SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 March 1926, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

greymouth sessions. The Supreme Court continued its sitting yesterday afternoon, His Honor Mr. Justice Adams, presiding. On the session resuming Samuel Arthur Lee (Mr. Joyee), appeared to answer a charge of having, on or about June 11, 1925, and on divers other dates, failed to account to Richard Ronchi for moneys paid to him on terms requiring hiin to aocouht for the same to the said Richard Ronchi. To ail the charges (nine) accused pleaded “not guilty” The following Jury was empanelled 1 Wm. Wilson, J. A, Smith ,R CdstlJj w. C. Roche, H. M.C. Hilton, G. Webster,' A. T. Roddy, fe. Williams, J. Alien, A. R. Bloxage, G. Mayo. Mr. R. Castle was chosen foreman. In detailing the circumstances attendant on the case, Mr. Kitchingham, for the Crown, said Ronchi had two shops, one at Waiuta and one at blackwater. Accused canvassed for orders one day delivering the meat two qays later. The defalcations covered 4 period extending Over a period frOffl June 11 to October 19, 1925, and Were nine in number, divided ihto three Classes. The first series concerned Hiram Barnes, a hotelkeeper at Totara Flat, who, though he paid cash to Lee, fpr all meat supplied, showed on Ronchi’s books as being indebted to tpe extent of £6/9/5. In the second series, three customers were concerned, who had creditor accounts. The accounts were rendered monthly, the practise observed by Mrs. Ronchi, who kept the books, was to show at the foot of each account, the amount outstanding from the previous month. These latter amounts were erased fpm the accounts before they were handed to the customers, Lee having previously been paid the money and not handing it over to Ronchi. In the third series, Lee had apparently helped himself to cash out of his bag of cash collected on his round. The latter series involved a sum of £7. ' Richard Ronchi said Lee had been employed by him, leaving on the day alter last Labour Day. Up till then he had had no occasion to doubt Lee’s veracity. Owing to Labour Day being a holiday, they had to do a double round on the following day, witness going on one (Ikamatua), and Lee on the other (Mawheraiti). Whilst out on the Ikamatua round’ he questioned Sartori about a £5 loan Lee \yas supposed to have made him, and found no such loan had been made, neither

had it been made to witness as accused had stated. Witness taxed accused about the matter, who said if lie (Ronchi) was making such a fuss ajbout it ,he (accused) would pay him the amount. He had not done so. On going on the Grey Valley round (Ikan/atua down to Totara Flat) he delivered several accounts which he founds had already been paid. Lee had promised to come and go over the accounts with him, but he did not. Witness requested him on several other occasions to go to Mrs. Ronchi and fix the books. He did not, though on the last occasion he informed accused he would have him (accused) arrested if he did not give the matter his attention. That did not bring him. To Mr. Joyce: Prior to Lee’s marriage, he lived with witness. The last two months he was in witness’s employ, accused went to Millerton. He carried only two or so passengers whilst going to Millerton. He generally got home from the Ikamatua run between five and eight o’clock. Accused had no authority to lend money; h,e had on a few occasions lent small sums, but always told witness or Mrs. Ronchi about it. Accused had no authority to buy cattle on witness’s behalf He went over the Ikamatua run occasionally while Lee was in his employ. In handing Lee his bag, when going on his rounds, lie did not know

how much cash Mrs. Ronchi had placed in it. The amounts collected by accused were not always entered in his book. They had sometimes to “think out” his takings, to get his cash to tally. It was not a fact that Lee had to look after both shops on a number of occasions. Witness looked after the Waiuta shop himself. Witness’s cheques were made out by Mrs. Ronchi, and signed by him. R. E. Wylde, gave evidence as to having conducted the audit of Ronchi’s books for three or four years past. The- books were kept by Mrs. Ronchi. They were well kept for country books. To Mr. Joyce: He audited the books twice yearly, and drew up a balance sheet. In doing so he always drew up a list of accounts owing to and by the firm. So far as he knew, cheques were always treated as cash. In cases where money was shown as “over” in the round book, it was treated as "found money.” Small discrepancies could quite easily occur where cash sales made and no record made in the “round” book. At 5.15 p.m. the sitting adjourned till 10.15 o’clock this morning. TO-DAY’S SESSION This morning the trial was ‘continued. Mrs. R. Ronchi, wife of plaintiff, stated she kept the books for Ronchi.

It was accused’s duty to bring his cash bag to her on his return from the day’s round. He rarefy missed doing so. She used to make a note of the details of amounts received from accused first on a slip of paper, and later, at Mr. Wylde’s instruction, in the cashbook, from whence they were credited to the customer’s account in the ledger. The amounts of the accounts (produced) receipted by Lee, had not been accounted for by him. Details of the accounts, which had been altered by accused, were given, as in the lower Court. To Mr. Joyce: All amounts received from accused were entered into the day. book from day to day. Varying amounts were supplied to the accused when going on his round, from £2 upwards, according to his anticipated requirements. Mr. Ronchi had been absent from the business on only one

occasion for a week, when he was absent at the Alexander Reefs. In the case of Langley’s account, Lee’s book showed a credit of £4, which, after Lee had left, was discovered to have been' wrongly credited, Mrs. Langlej’ stating she had not paid the amount. There were very few occasions where she did not count the contents of Lee’s bay on his return from his round, in his presence. Lee did not enter payments made by cheque, in his round book. She did not remember accused telling her, on any occasion, that he had made small loans out of his cash

bag’ to anyone. She did not know that the police had thrown up the case because the books were not made up for the purpose of audit. Neil McVicar, publican at Mawheraiti, stated he had supplied wine on only one occasion to Ronchi. He did not know the price, as his wife, who iitatis ins pries, rra• ahvent th.,

time Lee took the wine. Later; lib' db’ - bited the amount (£2/5/-) to Ronchi’s account. During Mrs. Ronchi’s absence in the hospital, Mrs. Duncan McVicar kept Ronchi’s books, and noticed an entry of £2 paid to witness for wine. Knowing the amount had not been paid, she told McVicar. Hiram Barnes, publican at the Heather Bell Hotel, Totara Flat, cross examined by Mr. Joyce, said there was only one occasion on which he did not pay Lee. That was on,his last trip and Leb did hot ifflbW the price of the meat that Mesdames Katherine Thomson, Totara Flat, and Violet Tomlinson, Waiuta, corroborated their evidence given pfbvlOuMy ill tlid lower Court; JahibS Baribi’i, slorOkdOpef; Ikamatua, stated he had never, at any time, borrowed money from the abetisb'd Lee. j. On resuming, after the luncheon adjournment, Samuel Arthur Lee said he was in the employ of Ronchi for two years and three months. Before ■going on his rounds ho got the bag of cnange and the round book from Mrs Roiioiii, and returned it to. her again, on hie return hqme : He was living at RortChi’S lip to the time he got married, when he weiii to> live iil If hotiSe with his wife. His book aild bag were sometimes brought to his house fob him by either Mr Ronchi or one of his boys. The book and cash were. not always balanced at once. In some cases the balahce might not take place till late next day. He received money from Mrs Thomson and Mrs Tomlinson and gave them receipts. Campbell paid his amounts as he had stated. The money would bo put in the bag and he would tell Mr Ronchi or Mrs Ronchi. In some cases Ronchi or Mrs Ronchi would question him about the money “over” in his bag, to find our who had paid it. At times when it was doubtful who the person paying the amount was, Ronchi used to send out bills for the full amount and wait for some customers to say they did not owe the amount they were billed for. This happened on several occasions. Mr Ronchi was in charge of the shop when he was in Waiuta, but he might niot be up there for long intervals as lie looked after the Blackwater shop. In Barnes’s case, he never got money from him, as he had nothing to show what the weight of his meat was —he carried no scales. Mrs Barnes, or the old lady who cooked, sometimes refused the meat as it was not up to the mark. He got two gallons of port wine from McVicar for Ronchi and paid £2 cash for it. The £5 shown as paid to Sartori was paid to Mrs Arthur Mclnroe for sheep bought from Mr Mclnroe. He showed it as cash lent to Sartori, as he had no authority to pay accounts. He left Ronchi’s employ because he had too much to do. Sometimes he had to do everything himself, even to the slaughtering. He bought cattle when Mr Ronchi could not attend to it. The line bought from Pryce Hamer was bought at Mrs Ronchi’s instance, as Ronchi was intoxicated. (Proceeding.

AUCKLAND SENTENCES. (Per Press Association.) AUKLAND, March 3. At the Supreme Court, Henry Lloyd .pleaded guilty to seven charges of forging and seven of false pretences. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, the Judge describing him as an Australian criminal with a big list. Charles William Wahle and Samuel Rattray, who escaped from the Prison Camp at Rangitqto, were each sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, cumulative on present sentences. Judga Herdman remarked that there had been too many escapes from prison. The sentence would be a warning to these men and others in gaol that if they escaped they were liable to be dealt with very severely. Victor Henry Methven Baker, for indecent assault, was admitted to probation for two years.