I OPENING OF THE DEFENCE

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12571, 14 August 1906, Page 8

I OPENING OF THE DEFENCE

Some argument took place as to the I rule.to be followed in addressing the ' jury- His Honour nded that Mr Russell should open and call evidence, then address the jury; Mr Myers should reply aud sum up generally on j the whole case; and Mr Hanlon, con- ' findn-g himself to his own client, should havo the final right of reply. 1 In opening, Mr Russell said that if an-v fraud had been committed at all, they would see that tho evidence seekI ing"to connect Bruges with it was very I weak indeed. Tbe- defence was that i Bruges was absolutely unaware that any I transactions of tho kind were being j tarried on in his office. He would ! prove that Bruges was absolutely ignorant of the fact that Goodman had ! had sr.ch transactions with Tuck, and it was not until years after that lie discovered that moneys of Tuck had been received, under tixo oi-cu__-taaoee

stated. Bruges had been deceived aU, along. BRUGES IN THE WITNESS BOX. He then pnt the accused Bruges in the witness box. Witness said lie had been on the rolls since 1878, and tour or five years prior to that on the English roll. Prior to starting on his own account he joined Mr Taoroas, witn whom Goodman was employed as a clerk. When witness started on. Jits own account about 1885 be took J***** 1 " man into his employ. Goodman had a great many friends who becamo business clients; ho knew many people who bad money to lend. Tho moneylending becamo in later years a very strong feature of the business. . «ltness did not interfere with that portion of the business, speaking generally. -Many of the people Goodman knew witness was unacquainted with. He did not know Tuck by 6ight until some years after he had been doing business with tho office; witness's legal business occupied most of his time, and he never interfered with those who might be called Goodman's clients. He had found Goodman very hard working indeed, and witness had no reason to suspect want of ability or honesty, until recent years. Witness knew Goodman had considerable means, and that influenced him. He never had any suspicion that his business was in a bad state until the cheques began to bo returned. Then Goodman always assured him that the business ! was more than satisfactory; he alincst j said there was a largo surplus. itness used constantly to urge him to ! get in outstanding amounts: whenever |ho made enquiries ho was satisfied as to his solvency, by Goodman's statements. Witness had considerable difficulty in getting the proper entries made in the books. He once remarked that there was a largo balance to Tuck, apparently, but Goodman explained that there were cross entries to lie made which would square things. Witness had never arranged one security with Tuck, and his office had done business with him since 1880. All moneys paid by clients in whom Goodman was interested were put into tho general account. About ten years ago witness was seriously ill, and was away from tho office six months; and the year before last he was in Wellington for four or five weeks. As to the £200 to bo lent by Tuck to Mason on security, witness never knew anything about it until April Bth, 1905, when he received a letter from Mr Upham, on behalf of Tuck. Up to that time ho know nothing about Goodman obtaining tho money on tho representations he made: witness did not know of the details until tho proceedings wore taken in the Magistrate's Court. After an interview with Tuck, ho saw Mr Upham, who detailed a number of securities in connection with Tuck, which witness took a note of. Witness then sent for Goodman, arid asked for an explanation. Goodman gave an explanation ; which witness took down and dated, on April Bth, 1905. With regard to Mason's loan of £200, the note was "charged over furniture and house at Lin wood, and £100 in a bank in England—in the office." As to Lawrence's case, the note was "mortgage in the office £300." As to Mrs McDormott'6 case, the explanation was "charged over interest in property, signed, by Mrs McDermott, to be produced in office." As to the loan of £450 on Fletcher, Humphries and Company's eider mill, it was "charge on Tuck, £300." On April 20th Goodman made an explanation, which witness took down, and Goodman signed. Witness found afterwards, from Mr Dougall, that no securities such as were mentioned in Goodman's statement wero in existence, was satisfied tbat no such securities existed. As to tho cheque of £500 which witness drew out of ifoe general account on March 10th, 1898, witness said he arranged with Goodman that Samuel Goodman (his father) should lend £500 for a man named Hamill. Goodman said his father would lend itho amount, and witness prepared the mortgage. Witness thought tho money had been paid in.; he had no knowledge of Tuck having paid in money at that timo. The £500 was used as a straight out- debt to Hamill; witness could not say whether Samuel Goodman paid in. the £500. To his Honour: The £500 mortgage was a second mortgage, and the first mortgagee sold and tho second mortgagee lost his money. Samuel Goodman had a deposit with Fletcher, Humphries and Company for £600, and witness believed that £500 was paid into his general account. His Honour said it was certainly an extraordinary transaction. Further examined, witness said tliat when ho drew the cheque for -£500, ho was certainly under tbe impression that tihe £500 had been paid in by Samuel Goodrmaai. Up till that timo nothing had over occurred'to raise tho slightest suspicion concerning Goodman; the latter was then a man of means. Witness ea.w none of the borrowers refenred to. As to interest from trust account getting into the general account, "there were some beneficiaries who wanted a monthly allowance, irrespective of wihe-fcher a balance had come in or not. Witness added that he had privately about £4000, and the whole of that had gone, together with any profits made in the business.