THE INSURANCE EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 741, 14 May 1886, Page 13

THE INSURANCE EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGE.

At the Besident Magistrate’s Court on Monday, before Messrs R- Haft, J. H. Bethune, and J. Lockie, J.P.’s, John Stuart Reid was charged with having, between the 15th March, 1885, and the 16th April, 1886, embezzled the sum of £792 7s 7d, moneys received by him as a clerk or servant to the United Insurance Company of New South Wales. The accused was defended by Mr Stafford, Mr Jellicoe being for the prosecution. Mr Jellicpe, in opening his case, said the accused was charged under section 67 of the Larceny Act. Mr Reid.was appointed agent for the Company in May, 1880, for the provincial district of Wellington. On the 21st Mav, a _ letter _ of instruction was sent to Mr Reid, which informed him that he was to get 10 per cent on nett premiums and 5 per cent on nett profits. He was to deposit all premiums and payments in the Bank of New South Wales, and to render accounts at stated periods. In a statement sent for his guidance, Mr Reid was instructed as to the rendering ot accounts by him. .From 1880 till now Mr Reid had remained agent for the Company. Mr Jellicoe explained that he would not trouble the Court with what had occurred before 1885. He should prove by evidence that sums of money received by the accused were paid into the credit of his private banking account, then overdrawn. The manager of the Company had come to Wellington, and, after two or three interviews, got Mr Reid to render a proper account, by which the accused admitted a deficiency for the year !885_ of £BOO, and a total deficiency of something over £IOOO. The question, of course, was whether Mr Reid was a clerk or servant to the Company. His learned friend, he knew, was going to raise the question whether, the accused being paid by commission was a clerk or servant —whether it was not a mere question of debtor aud creditor. A short discussion ensued, at the end of which Mr Jellicoe said he would face the difficulty at once, and

proceeded to quote legal authorities to support his contention that the accused was a servant or clerk. . . , Mr Stafford said if it was a question of a commission agent solely, there must be something to show the relationship as clerk or servant. The relationship had been conducted on the debtor and creditor basis, and the representative of the Company, Mr Tilney, had accepted that basis. He was prepared to show that there had been such a final settlement on that basis, and unless his friend was prepared to proceed on it he did not see how be could carry out the case. If his friend would look at the receipt be produced, be would see that there was a complete admission of the position of debtor and creditor, of agent and principal, between the parties. His friend would see the effect of that on the previous set of accounts. Here Mr Stafford handed to Mr Jellicoe a stamped receipt. Mr Jellicoe : My friend has handed me a document. Will your Worships look at it ? Mr Stafford said it would be seen by that receipt that Mr Tinley accepted the position as that of debtor and creditor. Mr Jellicoe said the receipt produced certainly destroyed the debt. Mr Stafford said his friend knew that in all these matters where debtor and creditor were concerned it was a very delicate position. There were n* more difficult cases than of this sort. From the receipt he had produced it would be seen that the agent of the Company, having looked at the whole matter, and having sets of accounts before him, had come to the conclusion, as had been said, tbat there was nothing more than indebtedness by Mr Reid to the Company. It was like any other indebtedness, it must be settled, but there was no criminal act. Mr Jellicoe said the receipt rather bore out what he had said—that if the prosecutor treated Mr Reid’s account as involving a debtor and creditor relationship, he (Mr Jellicoe) might be in a difficulty if he bad to ask the Court to deal with it as a criminal offence. It was not for him, but for the Court to say what was right. _ His friend had produced a receipt which satisfied him, and which, he would admit, was signed by his client on behalf of the Company. The receipt was an acknowledgment of the payment of £3OO, in discharge of Mr Jno. Stuart Reid’s liability to the Company, but it went on to say, “ This receipt is without prejudice to the present prosecutions. 5 ’ Mr Stafford said his friend knew that a series of accounts had been made from time to time, which showed the position of debtor and creditor. Mr Jellicoe remarked that it appeared the money had been paid by some friend on the part of Mr Reid, because the words were “in discharge of Mr John Stuart Reid’s liability to the Company.” There were other disbnrsements to be accounted for, however. If the Court was satisfied that there bad been no offence, and chose to take the same view of the matter as the prosecutor had done, _of course, it was not for him to say anything more. Bat it must be for the Court to say. It was out of his power to withdraw. a prosecution for felony; the responsibility rested with the Court. The Bench considered they could do nothing if the prosecution offered no evidence. v Mr Jellicoe said be would prefer that the Court did not place the responsibility on his shoulders. His sins were heavy enough. Mr Hart : Well there is no evidence brought before the Court whatever. Mr Jellicoe said no doubt the receipt threw a very different light on the matter. By it the debt was destroyed—and the debt, of course, was the essence of embezzlement. Mr Stafford said the-boundary line between the two offences was so very narrow that it could be overstepped by anyone After some further discussion Mr Hart said tbe Court was called on to decide a matter which should be taken before the Supreme Court. If there was no evidence offered, of course they could not go on. Mr Jellicoe said that after that observation he would not call evidence, and tbe case was dismissed.