CHARGES AGAINST A CLERK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12266, 9 May 1903, Page 6

CHARGES AGAINST A CLERK.

COMMENTS BY JUDGE CONOLLY.

ACQUITTAL OP ACCUSED.

Tiie trial of Gordon Bruce Mathieson, lately a clerk and traveller in the employment of Messrs. John Raid and Co., on the charges of theft of two sums of money, took place in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Conolly and a jury of 12. The accusod was charged that, being the clerk or servant of John P.eid, he did on February 21 last steal the sum of 14s, the property of the said John Roid. On a second count he was charged with the theft of £1 17s > also the property of John Reid. The Hon. J. A. Tole (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the prosecution. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. J. R. Reed. John Reid, merchant, said that accused, who was employed by him as clerk and traveller, made a trip to Coromandel in February last. On his return he put in a list of sums collected by him. In this list £3 10s appeared as having been received from Mr. Paul and £2 from Mr. Lynch. Accused returned from Coromandel on February 23, and on the morning of February 26 a fire occurred in witness' promises. (Accused had been given £2 on going to Coromandel, and ho had returned his expenses at that amount. By Mr. Reed: Accused had been in witness' employ about six years. As witness' traveller he visited tho various parts of the province periodically, and his annual collections would roughly amount to from £1500 to £2000. In the ordinary course of business Messrs. Paul and Lynch would have known in a few days that they had not been credited with the full amounts paid, as tho accounts were sent out every month. Accused had a ledger account against himself in tho books. This account had not been balanced since February, but witness did not think there would be a large balance on either side. So far accused had not been paid his salary for February. Re-examined: Accused had no authority to make deductions on account of salary from collections. It was not discovered that Paul and Lynch had been short credited until just before accused's arrost. James Paul, of Coromandel, said he paid accused £5 7s on February 21, on Reid and Co.'s account. John Lynch, jun., also of Coromandel, said he paid accused £2 14s)»on the same date. By Mr. Reed : When witness paid accused ho (accused) tried to get another order from witness, but did not succeed Accused spent 4s or 5s in trying to get the order. Cuthbert Rawson, clerk in Mr. Reid's employ, gave evidence as to going to accused's house with some letters after the fire. Accused asked witness to get hold of the Coromandel returns and take them to accused or destroy them. Witness said he would do this, but he did not do so About a week afterwards witness saw accused again, and the latter asked him again about the returns. Witness said he had not got them, and accused 1 said, "If you can get them they will be worth £10 to you." Witness informed Mr. Raid's son of this.

By Mr. Reed: Accused did not ask witness to get a copy of the return made. He said nothing about not having 0- copy. Mr. Reed: Why did you *gr-=a to tear up the return?

Witness: Just to see what ho would say. Detective Henderson also gave evidence as to the arrest of accused.

Mr. Reed did not call any evidence.

In addressing the jury for the defence, Mr. Heed said that the accused, on returning from Coromandcl, hurriedly put in a* return and left again the same- day for New Plymouth. It had been his usual custom to make out his returns on manifolding paper and retain a copy, but on this occasion he hurriedly scribbled out his return on a sheet of paper before leaving Auckland. In the ordinary courso he would have put in an amended return, but unfortunately just at this time the trouble and' excitement over tho fire at Messrs. Reid and Co.'s arose, and the error was not rectified. The only point in the evidence for the prosecution was the action of accused in asking Rawson to destroy the return. This was a piece of crass stupidity on acouscd's part, without doubt, but he submitted that no criminal intent had been shown.

His Honor, in summing up, said it was a most extraordinary thing that accused, after being in the service of a firm for six years, and after he had during that time colleoted about £10,000, without there being any suggestion of inaccuracy in his returns, should be brought to the Court as a criminal and charged with stealing the paltry sum of £2 lis. It did seem an extraordinary thing. He (His Honor) would be very sorry if, after a man had collected £10,000 for him and he found an error of seme £?. odd, ho should immediately have that man arrested. Ho would be ashamed of himself if he did so. (At these words of His Honor there, was a slight, movement of applause in the body of tho' Court, but it was instantly suppressed.) The subsequent occurrences, continued' His Honor, also seemed peculiar. Accused was not. discharged from Mr, Reid's employ, and lie had not resigned, but he had left. He had not, however, left the town, but he was not asked for an explanation of the error when it was discovered, he being straightaway arrested' on warrant, not even being proceeded against on summons. Accused had certainly acted very foolishly in asking Rawson to destroy the returnf, but it was for the jury to consider whether ho had deliberately and wilfully made a fal=o return for the sake of the paltry sum of £2 lis, or the chance of getting it if he was not found out. It seemed to be the most extraordinary case ever brought before that Court. After retiring for seven minutes, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged.