THIS DAY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIX, Issue 250, 30 October 1884, Page 2

THIS DAY.

Embezzlement. Jliiilh Jones was charged wiih embezzling the sums of £1 Os 10d. £10 Ids Od, aad £1 Hs id the property of the Great Republic G.M. Company. Mr Fell appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. The indictment having beou read, the accused stated that he had not been able to obtain counsel yet. and asked thar- the case might be put down at the bottom of the list. Mr Fell in reply to His Honor, said that he did not like a prisoner to loss any chance, but in the present instance ho had had some months to prepare his defence. To himself it was a matter of indifference in what order the cases were heard, bub he had told the witnesses in the other cases thai, they would not bo required, lie might fairly sny that the prisoner could have gob counsel before now if he had realiy had intended to do so The prisoner snid that it was only within the last day or two that ho clearly knew what he was charged with. His Plonor could scarcely understand that, as it appeared on tho face of (ho depositions Ho was charged with appropriating a Jar<r^ amount comprise: 1 , of small sums from which the Crown had to select particular items. Looking to what be saw on the depositions it soenud to him impossible that the prisoner could be taken by surprise. K did not appear that there was any certainty of his obtaining counsel even if there was an adjournment, and with regard to counsel he might assure tho prisoner that he could trust the Court and the Crown Prosecutor to sve than an innocent mau was nob convie'ed. He should indeed IV. el it a great) misfortune, to sr.y the least, if by any means an innocent man was convicted. In all his experience he could not call to miud a single case in which a prisoner had been convicted through being undefended by counsel. Of course theie were many cases in which a guilty man by the advocacy of skilled counsel who by long- practice perhaps had aeuuira.l the urb of misleading ignorant men —a noble art, no doubt— had gob off; such, indeed, occurred ntalmosbevery sittings but he repeated that he knew not a single instance in which an iuuocent muu had been convicted for want of counsel. On the whole he thought he could not order an adjournment, and the prisoner might safely trust to the Court and the Crown Prosecutor nob to press a ease which, they did not coneider a sound one. The Prisoner: Thank your Honor. The caso then proceeded, the following jury being sworn: — C. J UartleLt (foreman)" J. Arcus, 11. Miller. J. Winter, 11. Flowers J. Batchelor. J. Chapman, F. Norgato, W. Strange, J. Grey. I'. Neale, and W. Vosper. Edward Palmer and John Prcbble were challenged by the prisoner. Henry Paiue, one of the directors and principal shareholders in the Great Republic Company, stated that Jones was legal manager of the Company, and as such had to keep the books, receive the call^, and make thn payments. All tho money he received he ought to have banked. The Com pany paid its debts by cheque. The book produced showed the calls received between tho 10th and 30th November and the amounts banked, through which the witness went in detail. In May last there was to be a meeting of the shareholders; bub ou arrival ab the office they found the door locked. Jones: a clerk w.is there with a note from him. whereupon witness sent for thn key, but ths boy came back without it. He sent him back again and he returned without it but brought a message from Jones that be would be down soon. Two of th« directors thcu went to Jones' bub returned without , the key. A mooting was held in another room und adjourned for a fortnight, ns they ' could nob get the books and paper?. Next, ] day witness went to Jones' house aad found < him lying down and complaiuing that he . was sort of paralysed, and he asked witness ! to assist him into the front, room. This he did. He was groaning a good deal and k-pt his face turned away. "Witness told him that the boy had taken pome of the money ; away, und also that tho shareholders were r talking very loud and saying ;ill sorts of things about him. Ho said he was sorry, but ho was unwell and could not work! Witness got the key from Mrs Jones, and went to the office with three others and took £313 odd out of the /drawer which they banked. A day or £«ro after he saw Jonc"s again and told him' I*there1 * there was something wrong- with the books. The receipts in the i - cash book were made up t) May 8, and the expenditure to May .'j. * Cross-examined : I can't say whether the £1 0s lOd was paid up or not. A sum of j) £10 His <Jd is placed to Lam fort's account in the ledger. The item of £l 3s id ia in the a 3ash book. I cannot say whether it was t] banked. " Charles Irnnfert, a shareholder and di- n , :cctor of the Great Republic Com pan}', had ;i ven a cheque for £10 Mis Od to Jones to ° my calls, and had got a receipt for it. lie v»s one of t.liyso who assembled ou the V svoning the mcrtiug was called, and being C1 mablo to yet the key ha went to Jones' louse, but' was lvfiued admittance by Mrs f r«nes. Ho saw him a wet k after when he V? liowed no signs of paralysis or of being in .ny way ill. Cross-cxumine.l : I don't know whether he J-10 1G» Lid ins, bien plno/d to my credit C1 r not. 'I 1

Richard Jenkins, manager of the Bank f New South Wales at Westport: On the 2nd November a cheque drawn by Lamfert ( i favor of the Great Ri'publio Company was f relented at tho counter to bo cashed. Wit- ] ess, in tbe absence of the latter, cashed it. ] t was presented by Charles Joues. a son of ho accused. He thought at the time it was o irre»ular that be asked the boy if he had iot made a mistake. Seeing th.:t the heque was drawn in pajmcut of a call it .ppe.'ired to him that it should have been iaid to the account of the CouqDany. Iu reply to His Honor, witness said that he . bought it would be a good practice of such ihcqucs were always crossed. Cross-examined : I am quite sure it was ■our son cished the cheque. John O'Keefc : I used to work for Mr rones as clerk. On the day the meeting ,vus lo have been held at the office Jones left jctween 3 and 4 o'clock. He did not appear :o be ill. I took £33 Os 3d for calls after he .eft aud put it in the drawer. I went up for iho key in the evening. He appeared (o be sick aud said he would be up in five miuuU-s. in the book produced there, are three entries in Jones' handwriting for the resnecive items specified iu the indictment. Cross examined : I did not cash Lamfert's cheque for £!0 lGs 9 J. Janus Pearcr, teller at tho Bank of New Zealand, Westport, produced the Bank book of the Great Republic Compmy showing the payments-in during the months of November and December, showing that between the Kith November and Ist December only £8 15s bad been paid in. [Compared with the entries in the cash book thero were discrepancies iu all the dates except in the two last.] Cro.-s-examined : There are instances in which a pay-in slip made up iu the afternoon might not appear until the next day. Zoffany Home, shnrebrokcr at Westport : Tbe books of the Great Republic Company were placed in my hands as an expert in May last. The bank receipt book produced agrees with the entries in the cash book except in one case where the receipt is on one day and the entry the next. Cross-examined : The majority of the calls are paid in Westport in the evening. It is unusual to pass cheques given by a Company through your own account unless you have advanced a man his wages and get repayment in this way. By the Court : Is ib usual to pay a cheque for calls to jour private account?— No, except in such an instauce as when a shareholder living at a distance holding shares in more than otn Company sends you a cheque for the whole. This closed the case for the prosecution. For the defence there was called Charles Jones, 11 ycirs of age. sou of the accused, who examined him. Did you ever tnke a cheque for £10 lGs l»d to the Bank oi New South Wales '.' No. The prisoner then addressed the jury. Ht said there wero three items he was charged with embezzling. Mr Paine had said he could not state whether the amounts were paid in or not. The item of £1 Os lOd was placed to credit in the cash book and the prosecution could not say whether it was banked or not. With reference to the £H 10s nd. Mr Jenkins had said that hi? (prisoner's) son had cashed the cheque. In the lower Court he had said it was cithei O'Keefe or bis son. but both had sworn that they did not cash it, and Mr Jenkins hac 1 sworn that he himself (Jones) had not cashed it. He hoped the jury would considei this. Mr Fell pointed out that there was nc question about the prisoner having received the three sums specified, and he should have paid them into tho Bank. Now the only sum that he jmid in about that time was £S 15s Gd on the l!)th November, bub it bad been shown that neither of these items wag included in that total, Clearly then he had put tho sums into his own pocket. Ib was a very painful thing to have to say, but it was very shocking to see that little boy put in the witness box so evidently tutored what he had to fay. Mr Jenkins had distinctly sworn that the boy had cashed that cheque and they could not but believe him. It was a painful sight, and he had carefully abstained from cross examining the boy. The discrepancies in the entries were very remarkable too and should be considered, as tho whole cash book from beginning to end was one system of fraud. The jury should find every possible excuse for the prisoner, but they must remember that he hud been utterly unable to find any for himself. His Honor in summing up pointed out that it had bc.ui shown that the total amount received by the prisoner between the lOih November and tho 3 1st December was £21 I 1 9s GI, while that of t"ie lodgements was only £122 IDs Gd, leaving a deficiency of £01 10s. Now the question was were tbe three items specified in the indictment included in that deficiency.' Mr Paine had been questioned by the prisoner about the £t Os lOd and the £4 ;3s 4d, bub with regard to tho possible banking of the £10 His Ikl he refraiwd from putting any question. In fact the evidence for the Crown showed distinctly th.it ib had not been banked, and the jury must believe that it lu.d not if they attached any value whatever to tho evidence of Mr Jeukins, who certainly ought to know, as he himself cashed the cheque over the counter and gave the money to the prisoner's son. Certainly this had been denied, but uuder the very painful circumstances they would have to consider what weight, was to be attached to the boy's evidence. If they confined their enquiries to the last 120 days of November iustead of extendiug fchem to the end of December, which was the fairest to the prisoner, they would find that tho cas : was much stronger against him, as during that time only £8 15s Gd was banked, whereas the three sums mentioned in the indictment alone amounted to £10 7s lid, and in addition to that it was shown that he still leceived larger s.uns, the whole amounting to £75. The Crown, however, was compelled by tho absurd slate of the law to single out these three items. They might very well say ■' If he is supposed to have taken the £75, why not indict him for the whole?" The reason was that the law required that they should specify certain items. To illustrate his meaning," it was as though a master told his servant to pour 20 gallons of beer into a cask, and in doing sohc stole one, and in order to show that the servant liad been guilty of stealing the master was required to state which particular gallon was missing. But fortunately in this case the Crown could point out the rmrticular gallon. They could see the £10 lGs 9d coming out of the tap and there could be no possible mistake about it, The jury then retired and after an absence of an hour returned with a verdict of Guilty of the embezzlement of £10 lGs !>d, FuALOUvHXT A I'I'ROPIUATIO.V. Hugh Jones was charged with fraudulently appropriating £2.58 13s Bd, tho property ol the Great Republic G.M. Company. Mr Fell appeared for the prosecution. Prisoner was undefended. The following were culled on the jury:— T. Merrick (foreman), J . Smith, J. Prebblo, C. Clark, Philip Llovd, J. S. Sharland, G. King, G. Garrett, J. Andrews, George Wootlcn, T. Hooper, and J. Malone. Tho prisoner challenged El ward Palmer and T. Harris, and tho Crown J. Rutherford and D. .Max. The case was proceeding when we went to press.