WARING TAYLOR CONVICTED.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 5094, 24 January 1885, Page 2

WARING TAYLOR CONVICTED.

At the Supreme Court to-day, William Waring Taylor was indicted under the Larceny Act on a charge of having converted to his own use|i with intent to defraud, the sum of £700; which had been entrusted to him by James May for investment on first class security,on the 10th September, 1881. Jellicqe briefly opened the case, and said Mr May (since deceased) wrote to the prisoner from England, empowering him to draw a dividend from certain Bank of New Zealand shares and invest it in first class security; but, instead of doing so, ! he paid the money away in satisfaction of a debt to Mr Lloyd, of Birmingham. Mr R. W. Kane, agesnt tor the Bank of New Zealand at ! Kaiapoi, said in September, 1881, he was employed at. the Wellington branch of the 'bank At that time prisoner dreAV £700 on account of the September dividend, for inyestme.ht on account of „ May. W. H. '•Levin, merc^ifit,;, of, Wellington, said in 1881, he was • : f or Mr Lloyd, of Birmingham./ Prisoner had paid him sums of money from time to time' until he had liquidated his debt to Mr Lloyd. On 10th September of the yeair named, after bank liours, prisoner paid^ witness £1000 in reduction of that debt. The sum was made up of a cheque ,;for £300 and <£700 in notes. This closed the case for the jopsecution. Mr Shaw, for the defence, Honor to rule that the case was no^^iH^hin the statute upon evidence, as to ;dire"ctio^ih writing to prisoner how, to apply-the\mpney. Mr May was* never-: in possessionTof ithis <■ money, therefore how could lie be saidj^o,:. have entrusted it to prisoner, received money from: a thirdt^ierso'tt.-for investment and misappropriated'^t'^fe, could not be proceeded against uridl|)iheii^:esent section? of the Larceny Ac|i.^S4^erj.n)SgW bjE&jtjg, case with regarcf to S^^MEter sectonii jury. Shaw asked his Honor "to xßrfect the jury that pursuant to the direction of May to prisoner to invest the money in first class security, it was open to prisoner to invest it in his own business. His Honor said he should of course tell the jury that, first class securities were within prisoner's own discretion. No evidence was 'adduced for the defence. After a short absence the jury returned a verdict of guilty, accused was remanded until to-morrow for sentence, bail being refused.