THE ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT BY A BANK CLERK.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 761, 1 October 1886, Page 10

THE ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT BY A BANK CLERK.

The charges of embezzlement against Charles Hodgson, late bill clerk at the Union Bank, were further investigated before Mr Wardell at the Resident Magistrates Court last Friday. Mr Bell appeared on behalf of the prosecutors and Mr Jellicoe lepresented the accused. Charles Stewart Emerson, teller at the Bank, said he received payment of £59 9s lOd from accused on August 23 d last on account of “ bills receivable, London Office,” as was shown by the cash book. Cross-examined : Had known . the late messenger to neturn to the Bank without his books and papers, and that he had to go out again and look for them. Had seen him place mouey on Hodgson’s desk when the latter was absent, and go away and leave it there. Had heard of cash being left out of the strong room at night by other officers of the Bauk. Had heard that the teller did so, on one occasion leaving the cash in his drawer, to which access could be had. Had beeu twelve months at this branch of the bank. During this period the postiug of the books had been greatly in arrear, and some of the officers bad had to work at night in order to overtake the work. Accused had been laid up at one time. Accused had been working late just before that. Witness had been almost knocked up with hard work. Believed he had never received money from accused without an entry being passed. If such a thing had occurred the entry would have been passed the same day. When witness received the £59 9s lOd in respect of Arthur’s bill an entry was passed. Received the cash and the entry without any suspicion occurring to his mind. Re-examined : If he received cash without an entry the error must be detected, because tne cash would not balance at the end of the day. , . , By the Court : There was nothing about the payment to distinguish it from any ordinary payment. This was the case on the first information, and Mr Bell asked that the accused be committed for trial. Mr Jellicoe said he thought nothing he could say would affect the case. He reserved his defence. . Accused was then formally committed for trial. The accused was further charged with the embezzlement of £33 43 and £3O, received by him on account of the Bank in August last.. George R. Young, storekeeper, of Willisstreet, said he had a promissory note in his possession for £33 4s (produced) made by himself in favor of G. H. B. Bayliss, due August 3, 1886. Paid the amount of the note on the

I 2nd August. Paid it into the Bank at the bill clerk’s office, and received the promissory note in exchange for the money. Cross-examined : The person to whom ha paid the money, was behind the counter. Not the main counter, but at a counter in the recess which he had known as the bill clerk’s office. Had paid money there before. Detective Campbell spoke to him first about the matter. James B. P. ynter, clerk in the Property Tax Department, said he discounted a promissory note at the Union Bank for £3O on the Bth or 9ih of July. The note had upon it the names of Mr Meredith and himself. Took up the note on the 9th or 10th August. It was due on the 11 h September. Took it up a month and a day before it was due. Got the note from a clerk in the bill department of the Union Bank, to whom he paid the money. Looking at the accused, and seeing him in his present position, he believed him to be the clerk who gave him the promissory note, and to whom he (witness) paid the £3O. If he had seen him in the body of the Court he did not think he would recognise him. Afterwards forwarded note to Mr Meredith Cross-examined : Had one of the others connected with the Bank (indicated) been put in the position of the accused would not have recognised him as the person to whom he paid the money. Had a good memory for faces, and when a circumstance leialled a face he readily remembered it. Only remembered seeing the manager when the bill was discounted. Handed the money when he paid it through a little window about 18in by 12m. Was detained about a quarter of an hour because the matter had to be referred to the manager. Edward R. Boddington, present bill clerk of the Union Bank, deposed to entries for £33 43 and £3O in accused’s handwriting in the local bills discount book. The receipt produced given to the manager for the £3O was also in accused’s handwiiting. Charles S. Emerson, teller of the Union Bank, said he had not received the amount of the promissory note made by Mr Young in favor of Mr Bayliss for £33 43 ; nor the amount of the promissory note for £3O made by Mr Meredith in favor of Mr Poynter. It was the duty of the clerk receiving the money to pay it over to the teller. The night before accused was suspended he asked witness if he had received the cash for those promissory notes or knew anything about them. This was all the evidence, and the accused was thereupon committed for trial. Mr Jellicoe asked that bail should bs fixed at £3OO. Mr Bell asked that more substantial bail be fixed than that suggested. When the accrued was finally dealt with it would be seen whether it was the first breach of trust which had been brought against him. The prisoner might stand in fear of very grave punishment, aud the Court had to consider his possible desire to escape from justice. Mr Jellicoe said his learned friend insinuated that this charge was not the accused's first fall from virtue. Was there a tittle of evidence to the con’rary. He pointed out that the Bank had shown a great desire to keep the accused under lock and key. and alluded to the fact that Mr Bell was Crown Proseoutor as well as solicitor to the bank. Mr Bell resented the insinuation of improper motives on his part. He was discharging a public duty, and was not influenced by any consideration for the bank. Mr Jellicoe asked was there any necessity to keep the man in custody ? The manager had admitted that he went to one of the bondsmen and expressed his surprise that he should have become bail. His Worship said he must stop Mr Jellicoe. Mr Bell asked him, as Crown Prosecutor, to fix adequate bail. Mr Jellicoe said if his Worship had made up his mind to act on Mr Bell’s suggestion, it was useless to go on. His Worship said he ought not to allow a remark like that to pass. It was spoken with an “ if ” in, and perhaps did not amount to a great deal. If Mr Bell asked for what was right and reasonable it wool! be granted, and not otherwise. Mr Jellicoe said that immeditely after the remons!r ince made to the bondsmen other charges had been made. For what other purposes could these other charges have been made but to render it impossible for the accused to be at liberty. After some further discussion, bis Worship fixed the bail in two sureties of £250, and the accused in £IOO.