CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 7406, 29 December 1887, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, December 28. (before Messrs J. P.lmer and R. Chisholm, J.P.8.) Embezzlement and Felony. — Charles Wilkins was charged that on the 23rd September, being the servant of one William Grant, he did receive into his possession a sum of LI 8s 6d in money, which he did embezzle.—Mr J. A. D. Adams appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Thornton for the accused. —William Grant deposed that he was a paper manufacturer. The firm of Wilkins and Co. was his business. Accused was bis manager. His duty was to receive money from the collectors and to pay it into the bank on the day on which it was received, or if it was after bank hours on the following day. The book produced did not contain an entry for LI 8s bd received on September 23. There was no entry in trust account bank-book of any cash having been paid into the bank on this day. Accused signed cheques on this account. He was the man of business. To pay potty cash, money should have been drawn by cheque onto! the trust account.—William Fraser said he was a commercial traveller in Grants employ. He collected LI 8s 6d from Mrs Brown and gave it to Mr Wilkins. Accused gave him a receipt for it. By Mr Thornton: He was sure he paid Mr Wilkins the full amount, and did not remember anything being paid him for travelling expenses.—E. R. Brent, clerk in the Bank of Australasia, stated that there was an account in the Bank “Charles Wilkins, trust account.” No cash was paid in between the 20th September and the closing of the account about the middle of October. By the Bench: The book produced is an exact extract of the ledger account in the Bank.—William Atkinson, accountant, said he had been in Mr Grant’s employ since the 27 th September. He examined the books of the firm, and there was no entry of LI Ss 6d in any of the books. By the Bench: He wrote up the items in the cash book from the Ist July from information supplied by Mr Wilkins, partly from memoranda Mr Wilkins had on his file, partly from the passbook, and partly his memory. In all the books of the business there was not a trace of the LI 8s 6d.—Mr Thornton asked for an adjournment to prepare his defence. It was a carious thing that a man like the accused, who had power to write out a cheque for any amount he liked, would embezzle such a paltry sum. The evidence went to show that the case should be dismissed. The money he was .charged with embezzling was given out as petty expenses,—Mr Adams said if they brought all the charges they had against the accused they would be kept there for a fortnight.—The Bench thought Mr Thornton should have been prepared with his defence. —Mr Thornton said that they should be thoroughly satisfied that Mr Wilkins appropriated the money to his own account before they convicted him of a charge like that. Accused would show them that the money was put in the safe, and that it was used for petty expenses. —Accused gave evidence confirmatory of Mr Thornton’s statement. He had a material witness he could produce if the case was adjourned to Saturday, but he could not tell his name.—The Bench decided to hear the other charges.—Charles Wilkins liras then charged with having, on September 23, embezzled LI, the property of William Grant.—lt was agreed that the evidence in the previous ease should be accepted In this.—Charles Wilkins was further charged with feloniously stealing, on July 19, eighteen bottles of cordials, valued at LI 7s 6d, and the property of William Grant.—Andrew Smith, proprietor of the Queen’s Arms Hotel, stated that about July 19 he had transactions with the accused. Wilkins owed him money, and he thought he might get cordials from him as well as from anybody else. He did not pay in cash. Accused made out an invoice and ordered the clerk to receipt it. He took the account for eighteen bottles of cordials as a counter account to the money that Wilkins owed him.—William Atkinson gave evidence as to the entry in the books. — Charles Wilkins and Mr Montgomery gave evidence. —Mr Elmer said the decision of the Court was that the larceny case should be dismissed. For the embezzlements accused would be sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, with hard labor, on each charge ; the sentences to be cumulative.