CHARGES OF FRAUD

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1797, 15 August 1906, Page 42

CHARGES OF FRAUD

THE BRUGES-GOODMAN CASES. VERDICT OF GUILTY. CHRISTCHURCH, August 13. In the Supreme Court this morning before. Mr Justice Cooper the cases against Francis Henry Bruges, solicitor, and James Goodman, clerk, both of Christchurch, came up for hearing. Mr Myers conducted the case for the Crown. The indictments taken were that they did steal £260, the property of Henry Tuck on March 2nd, 1901, and, further, that they did steal £209 on April Ist, 1903, the property of Henry Tuck. Both prisoners pleaded “not guilty." Mr Myers said the case was of a somewhat peculiar nature owing to tho charges and the character previously borne by accused. it was always a painful thing for a jury to be called upon to try persons who had held positions of honour and trust in the town where they resided. He mentioned those points because he asked the jury to remember that if Bruges had not held a position of trust and honour in the past tlie two accused would probably not be in their present position. It was the'' proud boast of tlie British nation that there was one law alike for rich and poor, and he asked them to deal with the facts, irrespective of tho position of the accused. Counsel "went on to state that it was the duty of every solicior to keep separate trust accounts. A solicitor had no right whatever to mingle with his own hank account moneys which were placed in his hands for investment or otherwise by clients who thus showed their confidence in him. Between 1898 and 1904 between £IO,OOO and £12,000 was paid into Bruges’ office, tlie greater part, if not all, for purposes of being lent or investment. Tlie whole of that sum was unaccounted for. and for the whole of it there was not a single investment to be shown. It was for tho jury to say who was responsible for that kind of thing. As to the moneys in the indictments there was no question that they were paid into Bruges’ office, and that they had not been applied to the purposes for which they were intended and had not been accounted for. The question for the jury was whether both accused or only one were responsible. The books had. been kept in such a state liiat it was impossible to tell where the money had gone or who had benefited. Apparently the money had been paid tomeet previous debts and liabilities ; in other words from 1898 to 1904 there had been a process going on of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Although Goodman had handled the money Bruges was responsible, as ho was the solicitor and reaped the benefit, and Goodman could not have acted without him, being only a salaried clerk. Even a cursory glance at tlie books during the six years would have been sufficient to show how things were going. Evidence was then called similar to that given in the Court below—to tho effect that Tuck had handed certain moneys to Goodman, to be invested on securities shown to him by Goodman, and approved; afterwards it was found that no securities had been taken over tho properties, and that the owners had never authorised Goodman to raise money on their properties, and had received no money from him. An accountant who had made an investigation of the books gave evidence relating to the receipt and disposal of the amounts received from Tuck. The books generally had been kept in such a way that it would he impossible to ascertain the real position. Considerable sums had been paid into the bank of which there was no trace at all, and the books only served to mislead. The liabilities were about £12,000, and the estimated assets £3OOO. Tho defence was that’Bruges was absolutely unaware that transactions of tlie kind were being carried on in liis office, and he had been deceived all along by Goodman. He did not interfere with tlie money lending branch of the business, which was carried o.n by Goodman. All moneys received from clients“in whom Goodman was interested were paid into the general account, and moneys relating to Bruges’ transactions were paid into the general account. Bruges stated that many clients had since told him that Goodman had particularly impressed on them not to see him (Bruges). He recognised that lie was criminally responsible, but lie waa innocent of any attempt to fraudulently deprive Tuck of his money. No evidence was called on behalf of Goodman. The jury retired at 10.30, and at 11.45 returned a verdict of guilty against both accused. The prisoners were remanded till tomorrow for sentence.