ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13941, 28 June 1907, Page 3

ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.

CHARGE AGAINST J. M'MILLAtf. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Tito hearing of the charge of embezzlement against John M'Millan, formerly a. partner in the tirni of M'Kechnie and Fleming, was resumed sit the City Police Court yesterday afternoon uc-'ore Mr C. C. Graham, S.M. The total amount of the alleged embezzlements was set down at £1151 13s lOd. —Mr L T. Uuinaid appeared for the complainants, and Mr 1). Couke for the accused. Thomas llonry , Thompson, accountant, stated that, he was appointed under an order of the court to take tho accounts in tho partnership action of Fleming v. M'Kechnie and M'Millan. lie produced the report which ho drew up and presented to the Supreme Court, and which the court confirmed. The result of the accounts was to show that the sum of i'llsl ISs lOd was due by M'MiHan to the two partners. Prom tho DOth March, 1903, to 31st March, 1905, M'Millan drew £'1494 net, and Fleming drew during tho same period iIGG lis Bd. M'Kechnie's drawings for the same period were small. The sum Qtsw by M'Millan did net include £1400 taken out from tho partnership funds for a brick kiln at Wellington for M'Kechnie and Co. In the course of taking accounts he eamo across a number of cheques marked "B. C.," "13. G„" "R. P.," "A. C„" and one or two cheques marked " S. C.," and " J. S." These clieques appeared to witness to refer to private transactions—at first lie thought " B. G." might reler to "bluegum." The amounts of tho cheques were placed in a separate list. Two cheques (produced) wero in M'Millan's handwriting. To Mr Cook: In the list oi accounts lie drew up a number of amounts marked <vith the initials he referred to, and ho charged those against M'Millan. In going through the accounts claims were made for payments by each ot tile partners, sonio of which wero allowed while some were not. There was no agreement, in writing with regard to the payment of £i extra per week to M'Millan. Witness disallowed the claim, and has doubts as to whether the claim was a bona tide one. Fleming objected to the payment of £'2 extra per week for tho whole or any period of tho partnership. If the claim had been allowed it would havo made a considerable difference

in tho deficit. Thoro was another claim put in by M'Millan in respect of Fleming's operations on the firm's basik account at bunodin. That, claim referred to Findlay and Haddock's bills. Fleming began to operate solely oa tho bank account from March, 1903, and Findfay's business was purchased in April of 1903. There wore a number of renewals of bills during that period, and tho whole of the Findlov btiEincss trans&otiong were not recorded in tho books of the partnership. A sum of money belonging to tho firm was used by Fleming in connection with the Findlay business. The amount was £123 ISs lOd. As the books kept by Fleming did not oontain a complete reoord of tho bills given on account of M'Kechnie and Fleming to Murdoch and Co. in connection with H. J. Findlay's biuiness, witness was unablo to say what was the total of such hills. Witness remembered "that M'Millan had said that lie had remitted' from tie Wellington account to tho firm's account in Dtuiedin a largo sum of money. M'MHllan. contended that Fleming should be charged with the train of £100, the amount lost in connection with Findlay's business. If that claim and claim for wages had been allowed there would still have b&ai a shortage on the part of M'Millan of a few hundred' pounds. M'Millan mentioned tho claim on account of Findlay and Co. as far back as March, 190 G. Tho "initial" cheque list amounted' to £1000, out of which M'Millan repaid £560. Other items were disallowed owing to tho absence of vouchers on M'Millan's part.

To Mr Burnard: During the whole course o! tho proceedings not a single statement was obtained froml M'Millan on oath. In two years M'Millan drew £1430, and Fleming ftCO, the former drawing £10(X) more than Fleming. Jt'Kcchnie had told witness that M'Millim was to get £1 per week more than tho othors.

The Magistrate: M'Millan, during six years, only drew out about £3 per week. Mr Burnard: That is so. The heavy drawings by M'Millan commenced when he went to Wellington, and when he got l beyond tho control of Fleming.

Witness (to Mr Burnard): I came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the claim for £700 by M'Millan against FJeming. The partnership in Findlay and Co.'s business was a partnership outsido of tho firm's business, and iivo partners were concerned in it.

• Hugh E. D. Willcox, clerk in the Bank of Australasia, Christchnreh, stated that his bank were bankers for Barnett and (J rant, bookmakers. 11l pay-ill clips to the firm's credit on 15th February, 1994, there was a cheque for £28 7s, signed by J. M'Millan, and on the 9th May, 1904, thero was another cheque for £24 3s Gd paid in, over the signature of J. M'Millan.

Mr Cooke objected to the pay-in slips going! in as ovilence.

George S. Findlayson. e'erk in the Bank of Now South Wales, Dnnedin, stated that his bank were bankers for Ben Curtis. In pay-in slips of 25th March, 1903, there was a cheque for £30, signed J. Jl'Millan. The cheque produced was the cheque in question. On 9th May, 190.1. the pay-in slip 6liow?d an item, "J. M'Millan. £42 IGs Gd," and the pay-in slip of 30lh October. 1303. consisted of an item "J. M'Millan, £15." The pav-in slio, dated 4th March, 1904, showed an item ".J. M'Millan, £51 65," and the pay-in alio "dated 26th November, 1904, showed "J. M'llil'an, £100 3s Gd."

Mr Cooke objected to the pay-in slips above referred to going in as evidence, and a' note of tho objections was made by tho bench.

His Worship intimated that ho was satisfied there was a eace to go to a jury. Mr OWte said the charge was a patched-up ono, and followed on a partnerphip dispute and a dissolution of partnership. Pleminp had his legal remedy in tho Sunremo Court to get tho amonnf. which he claimed from the partnership. There was no evidence that day or on tho day previous to jnptify the ehiTgo laid. The accountant Thompson had priven evidence that all the drawings were shown in the books. The whole question was one of accounts of excessive drawings by one of the ptrtners while in Wellington, m against his drawings in Dnnedin. The drawings, counfo' submitted, could not be considered excessive. The transactions of tin firm were big tranraotions, nmnine into thousands of pounds, and it was not. reasonable to suggest that if M'Millan intended tn defraud the firm that he would have put the wholo of the transactions in tho books. as lie had done. There wa<* ro attempt' to deny or cover un what the cheques had been drawn for. and there was absolutely no evidence of attempt- to defraud. M'Mi'lan had possession of the books while in Wellington, and hed ample opportunity of disimising anything he did not wish to be 1-nown. or of snbtnittinfr a set of new books, 'f he so desired. He voluntarily allowed the books to m Io an accountant, and cbeone tiVrVo c-rl «reryfliinpr el?e v»re presented for examination. There wss. h» confidently submitted, no cn?e to «o to a jiiry. His Wor°hio said tho evidence disclosed (hat accused had drawn more than ho was entitled to, and the evidence of tho partner Flemin? went to that undue nteans hod been taken In cover un some of the tran»action=. The latter fact, taken in conitinrf'on T.*:th tho larpe fpim drawn in excosa of other Twrtncs. mirmtM the nf tb« to a jury in (7<>okK Mr Burnard ititimatod Ihof he did nof. intend to proceed with other nharo'O*' ftocu?od. at* ihpy were practically included in the charges already heard, and these were accordingly struck out. Accused was fornm'ly committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supremo Court, the same bail as formerly being granted—namely, aociised in £200 and one surety in tho same amount.