THE CHARGE AGAINST MILLAR, F.S.A.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXI, Issue 2364, 8 March 1876, Page 2

THE CHARGE AGAINST MILLAR, F.S.A.

The following is the case against the late Provincial Engineer of Nelson aa described in the opening speech of the Solicitor for the prosecution, and so far substantiated as to lead to the committal of the accused : — The counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case, said that Mr Millar had entered the Government service in April, 1875, and in June he received authority to order instruments to the value of L 250. In September he produced a voucher signed by himself as engineer^ for goods purchased from Mr Crawshaw; of Dunedin. Upon this. Mr Rout, the Provincial Treasurer, drew a cheque for L 49 15s, the amount named, with which he purchased a draft, which was forwarded to Mr Crawshaw, who sent back a receipt for the amount. In January last the Government requested Mr Millar to tender his resignation, which he declined to do, and thereupon the Superintendent removed him, and in the letter of removal requested him to surrender all Government property he had in his charge. None was surrendered except a few things of insignificant value, andj afterwards, on the papers being looked over it was found that there was no invoice of the goods purchased from Crawshaw, and then for the first time doubts arose whether they or the other instruments defendant had been authorised to purchase had ever been obtained. In view of the possible defence, he (Mr Pitt) thought it might be both relevant and necessary to give evidence of the transactions connected with the disbursement of a further sum of L 136 143, which had been paid, as it was. believed at the time, for instruments ordered by the defendant from Elliott Brothers, of London. At all events it had been ascertained that no such goods as those mentioned in the invoice had been obtained from Crawshaw, but that the money had been received by him and credited, at Mr Millar's request, to his own private account. To sustain the charge preferred against the defendant it would be necessary to prove that there had been a false pretence as to existing facts ; than he was cognisant of the false pretence ; that the money had been received on the strength of that pretence j and that it had been obtained with intent to defraud. After Mr Millar had left the service there wa3 considerable correspondence regarding tbe Government property in his possession, and up to as late as the Bth of February he denied having any. When the state of affairs was discovered by the Government, they reported the case to the Provincial Auditor, who proceeded to Dunedin to make inquiries, and there examined Crawahaw. This was on the 17th of February, and in the meantime, on the 14th, Mr . Millar, in a somewhat irregular way went to Mr Gully after office hours and requested him to take delivery of certain instruments on behalf of the Government. Mr Gully, not knowing any of the circumstances, took charge of, and gave a receipt for, them, and on the face of this receipts for some of the instruments were represented as having been obtained from Elliott Bros, and others from Crawshaw. This was reported by Mr Gully next day, and the receipt of the goods was at once repudiated by the Government. This it might be, would be the defence, but he would remark that if it were attempted to be alleged that there had been no attempt to defraud because the goods had been handed to Mr Gully, and the Government had got value for them, that wa3 not a matter for the consideration of the Bench, as it all depended upon what was the defendant's intention when he obtained the money and handed it to Crawshaw. His whole correspondence, acts, and words, subsequently, were quite inconsistent with the supposition that the money was obtained except with a view to defraud, and he (Mr Pitt) felt quite sure that he should be able to make out a piima facie case.