W. R. WATERS’ CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLX, Issue 8168, 20 August 1887, Page 5

W. R. WATERS’ CASE.

THE PROSECUTION ABANDONED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning the charge against W. R. Waters, of having, on the 10th October last, embezzled £IOO, the property of the City Advance Company, was called on, and the accused went into the dock. Mr Edwards (counsel for the prosecution) said in this case he did not propose to offer any evidence. In fact, his retainer hadjbaen withdrawn, and he was not in a position to proceed with the prosecution. He desired to say a few words in regard to the matter, as one that had attracted great public interest and would probably cause considerable public comment. In the first place, he desired to say that the facts upon which the prosecution would rely were very . fully before his Honor Judge Richmond .on the 26th July last, and the whole matter was brought out in Waters’ owe evidence, upon which, in a great measure, the prosecution would have founded its case. On August 3, his Honor Judge Richmond delivered a lengthy written judgment dealing with this particular matter, which had excited a good deal of interest. -That was a public matter, a thing of common notoriety, open to the police and to every officer charged with the administra* tionbf justice in the Colony. The matter had also been at great length before the Official Assignee. On the2Sth July last the Assignee, as a public functionary, rejected the proof of the City Advance Company, on the ground that it disclosed matters of felony: It was also before the Inspector of Police, Mr Browne, on the 9th August last, and on the 10th August he informed the gentleman who laid it before him that he had communicated with the Commissioner, and been informed that the matter was not one for the police to prosecute in. Mr Edwards went on to say that he mentioned these matters because he did not doubt that it would be alleged that this prosecution ought to have been continued and carried out. He mentioned them simply with the view that the public might fully understand that the matter had been in its amplest form before the Supreme Court, before the Official Assignee, before the police, the Commissioner, and, he was informed, before the Colonial Secretary. That * being the case, a private prosecutor was at liberty to prosecute or not, and in the present case it had suited Mr Cattell to go a certain length, and it now suited him to withdraw his (Mr Edward’s) retainer. We found in trifling cases such as had been before the Court just before —- Mr Skerrett; Well, I don’t know how long my learned friend is going to continue. Mr Edwards said he would continue until he had done. We found in such oases as charges of indecent language, and of stealing little parcels of timber, such as bad been before the Court that morning, that the chief officers of the police were actively engaged in the prosecution, and doing their duty. He

did not snggest that any officer of the police had failed m his duty in this case, that his Honor Judge Richmond had failed in his duty in not directing a or that the Official Assignee had failed in his duty ; but he did say—and he had no doubt the public would agree with it—that it was a public misfortune that for small offences people should be prosecuted with the utmost rigor of the law, and with all the force and weight of the officials of the Colony, while grave offences remained unpunished. Under these circumstances he thought it was the duty of the Government to publish “a complete guide for criminals,” in order that people might understand that it was quite safe to commit breaches of trust and frauds, and to steal immense amounts of money ; but that they had better keep their hands off small bits of timber. Ho did not say that Waters had been guilty of any felony in the matter; but they found that the Official Assignee, upon the advice of the Crown Pro* seoutor, had rejected the proof on grounds which he had already explained, and no prosecution was made. He (Mr Edwards) simply made these remarks because the matter was one which had attracted a great deal of public interest, and he had no doubt that, unless the position of the prosecutor was explained, he would be blamed for having withdrawn the retainer. Mr Skerrett (for the accused) said that with every word his learned friend had said in his learned discourse he agreed. But really it had very little to do with the present case. His friend had very properly pointed out that the facts had been before Judges of great impartiality, and those Judges had evidently come to the conclusion that the facts did not constitute a criminal offence. That was the only inference that could be drawn from the fact that up to the present no prosecution had been elicited. The bankrupt, he pointed out, had not endeavored ta shirk inquiry, but had been here awaiting it. He was pleased to observe that his friend had not ventured to state that there was anything in the charge against Waters. Mr Edwards : My learned friend has no right to make that statement. I have only explained my position. Mr Wardell: Yon express no opinion ? Mr Edwards : No, none. I don’t express any opinion, and I certainly don’t express any opinion that he has not clone it. Mr Wardell said his course was clear. Every man was innocent until he was shown to be guilty, and so far as this charge was concerned, if no evidence was offerad in support of it, and unless there was someone to come before him to give evidence against the accused, there was no reason for his (Waters’) further attendance, and he should consider it his duty to order his discharge. At the same time he did feel that it was a matter of very serious importance and a public question—a matter going almost to the length of a question of commercial morality—that reports, apparently well-grounded, of improper dealing with the money of others should have obtained such wide circulation, be brought so prominently before the public, and then that the cease. It left an impression—and unfortunately this was not the first case of the kind which had come before him—that crimes of a certain character might be wildly charged without the means of proving them, or that if there were reasonable grounds, for some reason or other with which they were not acquainted, the prosecution was withdrawn. It became, then, a very serious question,- affecting, as he thought, the well-being and morality -of the country. However, he had now to discharge the accused, but it was only right and proper he should say that this was only a discharge so far as the information of James Cattell was concerned. Thefaet that the police had not up to the present taken any action did not debar them from taking any action they thought necessary in the interests of jnstioe. Mr Skerrett: Of coarse the Court recognises that- improper dealings with the funds of another, is one thing and the offence embezzlement is another. The accused was then discharged.