A STRANGE CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1523, 28 February 1901, Page 50

A STRANGE CASE.

In the Magistrate’s Court on Fridays before Dr McArthur, S.M., Daniel McCullogh was charged with having stolen saddle-cloths to the value of 6s, tho property of Butler Bros., wholesale saddlers, of Lambton quay. Sub-Inspector Wilson conducted the case for the prosecution and Mr Wilford appeared for the defence.. A. W. Blanchard, manager for Butler Bros , gave evidence that tire defendant was employed by the firm of Buticr Bros, to make saddle-cloths at a cost_ol 8d each. The material was supplied by Butler Bros. One lot of material was given him in October last to make up which should have turned out a certain number of cloths, but the defendant returned lour short. He said that was the t-otai number he obtained from the material. During the current month witness was passing the shop of MoCullogh and there saw cloths which, were of the same piece. To Mr Wilford: It was in October last that lie became convinced that MoCullogh had stolen the material. Had given the defendant work to do since then. Considered it his duty to facilitate the firm’s work, even though he gave the work to a man who was under suspicion. He did 'not lay the information until the present month beoause it was not until then that he found the saddle-cloth in the defendant’s shop. It was possible that Bing, Harris and Co. might sell similar material to that which he had supplied to McCullogh to make up for him ; the fact remained, though, that he had supplied McCullogh witli a certain material, that some of it was unaccounted for, and that witness had found a saddle-cloth in McCullogh’ s*. shop which was made of similar material. A warehouseman named Stephens, employed by Butler Bros.; deposed that he accompanied Blanchard to the shop of McGuilogh. The witness confirmed the previous witness’s statements in. some particulars, but differed from biro in others.

Detective McGrath deposed that he executed a search warrant on the premises of McCullogh. The latter told him that he" was in the habit of buying material from Butler Bros, and reselling it to them in the form of saddlecloths.

Daniel McCullogh, the defendant, gave evidence on his own behalf. He had been working for Butler Bros, fur five years. Often bought material from the firm —should think he had done so twenty or thirty times. He got instructions lately to make a pair of leggings. The tops were of different stuff to the remainder. Owing to a lack of material, he postponed making the leggings for a while—it was really owing to lack of money. The witness Blanchard came to the shop and violently complained about the leggings not being delivered. He was “ bounceable,” so wb.ness ordered him out of the shop. He refused to go, and witness pressed him out. Blanchard returned and brought up Stevens and a scuffle ensued between witness and Blanchard. The latter accused witness of having some of the firm’s saddle-cloths. The saddle-cloths produced had been. v in his window for many months past. Blanchard had never asked him for payment for the saddle-cloths alleged to be returned short. When he bought stuff from Butler Bros, it was served to him by a man down in the cellars.

To Sub-Inspector Wilson: Did- not remember Blanchard measuring out in October last to him enough material to make thirty-six saddle-cloths. Would! be surprised to hea/T that cloth was kept in the top-story at Butler Bros.’s warehouse. Had been buying saddle-cloth material for five years past from Bing, Harris and Co.’s, from Ramsay’s and from other local warehouses, and! rethe manufactured articles to them. Blanchard told him there were saddle-cloths unaccounted for, and witness told him that the monthly accounts had settled up for everything. The reason why he told the detective that he bought from Butler Bros, the stuff mentioned in the information and resold the manufactured articles to them was because he frequently did business in that- way.

Dr McArthur said he was perfectly satisfied that the proceedings should not have been taken at all, and he must coni ess that Butler Bros, had acted in the matter in a singular way. The charge alleged that McCullogh had been guilty of theft of the firm’s goods in -October, and yet it went on employing him up till the 4th, February. It appeared to him (Dr McArthur) that if the complainant firm had anything against McCullogh a civil action would have been the proper course. It was a curious mistake that in the receipt produced by the firm tlxe date on the billhead 'was December 1 and the date of the receipt was November 4. If might have been, of course, a clerical error. The information must be dis-