FRAUDS.

NZ Truth, Issue 60, 18 August 1906, Page 4

FRAUDS.

Cnris*cnm*ch Lawyer and His Clerk Convicted.

Two Years for the Clerk ; An Appeal Allowed for the Shark.

A considerable amount of interest was evinced m the trial of » Francis Henry Bruges, solicitor, and James Goodman, his managing clerk, for theft at Ohristchurch on Monday. Mr Justice Cooper tried the case, a common jury being empanelled. For some reason or other Crown Prosecutor Stringer didn't take the case on, and Mick Mytirs wan imported from Wellington. Also Hanlon, the clean shaven Dunedin lawyer,' came up to appear, with local lawyer Donnelly, for Jimmy Goodman, T. C. Russell representing Bruges. There wers two oouut» preferred against the accused— for stealing £2bO on the ?.nd Mcii-ch, 1901, and £200 on the Ist April, I^)u3, both amount:? beiaK the property of Henry Tuck, provision dealer. The Crown Prosecutor intimated thttt he would u*il all the evidence on thd two indictment.;. Tile ordinary prisoner ' r . compelled to stand m the dock during trial, bitt j,n i-Yception wus liiudfe m thi-o case. The accused *v«re <«,ilowea to sit down diou-gswle the»r counsel alter they had been arrainged , m the dock. There were only five challenges, the Crown making one against an Irishman* who seemed to be glad to gst out of it. In his opening; ad-dre l -"\ to the 'jury, Myers said that the case which they we're :,sked to try wat. •.

most unusual one,. It was unusual because of the nature of .the charge itself,, and the previous character of the per ! onji against, whom f-he, charges were levelled. The case would probably prove of

A MOST PAINFUL NATURE. It was always painful to>be called upon to deal with men who had oo cupied positions of honor and trur.'o m the town, m which the jury had been, residing.' Had not Bruges occupied such a position, he and' his clerk wouldn't have been indicted befor the court that day. The public had every confidence m him, and entrusted monies to him for investment which were misappropriated. It war, the proud boast of the British thi^ everybody was cnual before the law ; m the King's dominions the rich an^ poor were treated alike, the man if. th'j position of trust and the person who might be caller an 'put-law. The putting "of that theory into practice depended '(.pon the people themselve- , and th« iurv represented the people, ami raus*. give a verdict, without T*forenctv to the personnel of tlr> accused. Regarding the two emmv.; ap".ains>fc thwn, it was the rhit-v <>* evpry roliicitot carrying op business to ke» p a, separate 'account fot Trust funds ; he had no right to tyrinc' 1 them with- his own banking account. That was laid down by the Vsjiskr ture, and heavy" -penalties', were 'provided for m case of btpaches. i seemed that. Tuck's money and other monies wasn't put into a Trust .■"'- rount \t all, but went, into hh genera! account. The business was -t.h< biuiwss of Bruges, Goodman being only his managing clerk, and didn't receive any profits, only his salary. The mowies paid m by Tuck weren't, used for the purposes intended by the. owner, but went to pay

OTHER LIABILITIES of the firm. Regarding the amount of £260, it appeared that it was represented to - Tuck- that a school teacher, Lawrence, wanted to mortgage his property for £260, and h« was taken along- to' look at it. Tuck inspected the place from the outside, Goodman representing that M» s Lawrence needn't to interrogated as she was very diffident about speaking to stangers. Tuck advanced the £260 on this so-called security, and the money went into Bruges' general accounts, not his Trust account- it wasn't invested m any security whatever, and Tuck lost his money ; he had never received a penny • back. Where had it gone ? Tuck was nulled because he had every confidence m Bruges and Goodman, who knev; that at the very time that wbrn Goodman got the £260 an advarce had been secured On the property from someone else. In the case of the £200, Tuck gave the amount on the security of a place owned by nni Mason, but it was never devotert to the purpose that Tuck thought. However, they generously paid him interest on his investment. This payment of interest was part o f . somebody's scheme m the office, and led Tuck to suppose that all was well with his mythical securities. There were other cases m which Tuck gave Bruges' office monies for investment, and these would be narrated m the witness box. They I would show that there was a sys-

tem m the- office m matters of this kind, and also proved

KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF BRUGES. of what was going on m his office for years. From 1898 to 1904 between £10,000 a*d £12,000 had been paid m, the greater part of which was for investment, and the whole of which was unaccounted for ; and no investments had been made at all. Counsel then read what constituted theft, and said that if the jury believed the evidence—and there was no question about the correctness of that evidence—they would find that the dealings of the accused were fraudulent. It was For them to say whether both the accused were responsible, or only lone. So far as Bruges was concerned they would remember that these monies were received by Goodman, but BRUGES DERIVED THE BENE-

FIT of them. The books had been kept m suoh a bad state that it was impossible to say where the money had disappeared to. Apparently it had been paid to meet previous debts and liabilities ; m other words, from 1898 to 1904 there had been a process going on of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Although Goodman had handled the j money, Bruges was responsible, as he |was the solicitor, and reaped the benefit, and Goodman couldn't have acted without him, being only a salaried clerk. Even a cursory glance at the books during the past five or six years would have shown how things were going, and that they were going from bad to worse.

-The main witness, Henry Tuck, who had been

DIDDLED OUT OF =£1350 by the plausible yarns told by the lying Goodman, was then put m the box, and informed' the Court how he had been tricked and deceived. Other witnesses were : Basil Keith, senior, Lawrence, school-teacher, C. H. Mason, painter, John Wesley Buddie, manager for Fletcher, Humphreys and Co., .Mrs Janet Campbell, Mrs Jane Hornblow, Mrs Ellen McDermott, Henry Bushell (ex-accountant m Bruges' officfe), Francis Polhill, ledger keeper at the Union Bank, and C. C. M. Ollivier, accountant, who hajd goua through Bruges' boots for the Official Assignee. There was scarcely 'any cross-examination of any of the witnesses'—the case was ao clear as to be a hopeless one. Bruges himself entered the box, and aaid that he never knew his business was m such a bad state until his cheques began to be returned. He denied ever having done any business with Tuck— Goodman did it all. A number of witnesses were called as to

BRUGES' CHARACTER, and Mr Russell addressed the jury on his behalf. Goodman wasn't placed m the box by Mr Hanlon, who didn't, make a very strong plea on his behalf, mainly because his client Was neck deep m the muck and couldn't get out of it. His Honor, m summing up, said the defence m Bruges' case was to throw the responsibility on Goodman, and m Goodman's case to throw it on Bruges. Goodman had proved himself to be a deliberately untruthful man, and throughout the transactions ha-d a dishonest intention, whatever his motive might have. been. If the jury thought that j they would be justified m finding that [he had acted fraudulently, whether or i not he had profited thereby. The facts were admitted, but it was argued that though it was

. ' DISREPUTABLE CONDUCT, it dM not amount to a crime. That was for the jury to de,cid«. They could .convict either or both the accused. In the case of Bruges it had been sought to show that there was fraudulent intent, m that the money had gone into his account, and that he had been so negligent that he had aided Goodman m fraud. The direct personal knowledge of Bruges hadn't been established. The jury took an hour and a quarter over the matter and found the lovely pair guilty close on midnight. They were removed by a warder, and locked up until the following day_.

On the following morning Mr Russell, on behalf of Bruges, asked for leave to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. He said that it was competent for the Court to grant such an application, if it was satisfied that it wasn't of a frivolous nature. There was no express evidence against Bruges ; he had no knowledge of the' false representations made by Goodman— there was no direct evidence to that effect. The prisoner was charged with theft, and h° said without fear of contradiction that there was no evidence laid before the jury to have drawn the inference that

BRUGES KNEW OF THE MONEY being obtained by Goodman, or that it had been paid into the bank and diverted by his clerk. On all +J ie facts from which the jury, drew inferences hostile to Bruges they were equally compatible with his innocence &.~s that of his guilt. After some argument Mr Justice Cooper gave leav-i to move for a new trial; the motion to come before the Appeal Court on October 8. He thought there was f>u arguable case on the prisoner's behalf. Bail would be allowed, tiie prisoner m £500 and two sureties of £250 each. Jimmy Goodman then faced the music, and was duly hoobed. Mr Donnelly spoke m his favor, saying that he was penniless, that he was now 55 years of age, that he had always borne a good character, and that he had made restitution of £300 to Tuck. Then Donnelly called three parsons to swear as to Jimmy's good character— Revs.- Bull. Orchard, and [Ready. The last-named harped upon the fact that the accused had been a regular churchgoer until this trouble had overtaken him, when he stayed away.' That fact showed that he had a conscience. Mr Justice Cooper : "You think he has a conscience now, then ?" (Laughter.) The Judge spoke pretty strongly about the prisoner's dishonest career, and said he was an untruthful, unreliable man. He concluded by sentencing him to two years' hard labor m Lyttelton Gaol, after remarking that evidence as to character was of no use m a case like this. The parsons (all sourfaced Methodists) didn't look at. all complimented. Goodman took the sentence bravely, and the lovely lil'Ue liar had the convict uniform on before i dinner-lime.