CIVIL SERVANT'S CAREER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9736, 11 August 1917, Page 10

CIVIL SERVANT'S CAREER

, REMARKABLE CASE EXTRAORDINARY DEFENCE. TO'CHARGE OF TEEFT. Quite an extraordinary defence was set up in a case which came before Mr Justice Hoskins; in the Criminal Court yesterday. It was that in which Herbert Batqn Radcliffe, a man of 42, formerly chief clerk in the Mines Department, was charged witii Having . on September 26th. 1916, stolen the sum or £4od, the property or the Government. and bn September 30th the sum of £35 Is lod Mr V. R. Meredith appeared for the Crown and Mr T. M. Wiiford for the defence. Mr Meredith, in opening the case, explained that the emoezzlemeuos had occurred through the accused drawing cheques on Government funds under his control. He had a deposit and imprest accounts in his own name. Radcliffe received from the Government Insurance Department £475 Os 3d in settlement of two claims by the Mines Department on account of accidents to two employees. As the Mines Department had already settled with its own employees this money was the property of the Govern man t. It should have gone into the public account and not the deposit account. Subsequently be transferred £289 18s 5d to the public account. Tho balance ho drew in two cheques which were cashed and the money was ‘unaccounted for. Evidence in support of tho statement of tho Crown Prosecutor was tendered. *' Mr Wiiford said that tho was a sad one. Six years ago accused was regarded as a coming man. and.it came as a great shock to all bis acquaintances when his honesty was called into question. A unique hut just defence, however, should secure the acquittal of the prisoner. For the past six or

seven years he had been a secret drinker. Pnom 8 to 10 o’clock every night he had soaked in whisky and gone to .bed drunk. At S a.m. he would get up for more whisky, and before breakfast he would take another one, but wouldl refrain from alcohol all lay. Th«, cause of his drinking was to get relief from the dyspeptic effects of ! disease of the gums known as “pyorrhoea alveolaris.” As a result of his drinking he lost his concentration of nind, acted automatically, and cer- ' unly had no guilty intent when he ipproprinted £2OO of Government "nonev which he had no need for, as he v-s worth £3OOO. MefUcal ev'donce was called to support. the ‘hcoTv of counsel. Dr Gilmer, nhysicion to the Radcliffe family for nine or ten years, stated that within the last year or two he had to attend the accused oh" account of his excessive drinking. He had been astonished at his recuperative powers. Won when not under the influence of liquor he did not seem to he quite normal. During the last month or two he had hcen under Dr Robertson’s care. Cross-examined witness said that the disease accused was suffering from caused a sc.ptie discharge from the gums. Dr J. M. Mason, specialist in bacteriology, stated that he saw Rad-

cliffe on March 30th of this year, he having been brought to witness by his dentist, Mr Mantell. His gums were sodden, and all round the teeth there was a covering of pus. His teeth were nearly a!! loose. He jvas suffering from “pyorrhoea alveolaris,” which meant that ho would be constantly swallowing pus. His condition must have existed for more than a year. “Does that mean he was daily poisoning himself?—“Yes.” “Does that produce a septic condition?”—“‘Toxaemia.’ It is aseptic condition producing poisoning of the

blood.” “What would he the mental condition of a man who had been suffering for twelve months from swallowing such poison?”—“The general result of tho swallowing of this putrid material is that the patient has a marked form of indigestion, fits of depression, and, is the disease proceeds, rheumatism will bo, brought on.” i “Would taking liquor give him relief?” —“It would relieve his depres»ion. As a matter of fact, when I told him to stop liquoring he gave this condition of indigestion as a reason for taking liquor.” “He does not strike one as a drinker?” “No; he is looking much better now.” ~ , “Is there any sign of the secret drinker?”—“Oh, yes; shifty and evasive eyes. Ho could not look you in the face.” “You diagnosed that he had been drinking?”—“Ho had been drinking before he came to seo me at 9 o'clock in tho morning.” “Can you feay from your examination of him and from the various observations you have had of him that ho was normal as fair as his capacity to understand was concerned?”—“He was not normal when ho came th 'me. Ho was recovering from the Jasv night’s liquoring-up. He repeatedly spoke of. the pain, discomfort, and depression which are always associated with this particular ailment.” "Was his a bad case of pyorrhoea?’ “Yes; very bad; Ills mouth was in a stinking condition.” _ . “And he must have been in that condition for some time?”—“Yes." Dr Robertson was also called. Emily Martha Radcljffe, wife of the accused, described his habits. He was generally at home of a night, and his custom was to consume a bottle of whisky each evening before he went to bed. This had been going on for five years. She noticed that he Bad deteriorated mentally. He Had become very forgetful. He had been under the care of three, doctors. He would wander about the house during the night. He had means to f the extent of £3OOO.

His Honour, in summing up, said that the jury had to consider wheth-r it was the intention of the accused to take the money, knowing it did not belong to him. It had to be remembered that it was not the case of a man who was hard-up and wanted money. It had been suggested for the defence that for an acquittal they had to satisfy themselves that this man took the money as in a dream.” Mr Wilford: “That was only a figure of speech,” His Honour; “Well, all I have got to say is that it is for juries to see that they do not encourage defences, which consist of stating that acts were done in a dream. There will bo a vast increase of dreams if that point of view is encouraged.” After a retirement of five hours the jury announced that they could not

agree and a near trial was ordered for Thursday next. Accused was released on hail in the sUm of £2OO and a surety for the same amount.