THE WARING TAYLOR PROSECUTIONS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7342, 5 December 1884, Page 7

THE WARING TAYLOR PROSECUTIONS.

At tl>e Resident Magistrate's Court Wednesday morning, before Mr IX. S. Wardell, William Waring Taylor was charged with “ that he did on the hth day of June, 1882, and other days, being trustee of TfS fully shares in the Bank of Zealand, th e property of Ernest Ayundel, unlawfully convert the said property to his own us© and benefit.” Mr C. O. Graham watched the case in his capacity as Official Assignee. Mr Jelliooo, and with him Mr Stafford, appeared fop the prosecution, and Mr Edward Shaw, Mr H. Gully, and He Brown, for the defence.

Mr Jellicoe, la opening the case for the prosecution, said that the evidence la this and other charges would disclose one of. the grossest and most systematic cases of fraud' ever in «h? pohu)jf. ■ ’+'r« littaegt) wwhW priatlqn: 41 V7S banji shares, watch were left to Jo'nas Artifiidel and other*, by’one James Maw. afij 'the charge OTtfeprad under the 'jii’th section of the Act of 1&B7, which makes such an act a misdemeanor. Mr May tiled in London in 1831, and by hte will he made certain persons in England executors or his English estate, and another gentleman in New Zealand the executor fop the Nov Zealand portion of the estate. By that will Mr hjay he. oueathed specifically to certain legatees shares in tha Bank of New Zealand, of which be had

1014, fully paid up, and which the prisoner himself, in :v .statement to the Supreme Court, valued at L 22.088. 665 of these share were beto persons in the colony of New Zealand, 49 fulling to Mr Jonas Arundel as residuary legatee. Accused obtained administ.-a-thru of these shares by probate on the 6t.h June, 1882. His criminal career in connection with this estate seemed to have commenced very early, for evidence would he called to show that before he obtained probate he had sold 305 shares and paid every farthing of the receipts into his own private account at the National Bank of New Zealand. He should be able to prove that the whole of the 778 shares forming the subject of the charge were, together with others, subsequently transferred into Mr Taylor’s own bank account. The whole 1014 shares having been transferred in this manner, accused immediately set to work to appropriate 778 of them to his own purposes. He (Mr Jellicoe) had already observed that previous to probate being obtained, a number of shares were sold. They were sold by Mr D. T. Stuart, a sharebroker in Wellington, who paid the prisoner the proceeds of that sale by cheque. Tlm cheque be should follow until it was paid into accused’s own banking account at the National Bank of New Zealand, an account which was then considerably overdrawn. The proceeds of the whole of the shares sold appeared, in fact, to have been always paid into that bank for the reduction of the accused’s overdraft. Subsequently in August, 1882, Taylor sold another 50 shares, receiving for them L 1154 3s, which he also paid into his own account, appropriating every farthing to his own use. In February, 1883, he sold another 100, the proceeds—L23oß—being paid into the same account. In connection with the Rhodes’ estate, Mr Jellicoe proceeded to explain that the prisoner was indebted to that estate, and by way of satisfaction he represented to Mrs llhodes that he bad invested her money to the extent of L 6903 in the purchase of 29.8 Bank of New Zealand shares. What the accused did do was this—he fraudulently transferred the 298 shares from one account to another. Tn the same way 80 shares were transferred to Miss llhodes, now Mrs Moorhouae, in 1884, and another 50_ shares were transferred to cover accused’s liabilities to the estate. Tn June, 1883, accused sold LllOO worth of shares, appropriating every farthing to hi? own account at the National Bank, which was again over- ; drawn. ' In considering the course tVjo prisoner took in tegarej to trie' legatees, and which woulrj he detailed in evidence, they found that in January, }BB3. he was in communication with a firm of solicitors in Sheffield noting for tho English legatees, and on the 25th of that month ha wrote to that firm a letter proposing a scheme In reference to the realisation of shares and payment of duties, at which time the shares, with the exception of 50, had all been converted.

Mr Warded : Were the shares or the proceeds left to these legatees ? Mr Jellicoe said the shares. Coming to 1884, they found that the prisoner was still playing this farce with the legatees, and issuing a circular setting forth the actual amount fo which each legatee vjas entitled! On the I3th May, 1884, he forwarded *tq Ernest Arundel LlB 15s, amognt of dividend on Ms bank shares, The receipt was returned signed, and had been found it) Taylor’s possession. There were, as a matter of fact, no chares in existence at that time. When Jonas Arundel came to Wellington on the 19th May last he had an interview with the accused, who then admitted that he had disposed of these shares, and knew perfectly well that ho was doing -it, excusing himself by saying that Mrs Rhodes had “ uimped on hitn-’,’ That was* noj, truei, Inasmuch as L9QOQ Worth duly had been transferred to the estate. In conclusion, Mr Jelliooe sqid that the accused would* he found ope of the skilful tliieyes of the present age, The following evidence was called for the prosecution D. G. A. Cooper; I am Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, I produce the exemplification of the will of James May, and an affidavit filed by the prisoner on May 19, 1882, upon which probate was granted, (Affidavit read.) On June 0,1882, probate was granted, I also produce petition filed by accused in October, ISB3, and petition filed in bankruptcy in Juno, 1884, upon v-hirji the prisoner was udjudicqßij,,Tfie prisoner hod nqt filed in ilio Supreme Court any scheme for the distribution of .money among the legatees. Such a scheme was filed on July 49, 1884, by Mr Jonas* Arundel,-residuary legatee*. By Mr Bhaw i I produce'’ the scheme filed by Mr Arundel,* ' ' Martin Chapman, solicitor, practising in Wellington : The signature'“ Martin Chapman” to the affidavit produced is mine. The signature “Waring Taylor” is, Ishbuld say, that of the accused. I cannot,'of'course, 1 swear td iti I Can swear,’ by seeing my signature'- fo the affidavit, that I' mhniriistored' an oath to Waring TayfiJ);. _ D. M. Luckie, Deputy Commissioner of Stamps; X produce u statement in the matter of Jnmea May’s estate filed by accused, together with certain schedules, in to«-„ 3 of , 119 Deceased Persons Estatjj, Act, 1881." 2atlec Rigg, accountant at the slunk of New Zealand, Wellington, deposed that he kept the share register. The Bank did not recognise trust fnnda ta regayfla ahdres*. The whole of the 10)4 hhares’hold hy the late Hr James May, were transferred to Taylor in his own name, hut at the present time none of them were standing to his credit. Only 49 shares were transferred by Taylor, according to will, to Jonas Arundel, 20 to George Arundel, 20 to Edmund Arundel, 47 to Arthur Scampton, none to Isaac Carter, 5 shares to T. S. Weston,-25 to Robert KoKinley, 50 to* Wood, Pickering; Und Sima ; 236 out of the 1014 shares left hy the lata Mr May be Hg thus aoobuhted for. * Mr C. C. Graham, the Official Assignee, was also called to* prove ccrtajh tfausfars found in the possession of the accused. D. T. Stuart, sharebroker in business at Wellington: I know thj prisoner. On the 31st May, 1882, I sold 23 Bank of New Zealand shares at the instance of the accused, and on the 3rd June 19 and 13, and on the sth June 30. The four sale notes I produce were in conncption'with "sales, and Were rendered by me to the prisoner. The total sum realised by the sale of those shares was L 1903 10s, less I*2llos, X gave prisoner a cheque for that amount on the 15th June, 1882, drawn on the Bank of Australasia. On the 17th June I sold GO Bank of New Zealand shares, and on the 9th February, 1883, 100 shares, sending him on the 12th February a cheque for L 2308 5s Sd on the Bank of Australasia. On the 23rd June, 1883, I sold 20 shares, and on the 12th July, 1883, 30 shares, the latter realising LllOO. On the 2nd of July I paid L 446 13s 41 to the prisoner’s credit on the collection of draft. On the 13th July I sent a cheque for L 653 6s 8d to prisoner, that, y-ith the draft) making up the L1IQ0.; The sale notes being handed in, Mr-Jellicoo pointed out that upon each one was written, “James May’s Estate.” The cheques produced are the several cheques handed over by me. Mr Taylor told me that these sales were* in cdnnection with May’s estate. ’By Sir Shaw : 4 knew thAt Mr Taylor waa’exeoutor for May’s estate; accused told me that certain shares were sold under May’s estate, but* there were others about which he volunteered no statement, and T concluded that ‘ they were all in the estate. * Mr JeUicoe ; Djid know that the prisoner ha‘d been misappropriating those share’s! ’Mr Shaw’ objected to tbia'question, and, in* the 'course* of 4 syanp''argument, Mr Shaw remarked that Mr' Tqyior ryus simply, realising the estateeverybody in the town knew it. !fl r JeUicoe ; And he is still at liberty j Well, you astonish me by saying that everyone knew, and yet Taylor was not imprisoned. Ernest Wastney: I am a ledger-keeper in the National Bank of Now Zealand, and I know the accused, who has an account wjtji the National Bank. 0;i June 1(5, 1882,' pdaoner paid some rnoneyjntb bis account, including 'a cheque * fqr L2IS2 os BJ, drawp by D. *V. Stuart, and with which the accused's private account was credited. Previous to that amount being paid in,_ the prisoner’s banking balance was a debit of L 5659 4s lid. On tfie 18th August, 1832, prisoner paid into his banking account Lll9l Us, which amounts were made up by two cheques on the Bank of New Zealand by D. T. Stuart. These were also placed to the credit of the prisoner’s account. Before those cheques were paid in the prisoner’s account had a debit balance of L 1730 14s 7d, and on the 12th February, 1883, L23/2 v/a4 paiilinto the account, including a theque'of Mr Stuart's for L 2308 5s 3d. ’ Before that was paid in the debit balance of the account was L 1565 Gs Bd. On the 13th July, 1883, L 446 13s 4d was paid into our bank by the Bank of Australasia to the accused’s account. The debit balance previous to that amount was L 3073 9« 3d. On the 14th July Lofi2 os foil was paid into the account, including, a cheque for L 653 Cs Bd, drawn on the Bank of Australasia by Mr D. ; T. Stuart, the debit balance of prisoner’s account being L 4113 Ss sd. In all these cases the proceeds of the cheques went to the reduction of the-debit balance. The witness was examined at considerable length, in order to establish the identity of -letters, &c„ written by the prisoner. , Henry* Richard Glegg, manager of. the National Ba'nk of New Zealand, Wellington, corroborated the evidence* given by the last witness,- and added that on the 28th of June last, the date oh'which the prisoner filed his schedule, the accused was ’considerably indebted to the bank; The bank’s proof of debt was abont L9000.' The 'overdraft 'was L 2455. The proof for L9OOO included hills under 'discount. Accused’s brother had' guaranteed an overdraft of LSOOO. D. T. Stuart, recalled : In connection with the sale of shares, I charged May’s estate the whole commission, and gave Taylor half. By Mr Shaw : That practice is a usual one. By Mr Jelficoe ) I don’t know whether the practice is a common one in connection with executors. I have never had a similar case where such a oonrse was pursued. The proposal emanated from me. A. B. Campbell, called, swore to the signature of the accused on a document. Thomas Mason : I am one of the trustees of the Rhodes’ estate. In April of . this year I recollect obtaining a transfer iof 50 Bank of New Zealand shares from-the accused to the estate. '. At the time, (lie prisoner : w4s indebted to the esta‘te‘j'tl!6 exact amount X carmot say, Before the transfer tho shares dicl no't belong to the ‘E&sJek estate. ' I suppssed, rfia'/thoy belonged to Taylor, because' they were transferretf in his name. By Mr Shaw; jThe trust hod an account at the Bapk hf New JSealand. Artfiur Edward Hqwden : I am clerk to the Rhodes tract. In June, ISS3, accused was indebted to Mrs Rhodes Li 1,333 Gs lid. In April, 1883, §33 Bapk of New Zealand chares Were transferred tq Mm S. A. Rhodes fiy the prisoner, and receiving credit on that account for L69Bfi Ins. The receipt produced js in Mrs S. A. Rhodes’ handwriting. I (fid not knev,until quite recently that these shares belonged

t"> the May estate. I cannot say how the fcriM came to take over these shave*. Tlie liability to Mins Rhodes in June, 1883, was L 2779 fi-L Eighty New Zealand Bank shares wore transferred to Miss M, A. Rhodes about that time, for which accused took credit L 1873 odd. The roc dpt for the shares produced Is signed by Miss ‘Rhodes. At the time this transfer was made I was not aware that they belonged to the May estate. James Heston, accountant for the Official Assignee: I took possession of all the books and papers in the estate of the prisoner. Amongst them were the two receipts from Miss Rhodes.

Ernest Arundel: I reside with my parents at Dunedin. lam one of the legatees under My James May’s will. In March, 18S3, I received this document (produced) from W. Waring Taylor, and affixed rny signature to it, authorising the transfer of 20 shares out of 25 willed to me by Mr May, and giving Taylor power of attorney. A letter also went with the return, stating that my brother Jonas thought it improbable that the power of attorney and transfer would be of any us-*, because I was under 21 years of age. I have never received those shares, nor have I received the value of them. In May, 188-1, my father received from Mr Taylor a cheque for LIS, dividend on my twenty-five Bank of New Zealand shares, and for which a receipt was forwarded, which my father signed in my presence, and returned. I never gave the prisoner any authority to transfer the shares, W. Jj. Hawk, a clerk, formerly in the employ of accused, deposed that the writing in the trust and estate book was all in Taylor’s handwritimr. He also swore that the letters to the Sheffield solicitors and to Ernest Arundel were in the handwriting of priaonei. Jonas Arundel: I am the residuary legatee and English administrator of the May estate. At this juncture, it being then past 6 o’clock, it was decided to adjourn the case till Saturday morning, bail being allowed as before.

The hearing of the first of a series of charges to be preferred against W. Waring Taylor was resumed on Sat iv day last at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, before Mr H. S. Warded, R.M. The prosecution, as on first day of the examination, was conducted by Mr Jollicoe, and Mr B. Shaw for prisoner, who ou surrendering to his bail was accommodated with a s*at by his counsel’s aide. A large quantity of the evidence adduced on Saturday last had already been taken, and several witnesses who were recalled merely recapitulated their testimony on Wednesday last, Richard Butler Kigg was recalled, and on being sworn, said that he was accountant at the Bank of New Zealand, Wellington. On Bth Jane, 1882, prisoner exhibited probate at the bank in the will of the May estate, and upon this 101 bank shares left by the late Mr May were transferred tq accused. The 47 shares transferred to Scampton by Taylor were not transferred in May last, as witnssa had stated on the first day of tho examination, but iu May, 1883, 40 of the times being transferred ou the Ist May and the balance on tho 10th May. Jonas Arundel state 1 that h« was the residuary legatee in the May estate. Nine hundred and sixty-five shares in the Bank of New Zealand on the colonial register'were specifically bequeathed, and 49 of tibe.se shares went with rfiaiclue. Qf tqe 1014 shares left by Mr May, only 33Q of them (the original share*) had coma into the hands of the legatees, and the remaining 778 had been misappropriated by the prisoner and do not now exist. There is no entry in the trust account book (produced) whatever of any sale of tho share* as above,

Mr E, Shaw objected to the book being described as a trust account book. It was not a trust account book at all, but merely a rough memoranda book, 1

Witness resumed his evidence, and said that the dividend due on the 885 shares in the Colonial Register in October, 1882, amounted to £723.

D. T.‘ Stuart was at this stago recalled, and repeated certain evidence given qq (he former occasion relative to certain transactions he had had with thi) accused. 1

Eruest Waatuey, a cleric In the Wellington branch of the National Bank, was recalled, ami produced a pap *lu slip datsd 19th June, 1882, showing that the accused had on that day paid in £1670 15c lid, which amount included a cheque drawii by Mr D,. T. Stuart for £1521 16s 1«. Piianaeiti debit Ijdanca at the lia'ulr pricy' to this" payment being made amounted to £35?2. John Taylor genoraliy paid in the balances t‘J th 9 prUpliyc'* oru.lH; the Dank,

Tho "Itnesg Jonas Arundel resumed his evidence, and atatid that it was subsequently ascertained that the transfer sent to his brother tiniest Arundel, a youth of 18 years, was a dummy one, It wqi ee.at down to Dunedin to be filled'up, which was done, and the dummy was then returned to the prisoner. The accused subsequent to this wiote to witness and informed him that the shares, amounting to 49, which had fallen into residue, would very shortly be transferred to witness. As nothing, however, was donein the matter, he (witness) made inquiries, which resulted in ids finding that prisouerls statement was utterly ‘false, 1 sp far as Taylor’s statements relative tp the, shares’ was concerned. Not being satisfied with the state of affairs, he came up to Wellington in October, 1883, with a view to getting the matter brought to a close. Accompanied by pri-onsr, witness called at Messrs Brandon’s office, and pna-ied prisoner to make the transfers to the English legatees. He (prisoner) promised that it should be done. In May, 18.84, wit- ■ ness ascertained Ilm t at 11: e date of that inlervicw only 142 shares out of the 1014 shares left by the late Mr May were in the possession of the accused. In May Uat, witness, from what he had beard, arrived in Wellington with his solicitor, Mr Douald Stewart, acd bad an interview with prisoner. Both witness and Mr Stewart urged a settlement of accounts and a payment account of the residential account. Taylor said that he was very busy just thee, and requested witness and Mr Stewart to call again, and as they were leaving the office Taylor beckoned witness back, and said that -he must allow some forberanoe iU the matter. Taylor said, “ The fact is I have quarrelled with my co-trustee in the Rhodes’ estate, and he has jumped upon me, and I have made use of the shares in the May estate in order to satisfy the Rhodes.” Thi', however, Taylor declared to have been quite a recent transaction, and no mention whatever was made of tiia shares having been sold. Mr Stewart and witness left, but returned again in about an bourls time, and the prisoner then declared that he was perfectly solvent. Taylor begged witness not to write to Messrs Brpomhead qud On., solicitors. Sheffield, England, oq tfie sublet of thp shares, which witness wopli! pot agree to, by the next vessel. He dpi wipe to Messrs Broombead and 00. with regard to the English legatees’ interest, and subsequently he cabled to them. The accused filed bis schedule on 29th June last.

Thomas Francis Gray, a clerk in Mr Jellicoe's employ, gave evidence that he had given the prisoner’s legal adviser; notice to produce all documontg in gjnqegtiug with the caRO, Formal evidence that the Attorney General had given authority for the present prosecution was put. This closed the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner having been duly cautioned by tho Resident Magistrate, he was committed for trial, Mr E. Shaw stating that be should re* serve his defence.

Mr Jellicoe, in answer to the Bench, said that be had to apply lor a remand till the fob lowing Friday on ten other chargfj which bad been preferred th® ppUonep. He did not however, that he would be in a position to proceed with the informationa till the following Tuesday, as a number of witnesses for the prosecution would have to be subpoenaed from Dunedin. His Worship said that sq fav as the case which had been sent for trial was concerned, bail would he allowed in two sureties of £IOOO each, and sureties for similar amounts would .have to be given that the accused should present himself to answer the remaining charges. The prisoner was then removed iu custody to the city lock-up, but was, after a detention of several hours, bailed out, the bondsmen being Mr Andrew Young' and Hod, .C, J. Pharazyo; ■ - N