TRIAL OF WARING TAYLOR.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7067, 20 January 1885, Page 4

TRIAL OF WARING TAYLOR.

[by telegraph.] Wellington, Monday. In the Supreme Court to-day the trial of William Waring Taylor was continued. For the defence two witnesses were called. One was Mr Cooper, DeputyRegißtrar of the Supreme Court, who produced the Judge's notes taken at the examination of the prisoner at the Bankruptcy Court. The other witness was T. Dalrymple, Bon-in-law of the prisoner, who deposed that, at ; the interview referred to by the witness Jonas Arundel the prisoner said his estate would pay 20s in the £1. Witness was a creditor for over £ .3000. At one interview with the prißoner the latter told witness that he had used some bank shares in May's estate to satisfy a claim on the part of Rhodes' estate. Witness did not now believe the prisoner's assertion that he was worth 20s in the £1, but did believe it at the time it waß made. Witness never had reason to doubt the prisoner's word. This closed the defence. Mr B. Shaw, leading counsel for the defendant, Baid that before addressing the jury he had to call attention to what he considered a missing link in the evidence for the prosecution, which entitled him to ask hia Honor to direct the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. The first absence of evidence was that there was no proof of the proprietorship of the Bhares by the late James May — no proof that when May died he was possessed of these Bhares, and no proof that the prisoner was ever the proprietor of the shares. The books themBelveß were not evidence o± ownership. His Honor considered there was evidence of everything that was necessary to constitute May a shareholder and Taylor a transferee. Mr Shaw submitted there was no evidence of transfer from May to Taylor or from Taylor to any of the transferees. Neither was there evidence of improper disposal of any of these shares under the will according to the terms of the trust, but at the most only of the disposal of their proceeds. Then there was no proper evidence of the will. The execution of the will must be proved. The probate did not prove the expressed trust under the will. Mr Bhaw then proceeded to argue with reference to the question of misappropriation, pointing out that the prisoner had power to sell the shares, and what became of them after the sale was another matter. His Honor said he would ask the jury to nay whether the prisoner sold the shares for the purpose of raising the legacy duty as had been submitted, and if they answered in the negative, and were of opinion that the shares were Bold for the prisoner's own use, he (the Judge) would tell the -jury to convict. He added, however, that it was Mb intention to tell them not to convict in reforonco to the Scampton Bhares (300). Further argument en»ued, and his Honor eventually overruled tho objootiotiH, of several of which, however, ho took a note on being requested by Mr Bhaw to do so. The Court then adjourned until 1,0 o'clock tcmorrow morning, whon tho ca«o will probably finish.