heard generally of some amounts being taken, but did rot know till I heard the evidence to-day. Mr Stringer—That is the case for the Crown. Mr Beetbam—What do you propose to do, Mr Russell 2 Mr Russell—-I don't propose to give any .evidence to-day. Mr Beetham —I shall say nothing except that the accused admits (1) that he received the amounts on behalf of the firm, (2) that he failed to account to the firm for these amounts, (3) that he was indebted to the firm mi regard to these sums. Edward Parkerson, you will be committed to take your trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. The acchsed was also committed for trial on the other cases. Mr Russell—l presume, your Worship, that the same bail will be accepted, the accused in £1000 and two suieties in £500 each. Mr Beetham—You have no objection, I suppose, Mr Stringer 1 Mr Stringer—No, your Worship. Mr Beetham—Well, the bail will be fixed as before. The bail being forthcoming, the accused left the Court.