CHARGE AGAINST A BANE OFFICIAL.

Evening Post, Volume LXII, Issue 79, 30 September 1901, Page 5

CHARGE AGAINST A BANE OFFICIAL.

THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTION DROPPED. I THE CROWN TAKES THE MATTER IN HAND. A young man named Thomas A. Conn wa* charged at the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. VV. R. Haselden, S.M., with having converted to his own use at Lyttelton, ou sth July, 1899, £70 belonging to the Bank of New Zealand, by which he was employed. Mr. Dalziell appeared lor the Bank, and declined to proceed with the information. Mr. Bell said that ho appeared for the Crown in charge of proceedings for a felony. .Mr. SkeiTGtt, for the accused, said there was no statutory authority for the Crown to continue proceedings on this information, which bad been sworn in 1900. A fresh information should be kid. Mr. Bell said that he wished to obtain information relating to the charge which the Bank had refused to give. Mr. Skerrett thought tbat the Court should not be used as a fishpond for obtaining information. Mr. Bell contended that the Bank, if it wished to withdraw, should demonstrate to the Crown that it (the Bank) had made a mistake and should prove that it had a right to withdraw the proceedings. His Worship said' that the question raised was one of public policy— whether there had been an improper compromise with the proper authority. Mr. Skerrett — That is not suggested. Mr. Bell said tbat as the Bank had refused to give information, and to show the Court that there was insufficient evidenco to go on witih the case, the inference was tbat there was some other reason which it was the duty of the Crown to ignore. He called Richard Waine Qibbs, accountant in the employ of the Bank of New Zealand, who deposed that .accused left the Bank's service in December, 1899, and the information against him was sworn by witness in February, 1900. He had reason to suspect accused of the offence. Mr. Skerrett objected to a question by Mr. Bell as to what ground the wit* ness had for laying tho information. Mr. 801 l said that where there was an attempt to stifle prosecution, duty devolved on the Magistrate as well as on the Crown Solicitor. His Worship said he was aware of his function in tho matter, but he did not visli to exercise it unless he was absolutely compelled to do so. The question itself was admissible, but the answers might be inadmissible. Tho witness stated that he acted on information received in writing. Mr. Bell asked who reported to witboss. ', Mr. Skerrett objected. His Worship said that the question could bo put. Its object was to learn whom to subpoena. In this wise the first informant, acting under instructions from his superior officers, wished to stifle the prosecution, and the Crown's objection was based on public policy. Witness stated that tho report on which he acted came from Mr, M'Lellan, manager of the bank at Lyttelton. Witness was now acting under instructions. Mr. Skerrott objected to a question by Mr. Bell as to whether the Bank would give information to the Crown. Witness — That is for my employers to «ay. Mr. Bell said that the police had applied for tho information, and it had been refuted. His Worship iaid that the Crown had better subpoena Mr. Embling, manager at Christchurch in 1899. Witness (to Mr. Skorrett)--The police asked tho Bank in March of 1900, to withdraw the warrant. Mr. 801 l stated that accused was then outside tho colony. Mr. Skerrett said that the prosecution was due to tho omission of the Bank's solicitor to withdraw (with the consent of the police) the warrant against accused. Re-examined by Mr. Bell— The documents in the case were formerly in witness's possession. Mr. 801 l said a -witness whom the Crown would have to call was absent on sick leave. He would have to call Mr. Embling, and seek a special order for the examination of books under the Banks and Bankers Act, 1887. He asked for a remand. Mr. Skerrett objected to a remand, and asked for a discharge. His friend now bad the informationMr. Bell— l have not a word of it. Mr. Bkorrett — My friend is avaricious for ' information. His Worship remarked that it would bo a lesson to ,svery one that when the Crown Law Officers were moved the matter could not be lightly dropped. Mr. Skorrett said that the law officers were willing not to be moved in March of 1900. Mr. Bell denied the statement, and wished to explain. His Worship said he knew it was a rule of the Crown Law Office not to go to tbo expense of bringing offenders back from outsfdo the colony on private informations. His Worship remanded accused to 7th October, allowing bail, self in £50 and a surety of £25.