THE SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16395, 24 November 1916, Page 5

THE SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGATION OF THEFTCASE FOR TTTK DEFENCE. HANDWRITING ON RECEIPTS The S.iprem,- . , v;i . occupied v^ r day in the further hearing 0 f the case ir which William Albert Sims ("Mr. J R Lundon), joiner, was charged with stealing ( from his ex-employer, R. H. Stark j joiner, of Dominion Road, a quantity o: I joinery ajid converting the proceeds of itsale to his own use. His Honor Mr. Jus ! tice Stringer presided. The Crown called Samuel Falls, brother in-law of the accused, and David Rowe, t builder, who stated thnt they had eacl received accounts for j.nnery from Stark, As they had never received the tiinbei ! they promptly repudiated any liability, j A carrier named Thoma? Henry Newtor ' gave evidence that, acting on the instruc i tions of the accused, he took a quantity jof joinery from Stark's shop to the pre" I muses of Messrs. leker.staff and Mearns j second-hand dealers. Tho accused pai c j hun for his services. | James Meartis, an ex member of the firn i of V ickerst.ul and Mearns, stated tint h< ] had purchased several loads of joiner} , from the accused. He paid the accusec | sums of money on account of the sales. I James Mears, a carter, gave evidence t< ; the effect that the accused interviewee ; hun after the Court adjourned on Wednes i day, and suggested that if he would svieai ] in the witness-box tbat he, Mears, wen) i to Stark and protested against carrying j work being given to another carrier he tiie accused, would make it worth hu while. "1 he accused suggested a sum oi £10. Witness replied that he would not falsely swear for £1000. "A Simple Issue.'' j In outlining the case for tho dp. fence, Mr. Lundon stated that the issue was quite simple. His Honor: \es, 1 agree with you there the case ls quite simple, but e'fforta are constantly being mailt} to introduce irrelevant'les. Mr. London, proceeding, said the accused would allege that Stark authorised ; him to sell the joinery, and that the neces- ■ sity to sell the joinerv was due to the i necessity of Stark himself. The latter was in impoverished financial circumstances, and it was vital that he should get menev . from somewhere. It waft essential thai , Stark s name should not appear in any | transaction involving a sale of joinery t< 'a • '° hand dealer, because th-e trade . did not approve of such methods. ihe substance ul the accustHi's evidence was that Stark U_>ld him that he was ir I serious financial diTiculties. Stark only ■ paid him from time to time, and had saic i that unless he received work he would | have to make up some joinery and sell ll 1 at an auction mart. j Counsel was pruce<viin~ to question the i accused respecting Stark's financial posi I tion, when His Honor interpolated that he j would not allow evidence to he given re | .carding that matter, other than the barf ! statement that Stark told the accused thai |he was in financial difficulties. " Von | know, Mr. Lundon," he ?.i;d. - that evidence of that nature is inadmissible. It if only introduced for the purpose of influencing the jury." Allegations of the Accused. The accused went on to say that th< respective entries in Stark's cash anc wages books were not in concord. Thosi made in the wages book relating to thi waires paid by Stark to the accused wen ' false. 1 lie false entries were made t-< j satisfy the Labour Department's inspector The accused sold the joinery in order t< get money for Stark, so that the latte: could pay the wages due to the accused The second-hand dealer refused to recog nise Stark in the transaction, and th< money for the joinery was therefore pak to the accused When the accused handec the money to Stark he asked for a re ceipt, and said that as Stark was keepini no books he might forget that he hat been paid. He demurred slightly at first but eventually tore a time-sheet in two, or whicn accused made out a receipt. The only writing of Stark's on the receipt was the initials on the stamp. Later, the j accused got a further advance from the second-hand dealer, which he also handec over to Stark. The latter did not give | him a receipt at that time, but dicf sc | several days later, The accused also gave details of other transactions. Evidence In Rebuttal. The Crown called Stark to give evidence in rebuttal respecting the receipts referred to by the accused. Stark said that the documents were fortreries. He deniec that he initialed the stamps. The manager of the National Bank o: New Zealand, Symonds Street branch stated -hat he was thoroughly acquaintec with Stark's handwriting. The initiali on the stamps on the receipts were nol made by Stark. He had examined the initials very carefully, and he was thor oughly convinced that they had been madi by another person than Stark. Witnesi was of opinion that the person who wroti the initials was the same p. son who fillec in the body of the receipts. Witness wai also examined in regard to Stark's financia position. After counsel had addressed the jurj the Court adjourned until nine o'Joct this morning, when His Honor's summing up will be heard.