magistrate's Court, Queenstown.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 1578, 25 February 1887, Page 5

magistrate's Court, Queenstown.

Friday, 19th February, 1887.

(Before J. S. Hickson, E«q. f R.M.)

Rtgina v. Philiv Burbidge BoulL—An information wherein accused was charged that he did, on or •bout the 15th February, 1884— aa clerk and collector to Lake County Council—receive and take into his possession on account of the said Coancil the sum of £6l 10s, and fraudulently and feloniously embezzled the same. Mr W. Turton, Crown prosecutor, opened the case by stating some particulars and referring to the evidence which would be forthcoming in support of the charge. Inspector J. Hickson, of Clyde, was present ana watched the case. Accused iraa undefended. Below is the evidence taken.

J. Black, engineer, clerk and collector to Lake County Council, etc., produced the minute book of the Finance and Public Works Committee. On 13th February, ISS4, the tender was accepted for No. 2 Cardrona roal of Romans and Brodie for £1194 7a sd. I produce four voucher* and front sheet attached in connection with the contract. The contract price is put down £1194 lis sd. There appears a discrepancy by the Finance Committee and the vouchers of 4s. I produce the book in which are entered accounts presented and passed for payment; also county cash book, in which, at page 144, is an entry, "Roads Construction Act, Ko. 2 Cardrona, final—Romans and Brodie, £74 5s 6d." No credit is given in cash book in February, 1884, for the sum of £6l 10s, deposit on contract No. 2 Cardrona road. John M'Fadzean, accountant. Bank N.Z.. Arrowtown, produced cheque of Romans and Heller for £6l 10s, dated 13th February, 1884, payable to "tender er hearer." and endorsed " Philip B. Boult, county clerk, 15/2/84." The cheque appears to have been cashed in five £lO notes, one £5, six £1 and half a sovereign. It is so noted on back of cheque in the handwriting, I believe, of the late Mr Barlow, who was then agent for the Bank N.Z. at Arrow. Ido not know who cashed the cheque, which was debited to Messrs Romans and Hellar'a account on February 15, 18S4. The cheque is narked across "Correct for 14 days from date. John Barlow, agent" I was in the bank at the same time with the late Mr Barlow, and am well acquainted with hit writing. Cannot say whether the signature " Philip B. Boult" is in accused's handwriting, but it is like it, and if that cheque were presented at the bank I should be satisfied with the signature on it of accused. J. Bevin, ledger-keeper, Bank N.Z., Queenstown, produced Lake Cornty cheque for £74 5s 6d, dated Ist .September, 18S4, payable to " Romans and Brodie, final or bearer," drawn by F. H. Daniel, j treasurer, and countersigned by Chas. C. Boyes and F. H. Daniel. It is also signed across "P. B. : Boult," in ai.-cused's hamiwriting. The cheque went I to the credit of Mr Fred. H. Daniel. I also produce another county cheque for £l9 4s, dated Ist Septemlier, 1884, payable to P. Hendersou. The cheque is signed similar to the last one. That cheque also went to the credit of Mr F. H. Daniel's private account. Both cheques were paid at one time and appear on one credit slip, and amounted to £93 9s fid. (The Bench, in reply to a question, said that witness should produ:*e the pay-in slip—this being a criminal case.) The pay-m slip was produced, signed "Fred. H. Daniel ' in Mr Daniel's handwriting, the same as mentioned on the two county cheques for £74 5s 6.1 anil £l9 4s. The endorsement on cheque produced, "Philip B. Boult, county clerk. 15,2,84," is in accused's handwriting. The cheques for £74 5s 61 and £l9 4s were debited to the county on the 3rd September, ISS4 —Mr Daniel's paid-in >l.p being 2nd September, IBS 4. I cannot >ay whither the words " Lodged to the ore-lit of F. 11. Daniel" are in a different handwriting. F. H. Daniel, settler, Glenorchy, deposed—l remember contract No. 2 Cardruna being let to Romans and Brodie. 13th February, ISB4. Cannot rememlier amount «>f deposit. The deposit wasseut in to me by cheque in the u«ual way. The cheque for £6l 10s produced would be about the amouut required for deposit. The tenders and cheques would come to me as chairman and treasurer at that time during the year till November, ISS4. The tenders would come to me through the accused as clerk. Ido not see the amount entered in the county cash l>ook produced. The clerk received the cheque for deposit money, ami was responsible for it. I never received the cheque or handled it. except it might be whew Lid on the table at Council meeting. Ido not know the amount of extras. I see on fourth voucher that the extras are stated at £74 5s 6d, and are certified by my signature alone, as chairman, as correct. The contract, No. 2, Cardrona, was under the supervision and inspection of Mr Thomas Powell, who ought to certify to the correctness of vouchers, or by his brother. The amount of contract is £1194 7s sd, and the first three payments exhaust the contract. The amount of extras, according to voucher, were £74 5s 6d. I was in this situation. I had to sign in a hurry, on account of Mr Livingston, the auditor, coming, and a large number of vouchers were sometime- put before me to sign by the clerk. When I signed the fourth voucher I thought it was all right. At exhibit D in the book is an entry, " Romans and Brodie's extras, Cardrona No. 2, £74 os 6d." The book has double columns for payments. The outer column is market! "accounts passed." I cannot explain why there has been an erasure at £74 5s 6d, where the figures 5,6 appears to have been written in after the entry was first made. Under the figure "4" is a down stroke badly erased, and showing a previous entry. The figures in outer column, "£«4 5s 6d." are not in my handwriting. The next entry in the first column is " Peter Henderson, £24," and in the second column is written " Not passed " and underneath "£l9 4s" in accused's handwriting—it is not mine. The £74 5s 6d is in accused's handwriting. I signed this page "F. H. Daniel "as correct. The irregularities of the clerk had been brought before us by Mr Livingston—they were simply irregularities—but at this time, however, there were no complaints. (Looking at the county auditor's report for halfyear ending .September, 1882.) That is not the report I read to councillors at Kichardt's Hotel. I will not swear that it is not the one. I remember Mi Campbell, who was a councillor at the time, coming up from the Wanaka with Mr Livingston. I read one report to the councillors in Eichardt's bar parlor, but will not say which one. The report was one only given to me by the clerk after a Council meeting. Locking at voucher No. 4. I see there are no entries of particulars of extras on No. 2 contract. Cardrona. I received the county cheque for £74 5s 6d, as well as for £l9 4s (Romans and Brodie), and paid them in to my account I should say they were paid in to my account—Mr Boult may have paid them in to my private account on 2nd authority I paid the cheques in to my private account, except that the cl-rk may have requested me to pay them, as I might be going on to the Arrow. 1 cannot say how 1 came to paj the cheques to my account. Ido not remember Brodie and Hendersou turning np suddenly at the Council Chamliera. Ido not r< member Brodie shaking to me on that day at the Council Chambers al>out an over-payment of £3OO or IViOO. Ido not rememl>er Henderson coming over with Lowe about demanding their money alxut some fence. I recocnise those botts and cheque l>o» k produced. Cheque No. £l3l, dated September, ISB4, reads thus" Romans and Brodie, £74 15s 6d (in pencil), No. 2 Macetown maintenance, etc." That does not bring to my mind that both Brodie and Henderson were at the Council Chaml>ers that day. I cannot say whether Romans und Brodie and P. Henderson had to be paid in cash. I cannot explain thy the two cheques were paid in to my accouut, except that the clerk might have wanted cash to pay the meu. 1 can't recollect; the thing has come so suddenly upon me, and it is so many years back. (Witness here asked that, should anything fresh occur to his mind during the day about Brodie and Henderson, whether he could come into Court again to explain it The Bench, in reply, thought it was hardly necessary, aa witness might do so at Dunedin if the case was beard there.)

6. H. Romans, contractor, Arrow town, deposed— I was one of the contractors for contract, Cardrona, No. 2, amounting to £ll9* 111 3d. The oootract

money was naid to the firm by the first three vouchers produced. The voucher No. 206 was for refund of deposit, £6l 10s, and the balance, £l2 15s 6d, would be for the extras. I never heard of £74 5« 6d being extras on that contract. The cheque £6l 10s was deposited with the tender for contract No. 2, Cardrona, deposited by myself in the box at the Council Chambers kept for the receipt of tenders; and signed by me in my partnership name of Romans and Hellar, as butcher and baker. Robert Brodie (since dead) and myself were the contractors, although two others were interested. I have no recollection that Brodie authorised anyone to take our county cheque for £74 5s 6d. Brodie received the money and brought it to Arrowtown in cash. I never received the deposit of £6l 10s back in any other shape than as included in the cheque for £74 5s 6d. 1 can swear positively the extras on the contract would not exceed £ls. Ajtkrkoos Sittings. Mr F. H. Daniel said that he wished to explain how he came to receive the county cheques for payment on Romans and Brodie's contract. Mr Turton said that he might re-call Mr Daniel later on, bnt would go on at present with the rest of the witnesses. T. Powell deposed—As Government inspector I had under my control No. 2 contract, Cardrona. The extras on it would not be more than £l3. I gave particulars of extras to Mr Brodie. The first two vouchers produced are properly certified to by me as correct. The third one for £437 2s 2d is not signed by me but by my brother, W. J. Powell. I know nothing about the fourth voucher for £74 5s 6d, nor was I ever asked to sign for it. Where extras are asked for or allowed details ought to be given. The deposit on contract would be about £6l. I suppose the voucher for £74 5s 6d would represent the amount of deposit refunded and extras. I would not have signed the voucher produced in its present form as far as extras are concerned. W. J. Powell, inspector to Lake County Council up to March last year, deposed —I inspected contract No. 2, Cardrona road. Re voucher for £74 5s 6d produced I know nothing of it. The extras on the contract would be only small, and would lie furnished by Mr T. Powell in detail as to quantities and prices. If the voucher had been presented to me in that shape I would not have signed it. H. Livingston, Dunedin. provincial district auditor, deposed—l have audited the books of Lake County Council from the beginning of its existence till now. The assistant controller and auditor was recently conducting a special audit of the accounts of Lake County and I was assisting. Amongst other matters I came to payments on contract No. 2, Cardrona road, but could not find in the county books anywhere the £6l 10s deposit paid on contract, which has never been brought to account in the books of the county; but the cheque has apparently been cashed. Looking at voucher 206, it was found that it consisted of £6l 10s dej>osit and £l2 15s 6d of extras. The deposit has never been brought to account, but a sum equal to it has been paid out as extras. There is a clear deficiency of £6l 10s on that transaction. I searched for contract papers and the rest of papers, but could find nothing except the four vouchers produced. There is a very large number of vouchers missing. Looking at report dated November, 1882, I can swear that report was brought under the notice of the chairman by myself. I called his attention to serious irregularities, even worse than irregularities—moneys misappropriated. I have several times, for years rist, called attention to irregularities since ISSO, think, up to ISB6. There were olu transactions going beyond the term of the late chairman. I did all I could to induce the Council to get matters attended to, and had a persistent struggle with them. I was not satisfied with the voucher produced, as I wanted the inspector's signature to it. and I entered such on it. Before passing it I saw it was passed or authorised by the Council and wis paid. It is no part of my duty to restrict or instruct the Council as to the amount of extras they should pay. Hail the voucher l>een presented to me in the shape of a refund of deposits and extras 1 would not have passed it, because I knew that no such deposit had l>een paid in. I cannot tell whether the Council have deposits on all contracts.

J. Bevin (recalled) produced two cheques of F. H. Daniel—one dated Septemlter 1, 18S4, for £74 5s 6d payable to " Romans and Brodie, L.C.C., final or bearer; " and the other dated September 2, 18S4, for £l9 4s, payable to " P. Henderson, C.C. account or taarer." The cheques were debited on September 2, 18S4—the same day that Mr Daniel paid in county cheques for a like amount to the credit of his private accouut. The two county cheques now produced and signed by Mr Daniel were cashed over the counter, but to whom I cannot say. The body of cheque for £74 5s 6d is in the handwriting of accused—that in the body of cheque for £l9 4s in the handwritiug of Mr Daniel.

F. H. Daniel (recalled) deposed—l signed the cheques for £74 5s and £l9 4s, and gave them to Brodie who came over to Queenstown for payment of their money, on September 1, ISB4, or the day after. At the time the county cheques were not signed and I gave the money as the contractors wanted the money. Mr Boyes came into town on the 3rd September. I wish to correct myself—l gave both cheques to the accused (not to Brodie) at the Council Chambers. The cheques were given to accommodate Brodie and Henderson for the amount due on their contract. It was not then that I signed the voucher 206 for £74 5s fid, but probably at the time the auditor came up. I signed the voucher after it was paid. The Council I suppose passed the voucher on September I, although it might not have been brought before it at all. The last voucher never came before the Council. This concluded the evidence. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court Dunedin, on 4th April. Two other charges of embezzlement against the same prisoner were held over, at the request of Mr Turton, till the 21st instant. Monday, 21th Ff.brcary, 18S7. (Before J. S. Hickson, Esq., Warden.) Regina r. Philip Burbidge Boult.—Accused was brought up on remand, charged with having in on about Augurt, 1883—in the capacity of clerk and collector to Lake County Council—received and taken into his possession on account of the said Council the sum of £75 4s, and fraudulently and feloniously eml»ezzled the same. Mr W. Turton, Crown prosecutor, opened the case by giving some particulars. Inspector Hickson was also present. Accused was undefended.

John Black, Lake County engineer, clerk and collector, deposed—l produce the Lake County Council minute book containing reports, in handwriting of accused, of proceedings of the Finance and Public Works Committee. At page 61 I notice that for the Skippers road contract, No. 3, the successful tenderers were Courtenay and Co. for £1503 7s lOd. I understand the work was kno«n as Knright'a contract. The minutes under date August 6 1883, in the handwriting of accused, show that there was a deposit of £75 4s. I also produce the form of contract, bond, acceptance of tender and general conditions of that contract. The body of the tender is filled in by accused and signed by him as clerk to the Council. On the lack of the tender is a memorandum, but in whose handwriting I cannot say. I find the following words, "Cheque, £75 4s. Healey, returned to me, 5/9/83. J. Gibson." I also produce six vouchers in connection with the same contract. The last voucher for £lO3 13s 6d for extras is in the handwriting of accn«ed, and certified to by F. H. Daniel and \\. J. Powell, inspector, hut there is no signature of Thomas Powell; it is numbered 99,108. I produce book of accounts passed by the Council. At page 67 appears an entry, "Gibson, Enright and Co.. Skippers," and underneath "No. 3, Skippers," is £75 and £2B 13s 6*l, and carried out £lO3 6s. The minutes referring to the voucher are in the handwriting of accused, and signed by F. H. Daniel, chairman. At page 115 of cash book of County Council, credit is given for rates on Aognst 17, 1883, as having been pud by J. Butement, J. Kay, W. 8. Trotter, H. S. Thomson, A. H. Douglas, A.

Norman, R. Johnson, W. Gordon, G. Archer, J. Gardner, R. Thomas and others, making a total of £165 19s. On the opposite side of the same page I see a credit paid into the bank of a similar amount, namely, £165 19s. On reference to the bank pass book at page 60, under date August 17,1 find a credit- entry, "To cheques, etc., £165 195," and a reference back from the pass book to cash book, "p. 115," and on same line as entry is written, in pencil, the word "rates" after "cheques, etc," but cannot say in whose handwriting. At page 135 of bank book, 4th June, 1884,1 find following entry " Road—Rds C. Act, Skippers—No. 3, Enright and Co., £7s,"and lower down on the same page, under date June 10, 1884, " By Roads Construction ActRoad, No. 3, Skippers, final, Enright, £2B 13s 6d." The entries in cash book referred to are in the handwriting of accused. J. Bevin, ledger-keeper, Bank N.Z., Queenstown, produced pay-iu slip for £165 19s, dated 16th August, 1883, credited to county fund 17th August, 1833, and signed "P. Boult, C.C." The particulars on the back of pay-in slip are in accused's handwriting. The payment is the same as appears in county pass book, page 60, namely, £165 19s, under date August 17, 1883. The payment is made up of silver, 10s cash, and on the endorsement is "rates enumerated, £75 4s, deposit and Welsh, £70," and other cheques, making £165 19s. I produce County Council cheque for £75, dated 4th June, 1884, payable to "Gibson and Co. or bearer," and debited to county fund account on 6th June, 1884. The body of the cheque is in the handwriting of accused, and the cheque is endorsed " Daniel Enright." I produce another cheque for £2B 13s 6d, dated June 23, 1884, payable to "Enright, Gibson and Co., No. 3 Skippers, or bearer," debited by the bank 27th June, 1884, and endorsed "Daniel Enright." Both cheques were drawn and signed "F. H. Daniel, treasurer," countersigned by "Chas. C. Boyes and F. H. Daniel." Also in the margin is " Philip B. Boult, C.C." The body of the cheque is in the handwriting of accused. Both cheques are remittances cashed from the Arrow branch of the bank. The £75 4s mentioned on the back of the pay-in slip is represented by the cheque now shown, dated 4th August, 1883, signed Jas. F. Healey, for £75 4s, and payable to Lake County Council, "deposit, No. 3 Skippers or bearer." John M'Fadzean, accountant, Bank N.Z., Arrowtown, produced cheque for £75 4s just shown by previous witness, and drawn by J. F. Healey on th* Arrow branch of Bank N.Z., and coming to that bank as a remittance from the Queenstown branch. I cannot say to whose credit it was paid, but it was duly paid on the 20th August, 1883, and debited to J. F. Healey.

James Gibson, contractor, Arrowtown, deposed— I was a partner with Daniel Enright and others in a contract known as No. 3 Skippers, better known as Enright's contract. The document produced, written by Healey, is a tender for the contract, signed by myself and partners, Courtenay and Carrick. The other partner was Daniel Enright, but he did not sign the tender, which was for £1503 7s lOd, and the deposit money £75 4s. Money matters were left to Mr Enright, w ho drew progress payments, the deposit money and for extras. Ido not know anything of the words written in pencil on the back of the tender, "cheque, £75 4s. Healey —returned to me, 5/9/83, J. Gibson." The signature is not mine and I know nothing about it. I do not know anything of the cheque for £75 4s by J. F. Healey, as such matters were left to Enright, who got back the deposit for contract from County Council from the party. Daniel linrigh - , contractor, Maori Point, Shotover river, deposed—l remember the contract, No. 3, Skippers road, known as Enright and Co.'s. I was a partner in the contract with E. Courtenay, J. Gibson and W. Carrick—the contract price being £1"«03 7s lOd—and the deposit money £75 4s. I did not sign as a contracting party, but signed the bond as surety for the others, and I managed all the money matters. The money was mine. By an arrangement with Mr Healey he paid our deposit of £75 4s, and he got all the money back from me for the party. I received cheques produced for £75 and £2B 13s 6d from the Lake County Council. The endorsement on the back of cheques is in my handwriting. The £75 was for refund of deposit money, it is 4s short, but I took it in settlement. The cheque for £'2B 13s 6d was for extras on the contract—there were no other extras on that contract. I know of no other extras on that contract amounting to £75 4. I never received a refund of deposit in any other way than by that cheque for £75. Know nothing of extras mentioned in voucher produced for £75. I first got the £75 cheque about June 6, 1884, and cashed it, and afterwards got the cheque £2B 15s Gd. Accused gave me both cheques—the £75 in the presence of Mr F. H. Daniel, chairman. I think the chairman was present in every case—except the £'2B 13s 6d, which he said at Shotover bridge was waiting for me at the Council Chambers for extras. I had permission from our party to sign for them. The signature to voucher for £75 is mine. The amount inserted as for "extras" is wrong, as it was really the deposit money. Afternoon Sitlixgs. Thos. Powell, Government inspector of roads in 1883, deposed—l was inspector under the R. and B.C. Act, 18S2. I remember No. 3 contract, Skippers road—known as Enright's contract, which was carried out under my supervision. It was my flace to give vouchers aud certificates for the work. recognize the first four vouchers which are signet Ibyme as correct. The fifth voucher (No. 6) for £B2 6s lOd I know nothing about. It is not signed by me. It appears to be intended as the final payment on the contract. I think I gave a certificate for it. The last voucher for £75 I knew nothing of until shown to me by Mr Batkin at the beginning of this month. The extras came to £2B 13s 6d for retaining wall and culverts. The figures in the vouchers for them are, I think, copied from mine. There was no such thing as £75 for extras on the contract. I never signed a voucher or gave a certificate for £lO3 I3s 6d.

W. J. Powell, contractor. Queenstown, deposed— I was inspector for Lake County Council from its constitution till the 31st March, 1886. I knew contract No. 3, Skippers road, called Enright's contract. Looking at fifth voucher, No. 6, for £B2 68 lOd, it is not signed by either myself or my brother Themis Powell. The voucher for £lO3 13s 6d, No. 99,108. appears to be all for extras. The extras would only come to about £2B 13s 6d or thereal>out3. The voucher was certified for by me after F. H. Daniel and my signature partly overlaps his. The only explanation I can give for signing it is that the voucher was put before me with others, as the auditor might be coming to audit the accounts. If the voucher had been put before me with the word "deposit" before the £75, I would have signed it at once. I signed after payment was made I am sure. Had my signature been to the voucher first it would not have required Mr Daniels' signature. F. H. Daniel, settler, Glenorchy, deposed—l was chairman to Lake County Council from November, 18S0, till November, ISB4, and treasurer from 1881 to 1887. I remember Enright's contract —the deposit was £75 4s. I cannot tell exactly the amount of extras. (Looking over vouchers.) The extras were £75, and retaining wall and culverts £2B 13s 6d. I am speaking from vouchers before me, as I know nothing of my own knowledge. I signed the vouchers as correct, and that is my signature. (After a pause.) I cannot swear it is my writing. It is very much like my signature. I really cannot positively swear to the signature as being my writing—it is not my usual signature. I cannot say what the extras on No. 3 Skippers amounted to. If that is my signature the amount was passed by the Council before my signature was attached. Mr Powell's signature is written first. (Looking again.) I think \V. J. Powell's signature was signed over and after mine. I don't know that I signed the minute book (produced) of committee meeting. Looking at page 68, "F. H. Daniel, chairman," is in my handwriting, as showing the accounts to be correct. Comparing that signature with the one on the voucher it looks like mine. I will not swear it is not mine. On page 67 an eutry reads "Gibson, Enright and Co., No. 3 Skipper*, £75," and (underneath) " £2B 13s 6d"—in all £lO3 13s 6d. I cannot swear there ever were £75 of extras on the contract. I cannot swear it is not really the deposit money. I don't know. Accused used to receive the deposit moneys on contracts, and hit duty was to place the money in the bank.

As treasurer I signed the yeaily aud half-yearly balance sheets as being correct. I did nothing to check these deposits, but left those matters to the auditor. I did not think it was part of my duty. I cannot give any idea as to whether the £lO3 13s 6d is correct or not. I see, on examination, that the first five vouchers for the contract on exhibit 4 exhaust the contract. I cannot tell what the sixth voucher is for. I only attached my signature to the voucher after the Council had passed the mone>. John Butement, farmer, Hayes Lake, deposed that his rates for the year 1882-3 were £7O 16s 3d, namely, Greenstone riding, £22 15s; Shotover, £3B 7s 6d ; and Arrow riding, £9 19s 6d. He gave his cheque to accused on the sth March, 1882, tor £49 16s sd, and balance was made up of voucher produced for £2l, travelling expenses as county councillor. The cheque had been debited to him in his account. He paid 3d more than he had been credited with. A. H. Douglas, farmer, Hayes Lake, deposed that he did not know what his rates for 1881-2 were, but he paid to accused £l3 13s, which amount was paid into the bank on the Ist April, 1882. He saw by county cash book he was credited with rates, £l2 2s, for 1881-2. H. Livingston, Dunedin, provincial district auditor, deposed to having assisted the assistant controller and auditor recently in making a special audit of Lake County accounts. In going over the

county cash book, at page 115, under date 17th August, 1883, he found a number of items entered for rates, commencing with J. Butement and ending with R. Johnson, and amounting to £165 19s. When auditing the county books about November, 1883, the money was accounted for by accused as paid into the bank as at page 60. The cash book refers to page 60 and pass book refers back to pace 115 of cash book for the same amount—thus earmarking the two sums. On turning up the pay-in slip of August 17, 1883, it represented a payment of 10s cash, cheques, etc., £7O, and deposit on No. 3, Skippers, £75 4s. Taking the deposit into account, there is a deficiency of £75 in the half-year's account. At this stage a remand was granted till Wednesday, 23rd instant, on which date the evidence was taken of W. S. D. Trotter, sheep farmer, near Wyndham, Southland, who deposed that he paid the rates owing by his father, W. S. Trotter, for the year 1882-3, and amounting, he believed, to £SO 13s. On July 16, 18S3, he paid accused £39 4s by cheque (less Is exchange) on the Colonial Bank, Invercargill, and on August 13, 1883, another cheque for £ll 10s on the same bank. He had not had time to make a proper search for the cheques, so as to produce them. He was personally liable to the county, as a ratepayer, for £2 10s for the same year, and that sum might be included in the £SO 13s paid to accused. * F. H. Daniel, late county chairman, re-called, deposed that the whole of the Counties Act, 1876, had been in force in Lake County from the beginning, and the Bank of New Zealand, Queenstown, had been the county bank. During his term of office as county treasurer he had nothing to do with the receipt of county moneys, which were received by accused, whose duty it was to pay them into the credit of the county fund account. He could not say if Council had, in compliance with section 117, of the Counties Act, limited the time within which accused should pay county moneys into the bank, but he used to pay such payments into the bank immediately. Witness left the monetary matters of the Council to accused, who kept the accounts and made up the County balance-sheets. Under section 104 of the Counties Act, 1876, and section 65 of the Counties Act Amendment Act, 1882, the accused would have to pay into the bank to the county fund account all moneys amounting to £7 and upwards withiu seven days alter receiving same. This concluded the evidence. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial at the Supreme Court sittings on 4th April next at Dunedin. [The remainder of cases are held over.]