A STRANGE CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4289, 23 February 1901, Page 2

A STRANGE CASE.

In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Dr McArthur - , S.M., Daniel McCullogh was charged with having stolon saddle-cloths to the value of 6s, the property of Butler Bros., wholesale saddlers, of Lambton quay. Sub-Inspector "Wilson conducted the case for the prosecution and Mr Wilford appeared for the defence. A. W. Blanchard, manager for Butler Bros., gave evidence tlftt the defendant was employed by the firm of Butler Bros, to make saddle-cloths at a cost of 8d each. The material was supplied by Butler Bros. One lot of material was given him, in October last to make up which should have turned out a certain number of cloths, but the defendant returned four short. He said that was the total number he obtained from the material. During the current month witness was passing the shop of MoCnllogh and 1 there saw cloths which were of the same piece. To Mr Wilford: It was in October last that he became convinced that McCullogh had stolen the material. Had given the defendant work to do since then. Considered it his duty to facilitate tlie firm’s work, even though ho gave ■the work Uy a man who was under suspicion. He did not lay the information until the present month because it was not until then, that ho found the saddle-cloth in the defendant’s shop. It was possible that Bing, Harris and Co. might sell similar material to that whioh ho had supplied to McCullogh to make up for him ; the fact remained, though, that he had supplied McCullogh' with a certain material, that some of it was, unaccounted-for, and that witness had found a saddle-cloth in McCullogh’s shop which was made of similar mate-, rial.

A warehouseman named Stephens, employed by Butler Bros., deposed that; he accompanied Blanchard to the shop of Mc-Oullogh. The witness confirmed! the previous witness’s statements in some particulars, but differed from Mm in others.

Detective McGrath deposed that he executed a search, warrant on the premises of McCullogh. The latter told him that ho" was in the habit of buying material from Butler Bros, and reselling it to them in the form of saddlecloths.

Daniel McCullogh, the defendant, gave evidence on his own behalf. He had been worldng for Butler Bros, for five years. Often bought material from the firm —should think he had done so twenty or thirty times. He got instructions lately to make a pair of leggings. The tops were of different stuff to the remainder. Owing to a lack of material, he postponed making the leg-; gings for a while—it was really owing; to lack of money. The witness Blanchard came to the shop and violently complained about the leggings not being delivered. He was “ bounceable," so w’tness ordered him out of the shop. He refused to go, and witness pressed Mm out. Blanchard returned and brought up Stevens and a scuffle ensued between witness and Blanchard. The latter accused witness of having some of the firm’s saddle-cloths. The saddle-oloths produced had been in his window for many months past. Blanchard had never asked Mm for payment for the saddle-cloths alleged to be returned short. When he bought stuff from Butler Bros, it was served to him by a man down in the cellars.

To Sub-Inspector Wilson: Did not remember Blanchard measuring out in October last to him enough material to make thirty-six saddle-cloths. Would be surprised to hear that cloth was kept in the top-story at Butler Bros.’s warehouse. Had been buying saddle-cloth material for five years past from Bing, Harris and Co.’s, from Ramsay’s and from other local warehouses, and reselling the manufactured articles to them. Blanchard told him there were saddle-cloths unaccounted for, and witness told him that the monthly accounts had settled up for everything. The reason why bo told the detective that he bought from Butler Bros, the stuff mentioned in the information and resold the manufactured articles to them was because he frequently did business in that way..

Dr McArthur said he was perfectly satisfied that the proceedings should-not have ; 'bWif taken ‘'af all,* and' he must confess that Butler Bros, had acted in the matter in a singular way. The charge alleged that McCullogh had beeiT guilty of theft of the firm’s goods, in October, and yet it went on employing him up till the 4ih February. It appeared to him (Dr McArthur) that if the complainant firm had anything against McCullogh a civil action would have been the proper course. It was a curious mistake that in the receipt produced by the firm the date on the billhead was December 1 and the date of the receipt was November 4. It might have been, of course, a clerical error. The information must be . dismissed. *