THE PROSECUTION OF W. R. WATERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLX, Issue 8167, 19 August 1887, Page 2

THE PROSECUTION OF W. R. WATERS.

ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT. , Messrs T. W. Young, Andrew Young, ' and E. W. Mills (Justices) met in the jury room yesterday morning to hear the charge against W. R. Waters of having, on the 10th October, 1885, embezzled £IOO, the moneys of the City Advance and Deposit Company, of which he was their manager. At halfpast 10 the accused was not in attendance, but the Court orderly presently reported that he “ was coming across the reclaimed land as fast as he could,” and the accused made his appearance a few minutes late. ‘ ‘ I have to apologise to the Court,” he said ; ** my solicitor is not present.” Mr Edwards, counsel for the prosecution, said he did not know what was to be done. One did not like to proceed, of course, in the absence of the accused’s solicitor, but he (Mr Edwards) on the other hand had come there at very great personal inconvenience. Mr Young : So have we. Waters remarked that his solicitor would be there presently, and the Bench said they had better go on with the case. “ Your Worships will pardon me,” said Waters, “but my solicitor intends to ask for a remand till 2 o'clock, and I think you might give me a few minutes till be comes.” Mr Edwards said he should not oppose an adjournment if there was any reason for it, and substantial bail Was given. The Clerk of the Court (Mr James) remarked that it was very inconvenient to adjourn after the case : being fixed for that morning. Mr Mills said he thought the solicitor should be there. Business men had their avocations to attend to, and they could not lose time in this way. At this juncture (it being then about twenty minutes to 11), Mr .Skerrett, .counsel for the accused, came

in. The Bench would be aware, be said, of the circumstances of this proseontion, which involved transactions extending over a considerable period of years, and would raise very nice questions of law as to the admissibility of evidence and so on. It appeared to him desirable that the case should be taken by Mr Wardell, who intimated on the previous day that there was very little business on Friday, and that if it would suit the convenience of counsel he would take it then. At that time it did not suit the convenience of hU friend, whom he had not been able to consult since ; but if they would consult Mr Wardell on the point they would find he was quite prepared to take the case on Friday. Mr Edwards said he did not object to Friday, but he said he would leave the responsibility of fixing the day upon the Bench, and that he still did. He would neither assent nor dissent. Mr Mills said that personally ho had no wish to shirk his duty, but he did think this matter, as one which involved, possibly, Important points of law, should be dealt with by a magistrate. Mr Edwards said there were no nice points of law to be discussed in an inferior Court. Mr Skerrett said there were nice points of evidence, and he pointed out that, when a similar charge was before the Court before, the Court was an arena of constant argument. He would point out further that the sittings of the Supreme Court did not take place till October, and if the Bench committed Waters he could not be put upon his trial till then. There was not the slightest necessity for haste. After some farther discussion the Bench adjourned the case till to-day, at 2.20. The Clerk remarked that it was very inconvenient to adjourn it, since there was a lot of business set - down for today. The question oi bail was then mentioned, and formed the subject of a brief argument, in the course of which Waters remarked that “there was no steamer going out.” Eventually bail was accepted as before.