THE TRIAL OF ERNEST C. WILKINSON.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume II, Issue 112, 11 May 1881, Page 3

THE TRIAL OF ERNEST C. WILKINSON.

[Abridged from the Taranaki Herald.] At the Supreme Court New Plymouth, on Saturday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond, Ernest C. Wilkinson was arraigned upon an indictment for that he did feloniously embezzle certain sums of money, viz., £20 16s. and £48 19s. Id. of the Deferred Payment Fund of the West Coast Land District. The prisoner pleaded " Not guilty." Mr. Hughes appeared for the Crown, and Mr. Samuel for the defence.

Mr. Hughes, in opening the case, stated that the present one was one of a series of charges brought against the prisoner, the total amount alleged to have been embezzled being nearly £500.

W. G. Holdsworth, clerk in the Re-ceiver-General's Department, gave similar evidence to that at the preliminary trial at Hawera. < Cross-examined — There was another Receiver in the West Coast Land District at the time the prisoner was at Hawera. There were several books used by the prisoner. I have not found any original receipt having been issued which has not the duplicate and block filled up by the prisoner. These blocks would be inspected by the Government Auditor. I am riot aware officially whether Mr. Churton audited prisoner's accounts in January last. I examined the Court's Trust Moneys Accounts kept by the prisoner ; there appears to be a deficiency in it. I have not examined the , accounts of the Receiver of Land Revenue at Carlyle. The prisoner evidently neglected his instructions to pay the money into the bank day by day as he received it. He received money on several days without banking it.

J. Turner, Ngaire, and W. Stewart, Normanby, repeated the evidence given at the R.M. Court. .C. A. W*&y> Commissioner of Crown Lands for. the West Coast Land District,* also gave similar evidence, but at the suggestion of the judge, Mr. Hughes agreed not to go into some d tails which were not considered evidence.

Cross-examined — The auditor came to Carlyle to audit the accounts, and it was found that there was a deficiency in the deposit account of about £'60. The prisoner was sent for, and after going through the accounts with Major Baddeley and the auditor — Mr. Churton — the mistake could not be cleared up. The Erisoner then agreed to make up the deciency. It was afterwards discovered that Major Baddeley had made a mistake, and had charged one amount twice over. I countersigned the prisoner's cheques, which he received .in payment of his salary. The cheque amounted to between £9 and £10 per month when he was only Clerk of the Court. When prisoner was afterwards appointed Receiver of Land Revenue his salary was not increased. His cheques were usually claimed by other persons, under an order from -prisoner," and~were" not paid to himself. The prisoner was not an efficient Clerk of the Court, but he did fairly well. He wrote a good hand, and he had a certain amount of ability.

Major Baddeley deposed — I was appointed in October, 1880, Receiver of Land Revenue at Carlyle. The prisoner was appointed Receiver at Hawera, and it was his duty to send the money received on the deposit account through the Bank ot New Zealand to me: : I did not receive a copy of his cash book; but only a list made out on a loose sheet of paper. There was a mistake made in connection with a payment by Mr. Bayly. The prisoner made a mistake hi accounting for a payment made by Mr. Bayly as a cash sale, which should have been as on deferred payment. His Honor — There appears to be some muddle about these accounts. You have not mentioned this amount in your .list of deferred payments, Mr. Holdsworth ? Mr. Holdsworth — No, your Honor. Probably, it is among the cash. sales ■ receipts. I think it is included in a large sum paid by Mr. W. Bayly on the same day.

Cross-examined — I have not from time to time made mistakes in my accounts. I have not to keep any intricate books of acoounts, only receipt books, &c. I have never examined the prisoner's books. I do not recollect the prisoner saying that he should be supplied with a safe. W. G. White— l am manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Hawera. I know the prisoner. He acted as Receiver of Land Revenue at Hawera. He paid money into the Public Account. The pass-book produced is the one used by the prisoner when making payments into the bank. I have examined the items in the pass-book, and the amount to 11s. The pass-book shows all the monies paid into the Public Account by the prisoner. I remember the prisoner having a dishonored bill. It became due about twelve months ago, and is still unpaid. Sergeant Cahill's evidence did not materially differ from that given at the R.M. Court.

: Henry Cook, proprietor of the Empire Hotel, Hawera, stated that he knew the prisoner. He found a receipt-book for Government moneys in his house. He gave, the book to Mr. Baggott. Ho found it in the .bar.

His Honor — I hope the public creditors at Home will not learn -where we keep our revenue vouchers.

Mr. Samuel — Or the persons chosen to receive the revenue.

This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. Samuel said he did not purpose calling any witnesses fos the defence. The Court adjourned until 7.15 p.m., and on resuming Mr. Hughes and Mr. Samuel addressed the jury. The prisoner also addressed the Court, to the effect that he was incompetent to keep the accounts of his office. He never had any experience in accounts, and was never in an office before he came to New Zealand.

His Honor, in summing up, spoke very strongly upon the prevailing practice of '. juries allowing their feelings to be worked upon by appeals from prisoners' counsel. These appeals were often made for the purpose — to use a vulgar phrase — of drawing a red herring across the scent. He hoped in this case the jury would not allow their feelings to infiuenca them in recording their verdict. They must put their feelings on one side,' and use only their reason in endeavoring to arrive at a verdict. He did not mean to say that the prisoner should not be pitied for the unfortunate position in, which he had placed himself. The prisoner was evidently a person of good education, and not lacking in ability ; and it was a matter of deep regret that such a person should be placed in the dock. Yet with these feelings of pity the jury had nothing to do in considering their verdict. They must weigh the evidence' which had been given, and judge whether it was sufficient to convict the prisoner of the offence for which he stood charged, and bring in a verdict in accordance with their oaths.

The jury retired at 9 p.m., and at midnight his Honor summoned them into Court.

The Foreman of the Jury said they could not agree. His Honor said he respected the consciences of the jurymen, although they might hold opposite views to his own. He did not consider any good would result by locking them up any longer, as they were not nicely to be coerced into giving a verdict by privations. He would dismiss them.

Mr. Hughes applied for a re-hearing of the case.

Has Honor thought it was scarcely necessary to do so, as there were other charges of a similar kind to be heard against the prisoner. The Court then rose.