ALLEGED LARCENY OF A CHEQUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10618, 13 March 1896, Page 4

ALLEGED LARCENY OF A CHEQUE.

At the Police Court yesterday, before his Wor. ship Mr E. H. Carew, S.M., Andrew S. WedderBpoon, up till lately a traveller in the employ of Messrs Arthur Briscoe and Co., Dunedin, was charged with stealing a cheque for £10 belonging •to that firm on December 20,1895.

Mr W. C. MacGregor appeared for the prosecution and Mr S. Solomon for the defence. His Worship stated that he had no time to hear indictable offences, and tbat being so it was agreed to adjourn the ca3e till the afternoon. On the latter occasion the. bench das occupied by Messrs G. L. Denniston and J. Wright, J.Fs. Mr MacGregor said this was one of those cases which unfortunately have become rather frequeut of late. The prosecutor (Mr Macneil) wa3 the manager for Messrs Arthur Briscoe and Co., and defendant was until the other day a commercial traveller in the employment of that firm. Mr Macneil was also a partner in the firm, being the manager of the Dunedin branch. The facts were comparatively .simple: Mr Ellis, from whom tha cheque was obtained, was a blacksmith at Waitatuna, at which place accused had to call frequently on his trips. On the 19th December last the accused called there, and in the ordinary course of business obtained a cheque for £10 on behalf of tbe hrm. lhe defendant's duty on receiving the cheque was to immediately advise the receipt of the cheque and to have forwarded the cheque to the ]' ca _ omce ? f-the firm 'i Dunedin. He did not do that, and it was not until some five or six weeks afterwards that the firm became aware of the payment having been made. The sheet of the defendant for that trip would be put in, and it would be seen that the payment was in no way entered nor was the payment advised. It was not necessary to say how the matter was found out; it was through another traveller being sent on tha same round. The matter was discovered, at anyrate, and Mr Richards, the bookkeeper of the firm, spoke to Wedderspoon about it on or about the 25th ,Tanua<y, on his return from another.trip.. He told Wedderspoon that it bad been reported to him by Mr Drew, the other traveller, that Ellis was complaining that he had not got credit for the cheque. Wedderspoon said he could not tell from memory, but he would look up a pocket book he had at home, and that he would see him again on the subject. He promised to see Mr Richards again and explain the matter, buthedidnotseehim. Instead, he left a short pencilled note, which hud been lost, requesting Mr Richards to credit Ellis with the £10, and he went away on his ordinary trip on the Monday morning. The matter was reported to Mr Macneil on or about the 3rd February. Wedderspoon returned to Duuedin on the Sth February, aud.Mr Macneil saw him on the following Monday, and asked him about the transaction, ln reply to Mr Macneil, Wedderspoon said it was true he had got a cheque for £10 on the 19th December for whioh he had not accounted ; that he had taken a note of it at the time in a page at the end of an old pocket book; and that on the following day, at Lawrence, be had cashed tbe cbeque, put the money in his pocket, and forgotten all about it. He also said that he had used the money for expenses, and that he had simply overlooked it, as he hud discontinued the use of the book Mr Macneil thea asked him how he had balanced his cash, and Wedderspoon said he could uot balance it, und that he had had a few pounds over, about which he had said nothing to thebookkeepcr. MrMacaeilsaid: "I don't believe » word you are eajing, and you'll have to go." Wedderspoon, thereupon broke down, and osk.ul for a month's notice, but Mr Macneil said he would not give it. With a view of showing that the defenc-i was not at all credible counsel intended to show that this was not an isolated transaction.

Mr Salomon said he might object to that. Mr MacGregor understood that. What he proposed to piove wan that so far back as 1893 ti. i r, S? lo,?'°, n.: That is what I anticipated, and that I shall object to Any evidence which tends to show by the introduction of a similar charge in any way near m time to the matter is evidtnce to show that, such a thing as this was intentional, but i shall object to anything that was done in years past.

Mr MacGregor contended that he was at liberty to show that a similar state of things took place before, that the accuaed was forgiven, that he had continued in the employment of the firm, and that since this particular transaction was found out further irregularities had been discovered between ,hdo and the time the offence now charged w»„ committed. The prosecution had not taken auy of those cases into court, however • they took this one as the latest, and they proposed to prove the.other cases to show that tbis . case was not an isolated one. Mr Solomon held that the fact that a man had committed auother crime waa no evidence of whether he committed this onI^ eB- eadl luled a S»ioat Mr Solomon. Mr MacGregor proposed then to put iv a letter written by ■ Wedderspoon on the 10th May 1593 addressed to Mr Macneil, ir. which it was state"! ■ Our conver-atrm this morning. I have ta confess that dunne tho p.st six or eight months 1 nave ou various oc-asions appropriated to my own use moneys which I had collected for the firm. A ith the statement made to Mr Thompson to-day I have hm.tcd in cash which makes up all deficiencies to date. If you will pardon and overlook my misdemeanours I solemnly promise that they will not occur again.— Andrew Wkddekw°2S' °~} aB, no doubt, to the fact that Wedderspoons parents were very respectable people, he was retained in the service of the firm until a few weeks ago. Another and a stronger S ser,^i d a^° be. a havered. It was this :On the 2bth November Wedderspoon called on Mr Craig, a storekeeper at Owaka, and he received from Mr Craig two distiuct sums, one for £12 and the other for £7 12s 51 Both these sums were paid by cheque on the same d*y, and at the sami time, and receipts were given for them by Wedderspoon. But ouly the -cheque for £12 was included m the return list, and no mention was made of the other until the month followin" when it appeared as £7 lOi cash. That showli clearly that YVedderspoon had cashed the cheque, kept it for his own purposes, and then from memory, apparently, accounted for it iU the sheet as a payment of £7 10s in cashFrederick Ellis, blacksmith at Waitahuna, gave evidence that he was a customer of Arthur Briscoe and Co. He knew Mr Wedderspoon, the firm's traveller. He called occasionally for orders and had collected money from witness. Towards the end of December 1895 witness gave accused a cheque for £10. ,

To Mr holomon: Witness hud been dealing with Briscoes for about eight years. Ho dealt regularly with the firm, and if he had not got credit for an account he had psi-l he was bound to hear it within a month. He knew Wedderspoon well, and had often paid him money. He never took receipts from him. Edward Richards, bookkeeper for A. Briscoe and bo., stated that accused was one of the firm's travellers. On January 20 witness first discovered that something was wrong with Mr Ellis's account. Mr Macneil. was away at the time. Wlta^ told Wedderspoon that it had been reported that Mr Ellis had paid him a cheque for £10 on the 19th December, which did not appear in his statement. Tne rule was that when a cheque was paid on behalf of the firm advice was to be sent forthwith, together with the cheque. When witness told hi-,i that the cheque was not marked in his statement accused said oe believed it was correct that Mr Elhs had paid £10, ancl he would have to consult his notebook. A day or so after accu-ed'left a note asking him to credit Mr Ellis with a cheque for ±10. Witness did not credit Mr Ellis with the amount but reported the matter to Mr Macneii on his return, about the 3rd February. Wedderspoon was then away. Witness produced a return sheet in which was marked that J. Craig of Owaka paid £12. There was no other auvice that Wedderspoon had received any other sum on behalf of the firm from Mr Craig about, that time. Accused left the firm on February 10,1596.

, T?. Mr ■'jolumon: Wedderspoon was in the habit of making short trips—say for a week. He generally got about £3 a week for his expenses which amounted to about 10s or lis a day. If he were short of money for his expenses he could use part of the money he got from customers, and account for such money on his return. The Bench: Would the firmfind fault with him for doing so.

Witness : No. It was the custom to do this. Other travellers did the same. Ellis paid the £10 to Wedderspoon on the 19th. Wedderspoon must have known that if Ellis was not credited with this amount he would be made aware of the fact Wedderspoon went away on his other trip, and he did not make any attempt to conceal it The money was received and paid by Wedderspoon without anyone taxing him, but what witness complained of was that the money was not paid the day it was received or sometime shortly afterwards. When witness spoke to him about the £10 accused did not say "Oh yes, that explains what I had over. Accused was told to pay wituess, and he did.

Mr MacGregor,- And he was told to go, and he did.

Mr Solomon : And he was told to leave the country, and he didn't.

Ke-exammed: Accuaed left on February 10, and the information was laid on March 6. Wituess knew that in the interval Wedderspoon went into the employ of Thomson, Bridger, and Co., a rival firm.

Hugh Macneil, jun, manager and partner in the firm of A. Briscoe and Co., Dunedin, gave evidence that the accused had been in the employ of the firm for seven or eight years. Witness first found that there was something wrong with the accounts in May 1893. Witness was managing then. In a letter received accused admitted the embezzlement. [Letter in counsel's opening statement read.] The amount of cash referred to in the letter as having been handed in was about £20 or £30.

Mr MacGregor: Do you know where the cash came from ?.

Mr Solomon : I object to that question. Mr MacGregor: Do you object to it being known that the mouey came out of Mr Macneil's own pocket?

Mr Solomon : That's a very improper remark. Mr MacGregor: Well, you make out a case of hardship.

Mr Solomon: Ido nothing of the sort. Witness (continuing) said that he saw accused on February 10, and told him what he had heard about Mr Ellis's cheque. He asked him if it was true he had kept the cheque without reporting it to the firm, and accused replied yes. Accused Btated that he got the cheque on the 19th December, but found it necessary to cash the cheque at Lawrence on the following day for travelling expenses ; that he had made an entry of it in au old pocket book of the receipt of the cheque, and then forgot all about it. Witness than asked him when he had made his next cash return, and hn replied on December 31. He asked him how did he make his cash balance if, on his own showing, he had too much money. Accused said that his cash did not balance, that lie had some money over, but he could not remember how it came about. Witness asked him if that wss all he had to say, and accused remarked yes, and witness then told him that he was very sorry to have to be compelled to say that he did not believe him, and that under the circumstances he was to consider himself dismissed from the service. Accused begged him to give bim some notice—a month or a week. Witnes-i refused absolutely at first, nnd afterwards on being pressed he said he would take a couple of hours to think it over. He asked witness if he would return the letter of confession he had given bim about, three years previously, and witness replied : " No. Come back to me say two years hence with a clean record, and I will reconsider

The best place for dessert and jam fruit,—W^. Euia'a fi_ioi-_3-_-_d Fcssn sis^t*.

that question." Witness told him that he had ' better have a squaring' up of accounts with the accountant, and he (witness) would see him in two hours time. That closed the interview. Witness did not see accused after that. None lithe firm's travellers had a right to use a cheque for the payment of their expenses. I To Mr Solomon: When witness in 1893 found I that accused had been taking money and spoke [to him, accused did not frankly admit it. The : signing of the letter was- not a condition of 'accused remaining in the firm's employment. : Accused on that occasion insisted that the matter was one of omission, but admitted that he had done wrong in not handing the cheque in. Witness believed that accused stole the cheque for £10, but received the money back. j• Mr Solomon: That is a peculiar code of commercial morality I—l don't think so. j Mr Solomon-: It's a matter of opinion, I ' suppose? ; . j Mr Macneil: Quite so. When Wedderspoon went into Messrs Thomson, I Bridger's employ, did you not say you would make J it warm for,him?—No. The first time you threatened criminal proi ceedings was after he went into their employ?— No. Did you ever threaten this man with criminal proceediugs before he got employment with Thomson, Bridger?—Well, that's one way of putting it. Will you answer my question ? I ask you, Did you ever threaten this man with criminal proceedings till he got employment with Thomson, Bridger?—No. After you found he got employment with Thomson, Bridger, and before you laid this information, did you or did you not try to induce him to leave the country ?—I did not. Did you ask him or ask his father ?—No.

You swear it ?—Yes. , Did you mention the subject of his leaving the country to his father?—l did. Tell ub what you said?— What I said was this Mr Wedderspoon came to see me on Saturday morning, the 29th February

Oue moment. Did you send for him to come and see you ?—No. Mr Wedderspoon, seu., came to see me, and we had a conversation on the subject of the case, whi ;h had been reported to him. What case ?—The case of Mr Ellis's cheque. It had been reported to him.

By whom ?—lt was repotted to bim, as a matter of fact, by Mr Knox.

Oh, I see. Now we are getting to the bottomof it. Do you not know as a matter of fact that Knox went down to see him ?—I gave Mr Knox the opportunity, as he was a personal friend of tiie Wedderspoons, of telling them it was my intention to lay an information. Mr Knox, acting on h's own responsibility,, elected, as a friend of the Wedderspoon family, to go down and acquaint the father that I intended to lay an information. No doubt. Very pretty iudeed. But we will come to the plain English of it, if you don't mind, and that is, you told Mr Knox to go clown and say that you were going to lay the information because you heard young Wedderspoon had got work with Thomson, Bridger, and Co. ?—No, air. It was the day after I heard lying statements which were calculated to injure our firm that I decided to lay the information. I husrd that Thomson, Bridge., and Co._ had engaged him on Wednesday, and this interview did uot occur till the followinz Saturday.

What did you say to Wedderspoon, sen. ?— Having told him the story of this case, be asked whether I would not simply let him off. I said no. He asked what I would do, and I told him that I felt that a duty devolved upon me in this matter as the custodian of the good name of our firm, and in consequence.of the fact that a lyiDg story wits in circulation calculated to injure the good name of our firm, to lay this information, and that I intended^ to do so, but that if Mr Wedderspoon, sen., wished, I would do nothing till Monday. That would give him an opportunity of seeing his son, und I said that I thought he had better get him to leave the district.

Oh, oh! So we got iv the last words what I started with.

Mr MacGregor : No, you did not. You asked him if he did not advise Wedderspoon, juu., to leave the country—a very different thing.

Mr Solomon: pardon me. Mr MacGregor: I have got down the very words.

Mr Solomon: No doubt. It is a question of opinion again. So instead of telling him to leave the country, you told him his son had better leave the district. Leaving the district would necessarily mean leaving Thomson, Bridger's employ.—(Laughter.)

Mr MacGregor called attention to the interruption from those in the body of the court.

Mr Denniston : It is very improper this demonRtration.

Witness: No. Thomson, Bridger, and Co. have representatives in othsr parts of the district.

The probable consequences were that he would have lost his employment ?—The probable consequences were that he would have lost his employment iv Thomson, Bridger, and Co.'s.

You usi-d language then to lead Wedderspoon to infer that if he took a step whereby he would have to leave the employ of Thomson, Bridger, and Cj. there would ba no criminal proceedings ? —/. submit that that is altogether a false construction to put on niy action.

Never mind about the construction. Is it not a fact that you did not threaten criminal proceedings until you found that he got on with Thomson, Bridger, aud Co. ?—Yes. And after that you had an interview, the result of which was that if he took a step which would make him leave Thomson, Bridger, and Co.'s there would be no criminal proceedings?— Yes.

Now, I understand that this is not the only letter you got him to sign. Ia it not a faot you gat him to sign a letter as recently as last night ? Yes

And we did not hear a single.-yvord about it. Mr MacGregor: I intend to put it in in the reexamination.

! Indeed. Well, I will put it in now. Yon have 'it here. Produce it, please. (To the witness): i Weddei-jpoon did not leave Thomson, Bridger's or the country. He went ou with his employment j and you went on with the criminal proceedings ? I Th.tisso?-Yes Well, last night, when the case was coming on to-day, Wedderspoon called at your office?—He did. I had an interview with his sister—— Stop. That is not evidence. Mr MacGregor: He can explain. Witness: I thought it necessary to explain to the beuch the reason why he came to se» inc. Mr Solomon: That you cannot give in evidence. Mr Denniston : Surely it is right he should explain. Mr Solomon : Not unless it is relevant. Witness : The reason why he came to see me was the outcome of an interview with his mother and sister Mr Solomon : That certainly is not evidence. Mr MacGregor: Why ia this not evidence? This is only a personal attack on Mr Macneil. The motive is quite clear. Mr Solomon : Your remark is utterlj uncalled for, positively rude, and quite unprofessional.— (Laughter.) Mr MacGregor: It's only playing to the gallery. Mr Solomon : You had this letter type-written for him when he came? Witness: Yes. It is addressed to the editor of the Otago Daily Times, and reads thusj:— " Sir, —Kindly insert the following advertisements—three insertions,—and obliee.— Yours truly, "A S. Wedderspoon." " I beg to intimate to the public that the story in circulation to the effect that I have been harshly treated by my former employees, Messrs Arthur Briscoe and Co ,is false. Ouring my career with this firm up to, and at the time of my dismissal, I was always treated with the greatest kindness and consideration ; and I have to admit ■ I that my summary dismissal was perfectly I justifiable, and was broueht about entirely by my own faults and failings. I desire it to be known that I did not intentionally misappropriate the firm's money. "A. S. Weddekspoon." Mr Solomon remarked that the words " I desire it to be known that I did not intentionally misappropriate the firm's money" was added in accused's handwriting. Referring to the letter as it was originally type written, counsel asked witness : Did you not tell Wedderspoon that if he signed that letter proceedings would be dropped?—l told him nothing of the sort. Well, what was he to get for siguing this ?—He was not told what he would get—except that the firm would reconsider its position with a view of withdrawing from it. Oh, I see. On the very verge of a prosecution for larceny you told him that if he signed it the matter of taking proceedings would be reconsidered. He took the letter to his new employers ?—I believe so. Did he not tell you that he submitted the letter to Mr Gow? How did he come to add this last sentence iv the letter?— The addition was made at Wedderspoon's suggestion. And you were quite satisfied with the sentence " I desire it t« be known that I did not intentionally misappropriate the firm's money." Do you swear you were quite satisfied with that!—l was quite satisfied he should make any statement of that kind. I was satisfied that Wedderspoon should make that announcement. I had no objection to his making such an announcement.

And that it should be put into the public press. And that was the document prepared by you. If Wedderspoon had signed that document and authorised you to insert it in the pipers — Mr MacGregor : He did sign the document.

Mr Solomon : Pardon me. Was it not understood that the question as to whether thiß should be put into the papers or not was uot to be decided till this morning?—l do not understand you. I wfll put it another way. Did Wedderspoon give you authority to put it into the newspapers? Was not your right to put it into the newspapers made a conditiou on which the case was to be withdrawn ?—1 never intended to put it in except at my own time. And you wanted to clear up the firm's character ?.—I desire to do so yet, and I intend doing it. Was it not understood that if this was to go into the papers the prosecution was to be withdrawn ?—No. Under certain circumstances—viz., I required from him a letter of complete confession, and I had such a letter alongside waiting for him to sign it, and he did not sign it. The question as to whether he would sign it was, at Wedderspoon's request, left over till 9.30 this morning, but he did not sign it. After these proceedings you wish us to believe that on two occasions you were willing to withdraw the prosecution on certain terms, yet you always believed he h%d stolen the money ?—Yes. You took back the money this thief had stolen Mr MacGregor: Is this a question or an address to'the gallery? Mr Denniston : I think it is more than a question.

Mr Solomon : Then I will put it in another way. Mr Denniston : I should think that Mr Macneil wonld refuse to answer then.

Mr Solomon :It seems to me that the most important question to decide is whether Mr Macneii himself believed that the man had been guilty of larceny. Mr Denniston : Ho has told you so.

Mr .Solomon : I want to show that he did not. It is my duty to get to the bottom of this affair, and it is also your Worship's duty to do so.

Mr Denniston : The question as to whether Mr Macneil's motives were good or bad has nothing to do with the conduct of the accused.

Mr MacGregor: And in any case it is not a question for your Worships, but for the jury to decide.

RESUMPTION OF CHEERFULNISS, Undisturbed and more refreshing sleep, and a hearty appetite, are speedy effects resulting from tbe use ot Wolfe's Schnanna, ,

Mr Solomon: WeU, unless you stop ms I will not stop. I would like to know what the other justice said. ~. . , Mr Denniston (after consulting with Mr Wright): My colleague thinks you can ask that question. ' Mr Solomon : Well, in the first place you took back the money this thief had .stolen ?—Yes. Next you said that if he took a step that would get him out of his employment he would be let off scot free ?—No. You told us yourself that you told his father if he would leave tha district the prosecution would cease.—Will you read tbat to me, Mr Solomon. Counsel read extracts from the depositions. Witness : It is very likely that Mr Wedderspoon, sen., might have drawn that inference. Mr Denniston : If it lyas not for the respect in which I hold my colleague's opinion I would have stopped this long ago. Mr Solomon: Whatever opinion your have on that subject, I presume you will uot retuse to allow me the right of arguing the point. Mr Macneil: 1 don't mind it, sir. 'He can go on all night so far as I am coucerned. Mr Denniston: Ido not think what Mr Macneil may have done yesterday is evidence. Mr Solomon : All I can say then is I am glad that there aro two justices on the bench. Mr MacGregor (re-examining witness): Was it the result of this interview with accused's siiter and mother that this document was prepared?

Mr Solomon : I object to tbat question. Mr MacGregor: I want to show that it was at the request of these ladies the letter was written. How did you come to write the letter, then? Mr Solomon : I object to that. Mr Denniston : You must allow the other side of the case to come out. Mr Solomon argued the point, after which the Bench ruled in bis favour. Mr MacGregor: Had accused's entering the employ of Thomson, Bridger, ahd Co. anything to do with the prosecution ?—Nothing whatever. Mr Solomon : Of course anyone could guess what the answer to that question would be. Witness (continued): The reason why delay took place in instituting the prosecution was this: Having dismissed Wedderspoon the matter never recurred to my mind till lying statements were circulated. This concluded the evidence forthe prosecution.

Mr Solomon observed that he had not made up his mind as to what course he would pursue, and suggested that as the hour was late the case Bhould be adjourned till the following day, which was accordingly done.