RE ALFRED W. PEARSON

Evening Star, Issue 12766, 20 March 1906, Page 4

RE ALFRED W. PEARSON

AND A DEAL IN TALLOW. At the City .Police Court .this morning, before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, SAt, Alfred Walker Pearson was charged that, pn Fybruary 17, 1003, he received the sum'of £4O from Remshurdt and Co,, tp be accounted, for to William Thmock, for which, sum he failed to account, , He was further charged with having similarly failed to account on other dates for sums of £35 arid £25 respectively, , Air Macossey prosecuted for the Crown, arid Mr Emslie appeared for the accused. ‘ ; Mr Macau oy asked leave Ip withdraw these charges, and Mr Emslie submitted that the accused was entitled to. have them dismiss'd. .The withdrawal of the informations was allowed. Pearson was than charged that between September, 24, 1902, ami ■ April 17, 1903,, he stolo tho sum of £l3O Is, the property of William Tffmock. Mr Macasrey said that the , facts were that in October, 1902, WBbam Tinnock entered into business as a tallow refiner,, and was associated with the defendant, who was then in the, employ of Remshardt and 00. Tinnock alleged that Pearson was his partner.. The business was carried on at North-east Valley, and all of the stuff was sent to Remsbardt and Co. for sale or disposal. Pearson did the clerical work of the business. Money was received by him, and some of it was used in paying accounts; The business had been going on for some .months, and Pearson, always assured Tinnock .that it was in satisfactory condition- In March, 1903, the latter foqnd out that there were creditors who .were pressing for payment. Hie went to Pearson and asked for a statement. Pearson promised to give one, but did not do eo. Shortly afterwards Tinnock was adjudicated bankrupt, and Pearson was summoned to give evidence. Ho did not appear, and a warrant was issued for his arrest, which, however, was not effected for some tune after. William Tinnock gave evidence as above Referring to the relations between himself and accused, be said they were partners Each was to put in £3O, but lie did n-oty know whether «. 'raised put in bis £3O. He (witness) bad received sums of money from accused for hpwd accounts, with which was credited. Tho £3O to have beer*, put an for partnership was not chided, jn tire charge againet accused. - He had asked the latter for a statement of account® when creditors pressed, and be h-Vl then promised to raise £SO, but tbfe money was not found. He (witness) was adjudicated bankrupt in June, 1903. Accused banded over receipts for money ho had paid out, and the staiemmt produced was a correct statement of all moneys paid by Pearson in connection. with the business. And h© had before him the receipts handed in. by Pearson, . and the accounts rendered by creditors. Mr Emalio objected to a statement bring sworn to by witness when be had not made it out. If this mm was charged with theft then the items he received should he proved, and the items ho paid away should be given credit to, and then he could be charged with tho theft of a general balance. The Magistrate said that that was what bad been done. Witness (continuing) said that after his bankruptcy accrued made a voluntary statement that £IOO would cover the whole of the moneys due to him (witness) by him (Pearson). —To Mr Emslie; Witness was a partner. He did nob discover until after the bankruptcy that no books were kept. The partnership lasted for five months, and during that time ho had no idaa of what, were the expenses and receipts, because when be asked for a statement Pearson said that he was too busy, but that-they' were well within. He understood by that that the advances by Remßhordt and Co. were well within the limit of tallow received. With, regard to the £3O which ho put in as share to the business, be never handed it to the accused, or handed receipts of its expenditure to him, but the accused know on what it was spent. As regards money received from accused, the latter had told him that ho (witness) had not received more than £3O. He did not know of any money beyond that in the statement previously produced which could have been paid away by accused in connection' with the business. Charles Christie Graham, Official Assignee, gave evidence that a warrant was issued for accused’s arrest on his neglecting to obey a summons to give evidence before him in connection with TVmijoek’s bankruptcy. Pearron had paid no money to him on account of Tianork'S estate,' nor rendered him any account in connection with it.—ln reply to the Magistrate, witness, said that at the first meeting of creditors accused had mad© a statement in reference to the dividend that could be paid out of tho estate.—-Mr Enifdie, however, objected to this, and Air Macasrey did not ask that it bo entered Christian Eugene Remshardt, wool and skin merchant, said that the accused was 1 in.his employ as an accountant and cashier in September, 1802. Arrangements were made by Pearson and Tinnock. when rtariff) g business, that tallow should be sent to life firm as events, and Tinnock instructed him. to pay all money to accused. The proceeds were paid to Pearson. The items in the statement of receipts produced varying in amount from £3 to £4O, and totalling £653 17s, must have been paid to accused. Tho amount of this unaccounted for was put down at £lsl Is. It was the custom in making advances against tallow for tho book-keeper (Pearson in tins case) to write out the cheque, and take it to him for signature. He would inquire as to the safety of the amount of the advance, and then sign, it, and hand it back to accused. He would not. know whether the accused handed these cheques, or any of them, to Tinnock or not. So far os bo could remember, the accused told him (witness) that he bad no interest in the business. With reference to most of the cash items he did not know where the .money went to after it was paid by him. Thomas Edmund Roberts (clerk in the Official Assignee’s office) said that he made out the statement formerly produced. Ho prepared the expenditure' items from receipts handed to him by Tinnock. The receipts be made up from a statement supplied by Mr Remsbardt of payments made by him to the accused on tinnock’s account. There were three items of payments by Pearson which were not supported by receipts. In the items of expenditure he had given accused credit for the amount of all receipts ‘ from creditors handed to him, and for all moneys paid by accused (so far as be bad been able to ascertain) for which no receipts bad been produced. Ho bad prepared the statement from receipts banded to him by Tinnock from accounts rendered by creditors against Tinnock and by conferences • with Tinnock. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial.