MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1621, 1 May 1879, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Christchurch, ■Wednesday, Adbil 30. _ IRe fqlio'vHng proceedings r'e the case of Oi W. Ghreenwobd foir embezalemeftt tobk place after we went to press yesterday : The second charge was then entered on of embezzling the sum of £3 12s, the property of 0. F. Barker, The prosecutor was first Sworn and deposed as follows : —On Monday, the 2ist March and following day he made an examination of his books, and on the Tuesday, looking over the butts of the receipt-book and comparing the blocks of the book with the cash book, he found that on the 23rd January, 1879, the prisoner gave a receipt for £3 12s to one Alfred Blackburn for transfer of a section in which amount was not entered in the cash book, but on the following, day the prisoner paid info the Bank £49 19s 2d. The £3 12s was not entered into the cash book until the day prisoner left his employment. He compared the Bank book with the rough cash book, and they corresponded with the amount paid into the Bank to his credit. No excess had been paid into the Bank which would cover the amount deficient—£3 12s. On going over the accounts with the prisoner pp the evening of the 21st, that amount was challenged by the witness as not having been received, but it was passed over, as they were not certain whether the title had been given for which the account had been rendered. Subsequently, the witness found that a receipt had been given by Mrs Blackburn for the title. The witness was then examined on the third charge* and deposed that, on April 2nd, 1879, he found the prisoner gave a receipt to H. Butcher for £7 2s 9d, being the balance of purchase money on Ohertsey allotments. On discovering this the witness searched in the cashbook kept by prisoner, and found no entry of the amount then or any other time, nor had it been subsequently in any way accounted for. Had compared the Bank re-ceipt-book kept by the prisoner of amounts paid to witness’s credit, and found that it agreed with the Cashbook us to the amounts paid into the Bank. The first payment made into the Bank after the alleged receipt of the £7 2s 9d was made on April 4th, and the amount was £939 5a 2d, On April 21st, when the accused was going over the accounts with witness, Butcher’s account was referred ib, and the accused stated that Butcher had paid the amount personally to Brown, and the memorandum produced in the prisoner’s hand-writing was to the effect that the amount had been so paid. BiUtoher was a purchaser pf allotments in Chortsey township from Brown, through the agency of the witness. Witness was answerable to Brown for the amount, and Butcher was accountable to him (witness) for it. Accused had made an appointment with the witness for the evening of the 22nd, which he did not keep, and it was on that evening that he found the block in the receipt book. To Mr Holnus A message was, received by witness during the flay of the 22nd stating that accused would be unable to como to the office that evening. The accused left the employment of witness entirely on his own account, and witness gave him a testimonial to the effect that he was thoroughly up to his business, and had given perfect satisfaction. The duties were of a very multifarious description. After leaving the employment of the witness accused went into that of Messrs. Draper, Charters and Co. in Hereford street. The business of that firm would in no way clash with witness’s. Had never given his junior clerk, Mr Patrick, any instructions to jog the memory of Mr Blackburn. It was possible that the rule of not giving a title to any person before the fees were paid might have been violated. Was not aware that Blackburn had made any objection to pay the sum of £3 12s on account of transfer fees. Witness would not swear that ho had never instructed his clerks to ask £1 as a fee for transfer when he was only entitled to 10a. Witness never knew that Brown had received the sum of £7 2s 9d. The accused had never informed him of it. Large sums of money belonging to the witness had passed through the hands of the accused. Never told Mr Win. Brown that he believed that after all that had passed, and the searching of the books that the accused was innocent, or that his reason tor prosecuting was because the accused did not come to his office on the evening of the 22nd. Sarah Ann Blackburn, being sworn, deposed that she was the wife of Alfred Blackburn, station master at Eakaia. Was in Christchurch about four months ago. Went to Mr Barker’s office and signed a document. The signature produced was hers. The signature was to the acknowledgement of the receipt of a deed. Two of Mr Barker’s clerks wore present. Witness received the deed and an open note to take to her husband. Did not know what became of the note, but had never delivered it to her husband, but told him its contents. Did not remember paying any money. The note was not a receipt for money paid by witness in Mr Barker’s office. The note was merely a statement to Mr Blackburn that the clerk would ask Mr Barker to reduce the cost of preparing the deeds, which witness’ husband considered too high. Witness brought a note down from her husband at Eakaia, Could not say to whom she gave the note. She and her husband had searched for the receipt but could not find it, and had no recollection of ever having received one. Crossexamined by Mr Holmes —Witness had been spoken to by the witness Patrick during the day, he said “ I am in for the boss to-day. I recollect you perfectly if you do not recollect mo.” Beecham John Patrick, clerk in Mr Barker’s office, deposed that he recognised the previous witness. Remembered her coming into Mr Barker’s office, some time last January, The deeds under the Land Transfer Act were placed in his charge. His duty was to draw up the deeds, stamp and register them, enter them in the books in the office, and hand them to parties as they called for them. The last witness called at the office for a deed, which witness gave her, and took her receipt (produced) for it. The accused was in the office at the time, Mrs Blackburn paid him some money, but could not say how much. When the money waa paid the accused wrote

cut' and gaye her a receipt, while wit 1109.1 took a receipt for the deed- In ■ crossexamination the witness admitted that ho know that deeds had been given out of the office without the costs having been previously paid. Henry Young Butcher deposed that he was a commission agent carrying on business in Christchurch. In the early part of the present month he wao indebted to Mr Barker £7 2s 9d. Paid the money to Mr Greenwood, and received the receipt produced. Mr R, M. Morton up at the time .witness paid the amount. Tliero tfdiJ another clerk in the office, but could not reiheraber which it was. To Mr Holmes—Witness purchased the land for which the receipt showed the part payment from Mr Brown, of OhertSeJr, through Mr Barker. This concluded the evidence for the proSeCUron, and Mr Holmes, for the defence, called Mr Wm. A. Brown, of Chertsey, who deposed ho had placed some land in Chertsey in Mr Barker’s hands for sale. Mr Butcher was one of the purchasers. Or. the 2nd April was in Christchurch, and Mr Greenwood gave him £7 2s Dd, as part of Mr Butcher’s indebtedness. Subsequently had an interview with Mr Barker in his ofllce, and the latter wanted him to give evidence in the presence of Detective[\yalker. < Declined to be examined in the fnreHerieft iff a detective,, and, said he would have no objection to be placed in the witness-box, Afterwards Mr Barker said Mr Greenwood endeavored to explain certain discrepancies in his accounts as being made by him in mistake, and he (Mr Barker) was not unwilling to take that view of the matter, but afterwards, through indignation at Mr Greenwood failing to keep the appointment he had made with him for the evening of the 22nd, he had placed the matter in the hands of the police. At this stage the charge of embezzling the sum of £7 2? 9d broke down. Mr Holmes was about to comment oh the second charge when his Worship interrupted him, and said he did not consider there was any case to go to a jury, and Mr Holmes then reviewed the points in the first charge, and asked the Court to dismiss that also. His Worship considered there was a prima facie case made out m the first charge* and that it was for a jury to decide whether the discrepancy Was the result or dishonesty or carelessness. The evidence having been read over, the accused was committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed.

ThuusdAy May 1. [Before G. L. Lee, Esq., and J. P. Jameson, Esq., J.P.’s] I.TjIjECtALLY 02t PBBMl3Eß.— Daniel MilCLoan and DonaldiMfiDonald were chtefged with being illegally on the premises of Dr. Patrick. Dr Patrick being sworn, said the door of an outhouse which he had nailed up for the security of the contents, had been broken open, and tho two men in question were found asleep there. He went to the d*?pot for a constable, but met one on tho Way, Who catae to the premises, and took (V o men int) custody. Constable Haroli deobse i (h A from information received from Mr, Patrick, he went to Dr. Patrick’s 3!able >-t the back of his house on Oxford Ter. at, and arrested the prisoner. In excuse, one of the accused said he was drunk, and- bud gone in to sleep off the effects. The each of them fourteen days’ imprisonment with bard labor.

LYTTELTON, Thursday, May 1. [Before H. Allwright, Esq., E.M.] LXTNAOY. —John William, an ordinary seaman of the barque Lady Emma, from Hobart Town, was presented. Constable Moutray said that accused had on Wednesday night jumped oyprboard from the vessel named, and was afterwards picked up by a boat. When questioned why ho did so, he said they would shoot him if he stayed on board. The accused, on being asked by the Bench whether he wished to ask any questions, said his sister was calling “ John Williams ” when he jumped overboard. The Bench remanded him until Saturday next.