CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12990, 3 June 1904, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, June 2. (Beforo Mr C. C. Graham, S.JL) Drunkenness—A female first offender was fined 10s for having been drunk in Princes street, the defendant- not puttini, in an appearand.—David Weight, was' fined ss, or 21 hours, for having Usen- drupk in the Ootagwi—Thomas Iloniy iiiniiwn was fined ss, rr 21 hours, for drunkenness in Liverpool Street. Caso Adjourned.—Benson Hislington wa3 charged with disobeying an oixUr of tho court for the maintenance, ot h:a son, au inmate of Cayershara Industrial School.-Tlie case was (uljcurned io July 5. ■■Summary Separation Case.-Mnry Davidson X'toycci the court io gr&nt her nn order for sumiuty separation from- her husband, Gcorga JJavtdEon.-r'Tho caso waa adjonrped until Juno Prohibition Orders.-A prohibition order was grauted against a residiint of the city, to' epply to Caversham and Dunedin licensing districts,—Another application was adjourned till Juno 9.

I'also Declaration.—Janwa Corbett wa charged with having, 011 March 29, made false declaration—viz., thai tho total income c ■his wife for tho year ending Mprch, 1001, iya £35. whereas it was f9o, end ho did attemi to obtain n paiisioa for a Jarger amount tJi-a lie was entitled to.—Air Stamper appeared k . tita accused, andl said a statement was mad winch turiwd out, to ba false, but the defer taint did not know at the time that, the figure "£35" were in the column in tho (lectors turn opposito his wife's name, and thoH°b that tho sum of £95 was mentioned. IVhc tho defendant was put in tho witness box h was examined by Mr Caraw, and the ver Erst question asked was as to his (defendant's wife 3 income. Tho defendant it onco repbe £1 a week from one source, 12s a week fron another, and 5s a week from another. Tim 6hciyed that tho defendant had 110 wrong in Untion. Tho defendant had made a mistait Ho was an old man and on o)d colonist, am had never been boforo tlio court before. Per haps wider the circumstances the case wouli 00. lrithctavni,—Mr Fraser paid tliero couli not be a withdrawal, Evidently the fact, were admitted, but intent was not admitted It was extremely difficult to know wljat to di with so(he of these old-age pensioners, bu Gcnio of them seemed to have an estraordinar; capacity for defrauding tho Government Plenty of these oases never came before th court at all. Instructions bad beeji given t< bring this case, for it woa looked upon il one of deliberate frapiS. Something must hi done to stop tho leakage, or tho.system wouli break down, The defendant put down |ii: ■wife's earnings at £35, instead of £95, am when examined by the registrar he only gav the names of two of his (defendant's) wiie'i employers instead of three. Mr Oarow ha< como to the conclusion that there had ben an attempt to defraud'.—rho accused electec to bo dealt with summarily.—Evidence was given by I£. S, Ifamsay as to defendant's wife'e earnings for charring being fi3 a week.— T. Henry (U'estport Coal Company) gave similar evidence as,to earnings of 12s iv week, and William Turnb\ill (Hallenstein. Bros.) testified ,to £1 a week.—Robert Hill, .doputylegistrar of old-age pensions, produced the declaration, arid said aitor the pension was refused a correct statement -was inadia out bv accused.—The Magistrate said tliero • was Lot only the instance of tho sum being vroitgly stated, but tliero was the fact of tho name of an employer being kept back. TheM was a general attempt to defraud in that declaration.— Tho penally provided was six months' imprisonment, but ho did not like to Send an old man to gaol, Something must be.'done to put a slop io this cort of thing, for the Government must be defrsudodi of jrjgo sufns of money every year by these fraudulent practices. The defendant in this cas'; would be convicted, and ordered to como lip for sentence when tailed upon. Fraudulent Conversion.—Ronald M'Xcilago was charged with, 011 April 15, having received from James Philip, jun., the sum of £1 5s 2d

on terms requiring payment to D. Benjamin and Co.; which he fraudulently omitted to do.— Accused was further charged with, on or about April 18, at Dunedin, having received the sura of £5 13s, pn terms requiring him to pay t.ho eamo to D. Benjamin and Co., and with fraudulently omitting to account ior or pay the same :to D. Benjamin and Co..—The accused was also charged v;lth having, at llosgiel, on April 22, received from one James O'Grady the sum of £i on terms requiring liiiu to pay tile same to D. Benjamin and Co., and with having fraudulently omitted to account for or pay tho same to 1). Benjamin and Co.— Mr Solpmop appeared tor the prosecution, and Mr/Hanlou for tho defence.—Mr Solomon, in ppening the case, said the prosecution had been undertaken by tho police at the instance of D. Benjamin and Co., the information having l)een laid by Detective Cooney. 'llie accused had been in the employment of that firm for some months at least ns traveller, - and it was liis duty to visit customers and sell the firm's goods, and also at times to receive from customers payments tor tjie goods told. Tho accused visited Dunbaclc on ono occasion only. The prosecution would sho'.v that it was accused's duty to pay money received by him to the firm's accountant, or, in the./latter's absenco, to another clerk named Smith. In Mr Phillip's case there was no. tuggestion (hat tho accused had paid the Honey to anyone, because on his return from the trip to Dunback ]io got .Smith lo mako Hp (or him a statement of (lie moneys received during the trip, and in that statement, which would be produced, tliero was no mention of his having received the money lyoni Phillips. The first intimation D. Benjamin and Co. had that the money had heen paid to their servant v.*as' when their monthly accounts were sept out in May. AYlien.Mr Phillips received Ilia account he was debited with the whole amount, and;.he at once wrote to the firm, staling that he had paid the amount referred to to M'Keilage, whose receipt ho held. The'receipt held by Phillip* was produced lo the firm, proving that their servant had received' the money belonging to them, but had foiled to account for it, though it did not necessarily follow-that he had fraudulently and criminally appropriated, tho same to his own use, his action being consistent with negligence as well ns criminal intent. Other transactions, however camo under the notico of tho firm, It was brought under their notice-that Miss Heflerimn, of South Dunedin, had paid the accused • the .sum of-£5 odd, in puyment of her father's account for- wares foi his hotel. T'liat money should have been paid to the firm tho same day as it- was received. Another customor, residing at Jfosgiel, slated that he paid ti (o tlio accused, but did not receive credit for the amount. In another case,, which had heon under his 'Worship's notice Jn » different court, it was staled by different jwitnesses, but iloiiied hy the accused, that a deceased person had paid money to tho acqused which had not been accounted for. TlittJfirm could como to no other conclusion than that tho money had heen stolen by tho occuscd. It was a very sad thing for the fiinv to have to prosecute him;'but tho duty was cast upon them, because if tho cose was passed over an unfortunate osamplo would be set to the other employees, He understood from his learned friend that tho accused, would plead "Guilty," but it was necessary to put tho facts before the court. Perhaps if tho evidence in one case were gono into fnlJy it could be read over in the otlior two.—Jamos Phillips, Dunback, stated in his evidence that he recognised the accused as a traveller for D. Benjamin and Co. Accused called on witness on April 13, that-being the only trip ho made (o 'Dunback so far as witness knew, Witness owed the £10 4s 9d at that time, and paid £4 "is 2d in cash to accused, .who gave a receipt for the money. Witness afterwards received an account as if the money had not been paid, and he acquainted' the firm with the fact that he held

In Sunlight Soap yon have 20/- to the £. Do not take less when you can get that.

the'receipt referred to.—Philip Isaacs, one of the partners in the firm ot D. Benjamin and Co., said it was the duly ot accused to receive money on behalf of the firm ii offered by customers, mid it was also his duty to hand or send such money (o the firm's accountant.— Hyam Brasch, accountant for the firm, stated that the accused entered the scrvice of the firm about tho end of March, and a few days later, witness informed him that it was his duly to baud over all money received on behalf of tho ■ firm to witness, or, in his nbsonce, to Ernest Smith. Accused had not paid tho sum of XI 5s 2d to witness. The firm had a customer named T. llefforimn, at South Dnnedin, and witness recognised the signature'to a reicipl for £5 13s, paid- by HolVermui, as that of accused, 'ilia accused hud not paid that money to witness, and until Miss Jleliornan produced the receipt witness was .not aware that the money had been paid. The firm had ,-.pother customer named J. O'Grady, at Mosglol, and witness rcccgniscd .the signature to » receipt for £2 paid by O'Grady a3 that of accused. This money v.as not paid by accused to witness. Todd Bros,, of Cavcrsham, were also customers of the firm. Accused did not account to witness for the sunt of £5 said to have been paid by the late Mr Todd.—Ernest Smith stated that none of the moneys referred to bad been paid to him.' When accused returned from Dunbacl; lie asked witness to make rip a, statement of '.lie moneys leccivcd during the trip. No reference was made to a payment by Phillips in the statement.—James • O'Grady, Mosgiel, staled that ho had paid the accused tho sum of £!.—Robert Coombs, cmployed by the firm of Todd Bros., slated thai prior to Mr Todd's death witness had a conversation with him relating to the state of his account with D. Benjamin and Co. "Witness then had a conversation with accused, and told Jiim (hat Mr Todd had said that ho had paid accused ,CG. Accused said the amou'it was £5, and produced a book lo prove ths! statement, saying tlmt he would go out willi the receipt the following morning.—Kobert Henry Sangster Todd said lie had lind more than one conversation with accused with regard to the sum alleged to have lison paid ly witness's late brother. Accused showed witness & hook showing that :lie late .Mr Todd had paid .£5. Witness said tlmt no rcccipt had been sent out, and accused promised 1o send one out tho next morning. Witness afterwards saw accused at 1). Benjamin and Co.'s, but accused then denied having received the money. At a later date, however, accused admitted having received the moiioy, and wanted lo pay witness i! 10 to settle tho.matter, (in the understanding that witness would pay i'j into court.--This concluded tho case for the prosecution, and Mr .Solomon said jie had agreed with Mr Ifanlon that the three informations should be treated as one.—Tho accused, having been cautioned, pleaded " Chiilty." and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, Jiail war, allowed, accused in hie own rccognisaucc of £100, and two sureties of jC3O each.