MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1918, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, July 18th. ! . ' ! (Before I*. Hutchison, Esq., S.M.)

CATTLE TRESPASS. Police v. E. Mason, a charge of allowing one horse to wander on the railway lino at Arahura. Convicted and fined 5/- and costs 12/-. Police v. J. Tainui, a charge of allowing one maro to trespass on the rail way line at Arahura. Convicted and fine 10/-, and costs 12/- and witnesses 4/The police charged, two offenders with being on licensed promises, Pioneer hotel after hours. Fined 20s. The police charged three other offenders with a similar offence at the same place. One defendant stated that they had gone into a private room to select n football team for the following Saturday.—Excuse accepted, and charges dismissed

DEBT CASES. J. Parkhill (Mr Wells) v. F. Freitas claim £7 11s 9d.—Judgment for plaintiff for amount, with costs, j A. W. Yarrall v. Jas. Turner, claim 17s fid.—Judgment for plaintiff, with costs ss. A DISPUTED DEBT. J. D. Lynch (Mr Murdoch v. W. Jeffries (Mr Alpers), claim for £33 Cs. Sd. J. D. Lynch deposed he was plaintiff, trading as Mark Sprot and Co., Tlie book produced shows the commission accounts of the firm while in business in Hokitika 1913-14. Tho defendant was manager at Hokitika till that date. Produced letter book No

5, containing copy of a latter, writ'•ton by M,r Jeffries, while manager for plaintiff, to Hie directors of No 2 Westland Building .Societv, dated 2SU May 1912, signed bv Mr Jeffries as

manager. E. H. Robinson was a- former manager, predecessor of Mr Jeffries. Prior to Mr Robinson, Mr Eisfelder was manager and also secret-

ary of tho Society. From tho inI' caption of the Building Society witness’ firm was secretary of the society. it had boon nominally held by Mr Eisfelder, and Mr Robinson and prior to 1914 by Mr Jeffries, i During the time till 1913 plaintiff’s firm received the salary as secretary of the Building Society. From Ist January 1914, tho salary had not been paid into the firm’s account and that was what he was now suing for. Mr Jeffries was manager in Hokitika in full charge, his salary being in full discharge of all work done. The work of tho Building Society, during this time was done by the office staff, tho registered office being the office of .Mad Sprot- and Co. In June 1914, the sale of the Hokitika business was effected to Mr Jeffries. Tho salary of the Building Society was duo at tlio ond of July 11 months being owing when the sale took place. The Secretary’s salary includes office rent, gas etc. Made n demand on Mr Jeffries for payment of the salary on 7th August, 1917 Witness received a reply stating that all moneys earned as manager had been paid to witness’ account. This money had not been paid to witness Understood Mr Jeffries received £‘J710s. salary. Witness should have received eleven-twelfths’ of this amount. Actually the amount claimed was for £33 6s Sd.. due to a miscalculation. To Mr Alpcrs—The balance sheet of No 2 Society shows the salary- down at £3O. He admitted, after looking at the books, that the £3O was correct. When he sold tho business lie left hooks with Mr Jeffries. On 11th October, 1917, he wrote authorising Mr Jeffries to hand over the firm’s books to Mr. Borton, and he got most of the books. Mr. Horton did not get all the books, because be did not get the book that was handed in this morning, others were also missing, lri the commission hook on It’th March, 1914, there is credited £ls, being half year’s salary to 26th January 1914. This en try was news to him, but ho wished to mention that ho had not seen this book since he had sold out ir 1914. Ho admitted the entries showed one half year had been paid reducing the claim to eleven-tweftlis of £ls. Ho bad made no application for payment, till October 1917. He bad not done so till he was informed that the amount had not been paid. Witness was informed by Mr Horton that ‘Air Jeffries had received £3O odd from the Building Society, that should have gone to Mark Sprot and C’o’s account. Witness had the greatest confidence in Mr Jeffries while he was his manager. Mr Alpers proceeded to refer to an incident that had occurred in witness’ office iu Greymouth. Witness outlined his view of the occurrence. He denied thilt Mi;. Jeffries at that time asked for witness to show the books and lie would prove witness was in the wrong.

Witness continued to )>o examined as to the procedure of the sale of the Hokitika business.

Ilis Worship asked Mr. Alpers what was the reason of going into the business transactions.

Mr Alpers outlined tho attitude n took up and his Worship allowed the examination to continue.

Witness to Mr. Alpers continued— There were no other salaries payable in that commission book.

Mr. Alpers.—He asked witness if lie did not throw in further concessions at the time of the sale, for an increase in the cash payment.

Witness—Ho totally denied any alteration to what was in the deed. His Worship—After the written document- was signed by Mr. Jeffries make a payment of £IOOO cash instead of £SOO, in return for tho dropping of tho claim for salaries and other commisions.

-.Witness totally denied this. Cross-examination eon tinned.—Witness reiterated that no concessions were not included. If there were any other adjustments not made they artstill owing. Ho denied throwing in to the transactions any adjustments then owing, and that Miss Hallidny was present when such a statement, was made by him. All the terms of the business were put into writing. Witness took -Mr Jeffries statement of t'-'

business as correct when arranging sale of the business. During the three years after the sale it did not occur to witness to ask Mr J•

about, ilie Building Society. To .Mr Murdoch—Tho list of adjustments were supplied by Mr Jeffries at the time of the sale. He did not n.sk for a concession by Mr. Jeffries paying £IOOO instead of £SOO. Tie accepted tho figures supplied by Mr. Jeffries a t the time, absolutely. Ho de«l absolutely that the agreement- suggested by Mr. Alpers, had been made. To His Worship.—Mr Joffrb s ar>parently on the statements shown today owes witness on more accounts tbao. tho Building Society. Oswald R. E. Borton deposed he was clerk for several years in the employ ef Mark Sprot and Co., and subsequently for about, thro years in tho emnloy of Mr. Jeffries. Different- members of the staff did the work of Building Society, including witness. Rememhored salary cf Building Society being paid. Air. Jeffries signed it ns Secretary and then handed it to witness to credit in cash hook. Witness

| pointed out that over £3O of that eh< quo belonged to Mark, Sprot a ltd C: .Mr. Jeffries’ said to credit it to hi commission account, which witness die! Witness’ entry would! he, in Mr. .Tel fries’ cash hook. tv Tlie cash book was produced am witness looking through if failed t find the entry for the payment ho ha< referred to. At this stage the Court adjournei for lunch, the witness to make i search for his entry during the inter val. AFTERNOON SITTING. His Worship took his seat at *2.1,' p.m. O. Borton continued his evidence— He had been through the cash bool and could not find the entry. His Worship—Jt was a remark ahi thing that when witness was positive, that the ontry could not be found. Witness—Ho could not account for not finding it. He did not suggest the hooks had" been altered. His Worship—Finding no evidence in the cash hook and none ir the hank hook, what did witness ex pect him to think? Witness said he could only think that he had mixed the cheques up ir. No. 1 and 2 Societies. After looking through No 1 hankhook witness said he could not fiud any trace of the cheque. To' Mr. Alpers—He left Mr Jeffries employ in Juno 1917 and it was aftoi this that he took exception to the payment, which took place some time after June 1914. Hr Alpers—When did your conscience become active.'* Was it oi June 2nd 1917 after he was dismissed Witness said he was not dismissed, ho resigned on his own accord. Sbme personal questions between Counsel a.sd witness followed and the* Mr Murdoch replied by personal questions affecting the plaintiff. To Mr. Murdoch—He was never short in his cashff nor was he ever charged with a shortage. This closed the case for plaintiff. After hearing case for defendant, (particulars appearing to-morrow), judgment was given for plaintiff f or Cl 210 s and costs £3 3s.