THE INSURANCE EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 7779, 11 May 1886, Page 2

THE INSURANCE EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGE.

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Messrs R. Hart, J. H. Bethune, and J. Lockie, J.P.’s, John Stuart Reid was charged with having, between the 15th March, 1885, and the 16th April, 1886, embezzled the sum of £792 7s 7d,, moneys received by him as a clerk or servant to the United Insurance Company of New South Wales. The accused was defended by Mr Stafford. Mr Jellicoe being for the prosecution. Mr Jellicoe, in opening bis case, said the accused was charged under section 67 of the Larceny Act. Mr Reid was appointed agent for the Company in May, 1880, for the provincial district of Wellington. On the 21st May, a letter of instruction was sent to Mr Reid, which Informed him that be was to get 10 per cent on nett premiums and 5 per cent ou nett profits. He wai to deposit all premiums and payments in the .Bank of New South Wales, and to render accounts at stated periods. In a statement sent for his guidance, Mr Reid was instructed as to the rendering of accounts by him. From 1880 till now Mr Reid bad remained agent for the Company. Mr Jellicoe explained that he would not trouble the Court with what had occurred before 1885. He should prove by evidence that sums of money received by the accused were pai i into the credit of his private banking account, then overdrawn. The maoager'of the Company had come to Wellington, and, after two or three interviews, got Mr Reid to render a proper account, by which the accused ad* mitted a deficiency for the year 1885 of £BOO, and a total deficiency of something over £IOOO. The question, of course, was whether Mr Reid was a clerk or servant to the Company. His learned friend, be knew, was going to raise the question whether, the accused being paid by commission was a clerk or servant—whether it was not a mere question of debtor and creditor. A short discussion ensued, at the end of which Mr Jellicoe said be would face the difficulty at once, and proceeded to quote legal authorities to support bis contention that the accused was a servant or clerk.

Mr Stafford said if it was a question of a commission agent solely, there most be something to show the relationship as clerk or servant. The relationship had been conducted on the debtor and creditor basis, and the representative of the Company, Mr Tilney, had accepted that basis. He was prepared to show that there bad been each a final settlement on that basis, and unless his friend was prepared to proceed on it be did nut see how be could carry oat the case. If his friend wonld look at the receipt be produced, be wonld see that there was a complete admission of the position of debtor and creditor, of agent and principal, between the parties. -,Hia friend would see the effect of that on the previous set of accounts. Here Mr Stafford handed to Mr Jeliicoe a stamped receipt. Mr Jeliicoe : My friend has handed me a document. Will your Worships look at it 1 Mr Stafford said it would be seen by that receipt that Mr Tinley accepted the position as that of debtor and czeiitor. Mr Jeliicoe said the receipt produced certainly destroyed the debt. Mr Stg^‘ jr d said his friend knew that in all matters debtor and creditor

were concerned'it wm a very, delicate position. T&pfe were no more difficult cases than ,of this sort. From the receipt ho bad pro* daoed it would bo seen that the agent of the Company, having looked at the whole matter, and having seta of accounts before him, had come to the conclusion, as had been said, that there was nothing more than indebtedness by Mr Keid to the Company. It was like »«»y other indebtedness, it must be settled, but there was no criminal act.

Mr Jellicoe said the receipt rather bore out what ho had said—that if the ptosecutor treated Mr Reid’s account as Involving a debtor and creditor relationship, he (Mr Jellicoe) might be in a difficulty if be had to ask the Court to deal with it an a criminal offence, tt was not fof Mm, but for the Court to say what was right. His friend bad produced a receipt which satisfied him, and which, he would admit, was signed by bis client on behalf of the Company* The receipt was an acknowledgment of the payment of £3OO, in discharge of AlrJuo. Stuart Reid’s liability to the Company, but it went en to eay, 44 'flits receipt Is without prejudice to the present prosecutions.' 1

Mr Stafford said his friend knew that a eeries of accounts had been made from time to time, which showed the position of debtor and creditor.

Mr Jellicoe remarked that it appeared the money had been paid by some friend on the part of Mr Keid, because the words were "in discharge of Mr John Stuart Reid’s liability to the Company.'* . There were other disbursements to be accounted for, however. If the Court was satisfied that there had been no offence, and choce to take the same view oi the matter as tbu prosecutor bad done, of course, it was not for him to say anything more. Baft It must be for the Court to say. It was oat of bU power to withdraw a prosecution for felonys the responsibility rested with the Court.

The Bench considered they could do nothing if the prosecution offered no evidence, Mr Jellicoe said bo would prefer that the Court did not place the responsibility on his shoulders. Hla sins were heavy euoagh.

Mr Hart t Well there is no evidence brought before the Court whatever. Mr Jellicoe said no doubt the receipt threw a very different light on the matter. By it the debt was destroyed—and the debt, of course, was the essence of embezzlement.

Mr Stafford said the boundary line between the two offences was so very narrow that it could be overstepped by anyone

After some further discussion Mr Hart said the Coart was called on to decide a matter which should be taken before the Supreme Court, If there was no evidence offered, of course they could not go on. Mr Jellicoe said that after that observation he wonld not call evidence, and the cose was dismissed.