THE RUNAWAY CLERK FROM NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 119, 3 April 1862, Page 3

THE RUNAWAY CLERK FROM NEW ZEALAND.

Jfi ayir last we mpptionpd the fact of the app'relu'risioti at Southampton 'of- a. young man, named William Joseph Brutton, from Otago, New 7ealahd, on a charge of embezzlement. The case was brought before Mr. Henry, at the Bow-street police-court, on the 27th November. The following "is a report of what took place:— ~

Mr. C...F. Murray attended to prosecute on behalf of the Union liank of Australia and stated-that the specific charge against the prisoner was that of embezzling a sum of £113 10s., the-property of Mr. Alexander Jackson, manager, and others, the proprietors of the bank. The total defalcations, however, amounted to a much larger sum, probably to about £1500. The prisoner was brought befpie this ppurt in order that the magistrate plight orderhisCommittal under the Act 6th and 7th Victoria, cap. 34, to ■ the House of Detention, to await the Secretary of State's ■warrant for his removal to Otago to take his trial.

Alexander Mcc, sergeant of police at Dunedin, New Zealand, produced the warrant on which the prisoner had been apprehended. It was issued and signed by Mr. John Harris and Mr. John Gillies, resident magistrates at Dunedin, and conntersigned by Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary. The witness received the prisoner in custody at Southampton

from a local detective named Verge, who had apprehended him there. At that time the witness was provided with the warrant endorsed by Sir George Grey. The prisoner said, " 1 am*very sorry for what I have done. I have made a great fool of myself. " It is of no use fretting"aoout it now, but the ca«e is as bud as it can be." The witness had told him that he was charged with embezzling money the property of the Union Bank of Australia, . and had cauntioned him that he was not bound to sajr anything, sind, that if he did so it would be used-as evidence ngainst him. lie "said that the sums he had embezzled couli! not amount to more than £1500, but he cpnld not state the exact amount. He took it at several .times. He also said he had lent about £345 10s. to persons in the colonies and on board ship coining home. lie said he wished to he taken back to .New Zealand to be tried, rather than have his trial, in England. ' The officer Verge handed over to witness a gold ring, a watch and guard, and .£IOB 10s. in gold, which he had found in his possession. The witness was not present when the property was found, nor, was the prisoner present when the officer handed it to witness.

The prisoner said the officer's statement was correct, lie had not, however, stated the reason why he wished to he taken back to. New Zealand. The accounts were in confusion, and he was desirous of putting them right. Alee said the prisoner did tell him that, he wished to " rectify" the books.

The prisoner complained that a small nugget, worth about a sovereign, which was in his portmanteau, had not been produced. Alee said he had seen nothing of it. He had particularly asked Verge if there was any rough gold, as he was instructed that the prisoner was supposed to, have some in his possession, but Verge said he had found none. The prisoner said it was in a small purse in his portmanteau. JBy Mr. Henry's directions, Mcc searched the portmanteau in the prisoner's presence, but found no nugget.

The prisoner said it was of no great consequence, as the value of the nugget was so small. _ ■

Mr Henry said it was of great consequence, however small the amount. The matter must be thoroughly investigated. His worship then directed the officer Mcc to write to Southampton and inquire whether any such nugget had been found, or what the detective there had to say about it. In reference to the prisoner's expression of a wish to be sent baclc to New Zealand, Mr Henry observed that it was not a matter of choice. The act of Parliament quoted by Mr Murray expressly provided that in such cases the accused should be sent back to the place where the offence was committed. After the clear admission proved by the officer he (Mr Henry) had no other course but to i; commit him to the House of Detention, and' certify that committal to the Secretary of State, who would then'give his warrant for the prisoner's removal to Otago to take his trial.

The officer Mcc expressed a desire that Mr Saunders, the secretary to the bank, should take charge of the money found on the prisoner and forward it to Dunedin.

Mr Saunders said that, though he should not have volunteered to do so, he had no objection to comply with the officer's wish. There was. a London branch of the Union Bank of Australia, and remittances were sent in the usual course. This money might be placed in a box ■. and sealed up by the officer, who could receive and unseal it upon his arrival in the colony, so that he might still be enabled to identify the very coin. Mr Henry thought that would be much better than throwing upon .the officer the responsibility of conve}r ing the money to Otago. The identification- of the coin was not absolutely necessary, but if it could be done in the manner prqpqsed it would be as well. ■ ■ N The prisoner was; then committed to the House of Detention to await the warrant of the Secretary of State.— ffame News, December,