THE TE ARO HOUSE CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1367, 12 May 1898, Page 30

THE TE ARO HOUSE CASE.

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR CRAIG,

At the .Magistrate's Court yesterday •week, John Craig, formerly manager of Te Aro House, was charged, on remand, with stealing the sum of .£7OO between the ldt May, 1896, and Ist May, 1898. Prisoner was represented by Mr T. Young, Mr Ollivier representing the prosecution. Dr Fihdlay appeared on behalf of Mr James Smith, of Te Aro House, and stated that he did not know whether he had any strict locus _ standi, but ho had been asked to appear, there being a peculiar phase of this prosecution which he thought it his duty to state. He understood that the missing moneys belonged to the Bank of New Zealand. Mr Ollivier said he desired to have the information amended. Dr Findlay understood the. amendment would be in the direction of stating that the moneys were the property of Mr James Smith. It had been urged upon his client that he should conduct the prosecution, and he was quite willing to take up that attitude after Craig had been given an opportunity to explain the alleged deficiencies. The matter reached a crisis on Monday morning when Mr Young, Mr Ollivier and some representatives of the Bank of New Zealand met, and an arrangement was then made by which Craig was to meet the accountant of the bank and through Mr Young explain any deficiencies that existed. Craig, in accordance with that arrangement, met the persons appointed at Mr Young's office at 1 o'clock the same day and Detective Campbell went in and arrested him. Mr Smith was extremely anxious to give Craig full opportunity for explanation; Craig represented Mr Carter, a partner in the firm, which complicated matters somewhat, because it was possible j that he might have done things winch he might have a right to do as representing Mr Carter, but not as an employee of the firm. He (Dr Findlay) had been assured by Mr Young that every suspicious circumstance was capable of satisfactory explanation. That was why Mr Smith declined to prosecute. Mr Young said that the accused had great cause for complaint. Mr Smith had admitted that he did not know whether he had anything to complain of. The bank, however, stepped in and laid the information.

Mr Ollivier objected to reference to the bank. He was not instructed by the bank; he appeared for a nnmber of creditors. He asked that the information be amended so that it should read that the .£7OO stolen was the property of James Smith, draper, of Wellington, and W. H. Carter, merchant, of London.

After some discussion, Mc Young applied for an adjournment of the case. Tne amendment of the information practically meant the formation of a new charge. Craig had been arrested for stealing moneys the property of the Bank of New Zealand, but was now charged with stealing the moneys of Messrs Jaoi9s Smith arid Co.

Mr Haselden, S.M., who presided, stated that counsel for defence was entitled to an adjournment. Mr Young averred that he was prepared to meet any charge that might be preferred by the police; Mr Craig would explain any apparent deficiencies if afforded an opportunity. Mr Ollivier intimated that he was desirous of being quite fair co his learned friend and his client, and he did not object to an adjournment of the case if they were taken by surprise. Mr Young said that the charge should be more specific. What had Craig to answer ? Was the money stolen from the bank safe ? Was it this year or last year ? He was quite in the dark as to what he bad to answer. His client had already explained some discrepancies, and was prepared to explain anything further that was wanted. Mr Ollivier said he was not desirous of putting anything in the way of the defence. He intended giving them, and also the Court, a copy of the results arrived at so far from an investigation by an accountant. The evidence for the present would be confined to two of a number of sub-charges, one of stealing £llO and the other of £IOO. It was not intended to go into all the minor charges. Some further discussion took place and Mr Ollivier asked leave to again amend the information, altering the dates to 18th April, 1895, to 19th February, 1898. He mentioned the fact that another information had been laid that morning, and that a further information would be preferred of preparing false balance-sheets with intent to defraud. The accused was then remanded until the next Monday at 10.30 a.m. When the matter of bail was mentioned Detective Campbell said that it would need to be substantial. The Stipendiary Magistrate asked if there was reason for increasing it, and Mr Ollivier, in reply, said tbe accused had taken by the Miowera. Ha had told thefn he was not going away, and it was subsequently ascertained that he was. Accused was admitted to bail in two sureties of £350 each, and himself in .£7OO.

It was expected' that the charges against the accused would have been proceeded with at the Magistrate's Court on Monday. Another adjournment was granted, however. Mr Young, who appeared-for the accused, said that there were a great many transactions to be followed out and investigated, and the accountant was of opinion that it would take fully a week. He (Mr Young) lousequently asked for an adjournment for t,hat period, Mr Ollivier and Sir Boberl >tout did not objoct, and the application was ♦ranted, tho mWQ bail being allow©!} as i'p'rmarly.