MILTON DEFENCE CASES

Evening Star, Issue 15882, 14 August 1915, Page 10

MILTON DEFENCE CASES

M’CLYMONT -ACQUITTED ON FIRST CHARGE. I ho charges aqinst John Beil M‘Clymoub proceeded all yesterday afternoon in tne Supreme Court,, and’Were not concluded at the adjournment ' In the first charge, that of stealing £SO, the complete statement for the defence appeared in yesterday’s issue. At ,3 p.m. the Crown Prosecutor (Mr W. C. MacGregor) commenced his address in reply to Mr Solomon’s address for prisoner by 'referring to the law as affecting this question of the owner of the fund. , His .JJonor, however, interrupted to inform • counsel that he would instruct the jury that it. was perfectly open for them on the evidence to conclude that even if accused believed the money to be the property of the Bruce Rifles it was open to them to convict him of having stolen it. MrvMacGrfegor passed on to the fact®. All this elaborate story that accused had told to-day' lie had not gone into the box m the court, below and told, although he could have dooio so had he chosen. ® ** Honor: But he made a statement to ChiOi-detective Herbert in February. - Mr MacGregor continued that on the date of drawing the cheque it was certain tnat accueed got a cheque for £SO, took Jt to the bank, cashed it over the counter got £SO for it, and put the sum in Iris pocket. And the main fact was that’ he had never to this dav accounted for it Was not. .tilvat theft? Now to-day the Court liad heard an elaborate story from a number of persons connected with accused eatner by birth or friendship as to what .was known of this sain and of accused in tne But the vital fact remained that the prisoner could not now tell the jury-what, he had don©, with the money, the hanker said that accused got the money oh the sth. He paid in £2B next clay, three days later he paid in £22 in cash and cheques, and then a cheque .for £f; and on the same day he-used the money pawl in in that way ‘to pay a, bill to oat good, bon, ami Ivwen. So that even if he pa«.l it in, be drew it out the same day to meet a business account. It was unR* unate that accused had brought friends who barfed him up m his story. Colonel Slow ait, for example, had sworn that the mcdhft r a ‘V 10t tJ ‘ e ‘.regiment’s, but imncdutely afterwards-was confronted with Ins own written statement of exactly on posite tenor. He had had the hardihood to go jiiio tne box now and swear that it was not regimental money at all. .If all these tacts were so, why had they not been given in evidence before ? rlis Honor, ,iu summing up, said fhit it appeared that accused bought the mattresses for £45 and. sold them to the “1 the'U? £ °i 0 ’ i S ° tl,at ’ altilOT »gh colonel of the regiment., ho was, not above makimr a piote out of the regiment to the extent }■' s j. fr 1611 was worthy of note intins direction that lie bought the mattresses in April, 1912. He was paid‘by die regiment for the goods in Juno, 1912 but lie cud nob pay Ross and Glendiniim tbe money until January 7of the following year. His Honor, referring to the evf- < enco called, said that there was the evidence of Colonel Stewart" in the lower court. It was impossible to imagine evidence clearer and more specific than, that! He swore positively and distinctly then taat the £57 12s 4d was the property of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment. He paid it to Henderson us the property of the regiment, and he (Stewart) explained how the Bruce Riik-s, afterwards the A Company, ceased to exist, and how the 14th ('South Otago) Regiment became entitled to the money. Was it possible to iuKt-dnc a more complete change of front than that executed by the gallant Colonel Stewart that clay? He would not say that ids evidence was wrong, but he now said that the money did nob belong to the 14 th (South Otago) Regiment. This remarkable change of front suggested that this theory in regard to the Bruce Rifles was a theory that had been staged for the purposes of this case, and this case only. . Colonel Stewart swore positively and distinctly that the money belonged to the 14th Regiment. D;cl not that suggest very strongly that tins theory in regard to the. money belonging to the Bruce Rifles had been staged simply for the purpose of getting accused out of the difficulty in which he was placed by the fact that be received the money belonging to the regiment? Accused bad said that he received the money as a trustee. What would the jury expect a trustee to do with the money? They would naturally expect him to put it in a place of safety—place it in the Savings Bank in his own name, and show on his bank book that he held the money in trust for the Bruce Rifles. That was what an honest trustee would bo expected to do. What did accused do with the money?! He did not deal with it in that way at all. He drew the money from the bank', and so far as the evidence went not a penny of it was paid into the bank. The-accused was unable te> point to any item or combination of items and say these accounted for the money. Accused apparently withdrew the £SO and used the money "for his own purposes. What conclusion were the jury to draw? Accused got this money to hold in trust for the Rifles. Hid he deal with it as an honest trustee should? Ho drew the whole amount in sovereigns, and apparently used it for his own purposes. Hid he by that intend to deprive the owner of it? A great deal had been made of the fact that he could at any time have drawn a cheque for this £SO, although his account was overdrawn (this account being secured by property and guaranteed) ; and a good deal was made of the fact, too, that he left instructions for the

monqy to be paid if demand were made*. But that did not show that he did. nob intend to convert the money to his own use. If that were the case, any man who had stolen money could say. “I could have afterwards drawn ' a cheque, if bowled out, on my banking account, -and made good the money made away with. It would be a ease of - stealing made easy. What the jury had to look at was the conduct of this man when he received the money and the whole of the circumstances. If the jury thought that the only reasonable conclusion was that w hen accused got the cheque and the money he intended to deprive the owner of it, then they ought to convict. If they thought ho merely acted foolishly and unwisely, they ought not. The jury retired at 3.30 and returned in an hour with a verdict of “Not guilty.” Accused was next charged with stealing the sum of £2l 7s. Air S. Solomon, K.C.! and Mr D. Reid defended. ’’ The Crown Prosecutor said that this was a charge of having stolen £2 17s in August, 1915. It was a cheque sent to accused as commanding officer of the 14th Regiment bv Colonel E. R, Smith, of Dunedin. There was a. military camp that year at Sutton, and the Defence Department sold the right of running the canteen to a private firm,for £99 odd. That represented-the profit to the different regiments in camp. The 14th (South Otago) Regiment was one of them, and Colonel Smith divided tbe money pro rata amongst the different unite. The amount to which the 14th Regiment became entitled was £2l 7s, and a cheque for that amount was font to M’CTymont. The cheque wa.s payable to his order, and was duly endorsed by him. The cheque was nob paid into tho regimental fund at all, but, on the ■contrary, was endorsed by accused, and paid into his own private account. On being questioned by Chief-detective Herbert, accused admitted that h© paid it into his own private account, and said that what was left of it was still in the bank, amounting to £6 13s sd. He said that tho balance was disbursed as follows;—£7 deficit for regimental ball, £3 to George Reid for a picnic, £5 5s to' the adjutant for camp expenses, and 16s Id to ‘E. Stewart, leaving £7 3s M in his' private account. The two accounts did not tally very well. He said that, as officer commanding the regiment, lie had a right to spend the money for tho good of the i-egiment. That was a. wholly mistaken view for him to take of his position. Accused’s duty was perfectly clear. He should have paid th© money into tho regimental fund, to he disposed of only for the purposes mentioned in the regulations. Mr Solomon: Do you suggest it should have been paid into "the bank?

The Grown Prosecutor: Undoubtedly. Evidence was given by Colonel E. R. Smith and Chief-detective Herbert; and Mr Solomon called accused, after which the Court adjourned till this morning.'