THE RAWLINGS CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8471, 23 January 1891, Page 6

THE RAWLINGS CHARGES.

The charges against Mark Rawlings were proceedod with yesterday, before Messrs. A. Brodie and J. M. McLachlan, J.P.'s. The first charge gone into wns the misappropriation of the sum of £15 16s on the 26th November, 1885. John Bancroft, manager of the Industrial and Provident Building Society, deposed that he remembered accused depositing in his Society £250 on 19th October, 1882, and on the 22nd May, 1883, £480 ; which sums were to bear interest. The money was in the names of Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Pierce, the former usually collecting the interest. On 26th November, 1885, witness paid to him the sum of £15 16s as interest, for which he received a receipt. W. H. Churton deposed that he had audited the accounts kept by the accused. There was no entry for the payment of the sum of £15 16s on the 26th November, 1885. He satisfied himself that this sum had been collected by the accused ou that dato and paid into his account at the Colonial Bank on the following day. Wm. Gould Churchward, ledger-keoper at the Colonial Bank, deposed that he was aware that the accused had an account at the Colonial Bank. Ho paid in a sum of £15 16s, being a cheque on the Building Society, on the 27th November, 1885. This closed tho evidence for the charge mentioned abovo. The prisoner was committed for trial.

Mark Rowlings was further charged with the theft-of £17 10s on the Ist of March, 1889. Captain Thomas deposed that there was at present a mortgage existing between himself anil Messrs. Rawlings, Pierce, and Walker. He was in tho habit of paying the interest on this mortgage to Mr. Rawlings. On the Ist March, ISS9, he paid to him £35, being; two quarters' interest, for which he received a receipt. He gavo a chequo for the amount on the Colonial Bank. William Henry (Jhurton deposed that there was no sum of £35 entered in the books by the treasurer about the date mentioned, bat he found the sum of £17 10s accounted for in tho cash - book. The amount of £35 was paid into the bank by the accused to his own account, £17 10s of which was credited to tho Orphan Home, but the remainder was not accounted for ab all. George P. Pierce deposed that he was a co-trustee in the mortgage referred to. Accused was not authorised to pay suras received as interest to his own account, but they should have been paid into the Orphan Home account in the Bank of New Zealand. W. G. Churchward deposed that the sum of £35 was paid into Mr. Rawlings' account at the Colonial Bank on the Ist March, 1889. This amount was in the form of a cheque signed by Captain Thomas. This closed the ca.se, the prisoner being duly committed for trial. The next charge was for the misappropriation of a cheque for £6(5 3s 4d on the 19th May, 1890. G. P. Pierce deposed that the president and two members of the Board had signed a cheque for £66 3s 4d, such chequo boing handed to the treasurer. The amount was owed to Me Arthur and Co. by the Board, and he believed that the cheque produced was the one drawn two days after the item was passed for payment. Witness could not say whether McArthur's account was paid. It was the custom for Mr. Rawlings to bring the cheques to Mr. Pierce's office to be signed, and then take them away. W. H. Churton deposed that amongst the memoranda and accounts passed for payment in May, 1890, amounting to £155 0s lid, was an account for £66 3s 4d, to be paid to NTcArthur and Co. In the statement of receipts and expenditure in the handwriting of the accused was an entry, ''Cheques, £88 17s7d and £6ti3s 4d." Amongst tho vouchers paid by the accused on account of the Home there was no such payment as £66 3s 4d. The account was still unpaid on December 9th, 1890. James William Bond, bookkeeper for McArthur and Co., deposed that the above-mentioned account had not been paid, although it was rendered monthly to the accused. William Charles Woodhouse, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that the above cheque was paid into the Bank on the 19th May, being cashed across the counter. This concluded the case. Mr. Mahony contended that a primd facie case had not been made out. There was nothing to show that the cheque as received by tho accused was of any value, as it was not properly signed. Further, there was nothing to show that he cashed the cheque, or received the money. Mr. Williamson repliod to . these points, and the prisoner was committed for trial.

The hearing of the remaining charges was adjourned until the next day.