THE CHARGES AGAINST W. W. TAYLOR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7484, 25 February 1885, Page 3 (Supplement)

THE CHARGES AGAINST W. W. TAYLOR.

At the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Jan. 23, William Waring Taylor was indicted under the Larceny Act on a charge of having converted to his own use with intent to defraud, a sum of .£BOO which had been entrusted to him by James May for investment on first-class security, on Sept. 10, 1881. Mr Jellicoe briefly opened the case, and said Mr May, since deceased, wrote to prisoner from England empowering him to draw the dividend from certain Bank of New Zealand shares, and invest it in firstclass security, but instead of doing so he paid the money away in satisfaction of debt to Mr Lloyd, of Birmingham. Mr E. W. Kane, agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Eaiapoi, said in September, 1881, he was employed at the Wellington branch of the Bank. At that time prisoner drew .£7OO on account of September dividend for investment on acco*nt of May. W. H.

Levin, merchant, of Wellington, stated that in 1881 he»was acting for 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 Sept. 10 of the year named, after Bank hours, prisoner paid witness iJIOOO in reduction of that debt. The sum was made up of a cheque for .£3OO and .£7OO in notes. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Shaw, for the defence, asked his Honor to rule that the case was not within the statute upon evidence as to the direction in charging prisoner how to apply the money. Mr May was never in possession of this money, and, therefore, how could he be said to have entrusted it to prisoner ? Where a man received money from %, third person for investment, and misappropriatad it, he could not be proceeded agair.st under the present section of the Larceny Act, whatever, might be the case with regard to any other section. His Honor ruled that, the case must go to the jury. Mr Shaw asked his Honor to direct the jury that, pursuant to the direction of Mr May to prisoner to invest money in first-class security, it was open to prisoner to invest it in his own name and 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/' and accused was remanded till the July sessions for sentence.