HIS HONOUR SUMS UP.

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

HIS HONOUR SUMS UP.

In summing up, his Honour explained the various classes of theft, mo question for them to consider was whether the • accused's acts came under any of those classes, and, if so, which. They must censi-or whether either cr both accused, by reason oi the undisputed facts, had brought themselves within the meshes of Ul2 law. Tho case contained fwituros which, he was glad to say, did not often come before tno Court" Bruges's business had reresulted in bankruptcy, and during tho past eight or ten years moneys had been paid in and diverted from their proper purposes, tho total deficiency being £10,000 or £12.0u0. Alter dealing with the circumstances generally, his Honour said t!:-:- indisputable fact remained tbat Tuck had paid £9ilo into tho office, and allowed another £400 to remain, making £1300, on representations—always made by Goodman, a.nd not Bruges—which wero untrue, and which he was bound to say he thought wero consciously untTiie. As to tho £200, it was extraordinary; had Goodman been in busiiik?S3 o:t his own. account ho must liavobeoa found guilty. When he told Tuck that ho had a client for £200 it was an untrutliful statement, and when ho took Tuck to see Lawrence's houso he did so without authority, and failed to show the inside of the house on tho plea that Mrs Lawrence would object; from that they could only infer tha-t he know ho was making an untruthful statement., and did not want to be found out. It had been urged by Mr Hanlcin that Goodman was only a salaried clerk. \\ihat he Was was not- quite ckar," but he was certainly something more than the ordinary salaried clerk. Goodman himself had n clicn'tele of persons who wanted to borrow or lend, and the business of the office was apparently divided into two sections, Bruges taking the legal part, and Goodman tho general financial arrangements,, being given carte blanche. Whatever his salary might have been, his position was far different from that of tho ordinary clerk. Before convicting they must bo convinced • that there was fraud. They could not help seeing that tho defence in Bruges's case was to throw tbe responsibility on Goodman, and in Goodman's case to throw if on Bruges. THie-re was no doubt that Bruges relied implicitly on Goodman, and that tho latter obtained, .by a series of carefully concoctsd statements, nearly £500, which ho padd, nominally at any rate, into the genera! account. It had been submitted that Bruges had wilfully- dint his eyes to what was going on. It was not impossible to draw that inference, but there was also another which, tbey might adopt, and that wan that Bruges, through his gross carelessness, placed a culpable reMance in Goodman. Ho must point out that Goodman had proved himself to be a deliberately untruthful man, and throughout these trans-actions had a diefhonest intention, whatever his motive -might havo been. If i-hey 'came to that. conclusion, they would bo justified in finding that he had acted fraudulently, •t-t-ihethor or not he had profited thereby. The facts were admitted, but it was argued that though it was disreputable conduct, it did not amount fo a crime. That was • for the jury to decide. There was ground on wnioh the jury could infer tliat some benefit or other might have accrued to Goodman, sufficient to account for dishonest conduct. They could convict or acquit either or both of the accused. To convict they must be fully satisfied that fraudulent intent was olearly established. . In" the case of Bruges, it had been sought to show that there was fraudulent intent, in that the money had gone into has account, and that he had been so negligent that he had aided Goodman in fraud. The direct personal knowledge of Bruges had not been established; on the other hand, Goodman was not. shown to have derived any benefit, except for tho fact that ho had full power to operate on the bank account. He would leave the matter with the jury, and finally direct that unless they wero satisfied that his conduct had been fraudulent they could not convict either of tho accused. The jury then retired at 10.30 to consider their verdict. .