UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION

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

UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION

Cross-examined by Mr Myers, witness said that money connected with estates of which he was trustee were paid into the trust account. Speaking generally, all witnces'ft personal transactions were paid into the trust account, and all Goodmaat's into tho general account. Witness could not say when it was that he began fo sus>pect Goodman. When the cheques began to be dishonouTed, witness did not have a special enquiry made. He went through some of the accounts with Goodman, but did not take active steps. He had pressed Goodman frequently to make proper entries; Goodman was dilatory in regard to his entries. Witness used frequently to talk over matters with Mr Bushell. It was in February or March, 1905, that he gave Goodman notice to go. Witness knew that the cheques were being returned dishonoured, but if Goodman had left then, there would have been difficulties, as he knew all about the matters. Many clients had told him since that Good-man* bad particularly impressed on them not to see witness. He enquired of Goodman, in a general way, why the cheques were given-, and for what. The entries mado by Goodman were co meagre, that they revealed little to him. Witness said he might have been negligent, but it was another thing to say that he had knowlodge about "the money belonging to clients. When signing transfers he did not enquire into the whole trane-ie-tions; he would have a dozen or twenty documents put before him to sign, and he might sign some without enquiry, and not others; he would assume that they were correct. It was a fact that two sums of trust money, £205 and £180, belonging to a man named Auckland, had been . paid away by cheque for -which there was no security; that was in April, 1905. Goodman did Auckland's business exclusively, and told witness that Auckland wanted him to lend the amounts. Witness did not insist- on seeing the securities., because Goodman did all Auckland's business. He paid out all sums on Goodman's word alono. Witness did not know of the existence of any of tho securities Goodman mentioned in his statoxoent of April, 20th. Goodman was very reluctant to meet Tuck and himself. When Goodman rushed in, and said, ''You know as well as 1 do," in Tuck's presence, witness, thought he referred to the statement that he had drawn up. Witness recognised that ho was civilly responsible, but he was _a_oce*at of any attempt to

fraudulently deprive Took of his money, and he was not sorry to have the opportunity to explain his position. Tho Court then adjourned until 7.30. EVIDENCE AS TO CHARACTER. On resuming, Mr Russell called Frederick M. \Varren. Witness said he had known* Brug<_*. tor about twenty years, and ho knew him to bear an excellent reputation. Witness did not tfiink no would be guilty o,t stealing anybody's money. vuiliam KoxDurgh said he was in Brugess employ until 1900. Goodman managed the DiisirAsa, and it was mostly lending money. Bruges had nouung to cto witn those matters, to witness s knowledge. Bruges gave him instructions to pay trust money into the trust account. There was a book of registered mortgages kept. Bruges was not in-the habit of going througb the accounts generally. Cross-examined by Mr .\l3-er3, witness said ho was in the office in 1898. but he knew nothing about the supposed loan of £450 to Fletcher, Humphries and Company. He could not say irom memory wiic-ther ho had instTiiccioiis to pay moneys miv the trust account, but he presumed ho did. He could not say whether it would be from Bruges or Goodman that he received the instructions, lie paid interest on trust accounts into tno general account; t:iat liau oeen tno practice before ho went there. George Booth, who said he had known"Bruges well lor ten or eleven years, gave evidence as to the gocd character and reputation 01 Bruges.

To Mr Myer_: He was a client of Brugess, and had beeu tor many years. Thomas Wardrop, manager of the Uuiou Bank, said*he had known tho accused Bruaes for about twenty-five years, and the latter boro a very g<K«l reputation for honesty and stTaightforwardncss. Witness had always found him absolutely reliable, and he could not believo that ho would commit a crime of theft.

Frederick de Carteret Malet, chairman of directors ot ttio BanK of New Zealaud, and a barrister and solicitor, said he had known Bruges lor about twenty-five years. He bore the beut ot reputations, and witness, during large business transactions extending over twenty yoars, had always found him scrupulously honest. This concluded the evidence on bohalf of Bruges.