SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2323, 8 September 1898, Page 20

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINA L SESSIONS.

Tuesday, August 30. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Pennefatlier.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.30 a.m. LAHCENY AS A SERVANT. William Bernard Cahill was indicted on a charge of having, on about the 23rd May, while a servant of Charles Shiel and William Shiel, stolen a laige quantity of goods, their property. Mr Hanlou appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said there were three counts in the indictment charging the accused. The first count charged him with having stolen the goods mentioned in the indictment whilst he was a servant of the owners, who kept a pawn office ; the second count charged him with having committed a simple larceny; and the third with having received th° goods when they had bsen stolen. The offence of a servant stealing his master's goods was obviously greater than that of a man who stole the goods of a stranger. The gravity of the offence was recognised alike by statute, which made special provision for 11, and by the ordinary laws of morality, for it was obvious that the greater a man's opportunities, the greater the tiust reposed in him, the more circumspect should' he be m his actions, especially when he was adequately paid, and the more should he guard against yielding to temptation and against appropriating the property with which he was entrusted. At the fir-t hearing of the case there was a great mass of evidence produced — the trial extended over a da/ or two — but he would endeavour, as far as he could consistently with his duty as counsel for the Crown, to focus the facts and bring the case down to as narrow a compass as he possibly could. It would, however, be necessary for him to explain briefly the position &o tint the jury might be able to appreciate the valu> of the testimony to be adduced before them, and also the case for the Clown. On the 15th February, 1897, cuie Thomas Edward Shiel bought the business ol the BaUarat Pawn Office* from the late owner, Samuel Patrick Shiel, his brother, and 'x. E. Shiel bought 9 3 agent for C. and W. Shiel, the present proprietors. At the time of the sale George Simpson, who was a general commission agent, and wa3 then interested hi a fruit shop in the city, wis appointed temporary manager. On the 29th March, 1897, Simpson retired from the management, being replaced by the accused, and an assistant named Mahoney was employed from the end of September, 1897. About the end of last March the accused was instiucted to take the actual stock of the pledges, goods, and securities in the premises and prepare a stock-list. As probably some of the jury were not acquainted with tlio interior of a pawn broiling business he might state that a business of that kind had a very laige number of pledges— roughly speaking, 2030 to 3000— and" that there was in all those businesses, as there was in this business, a large amount of slock that was purchased for resale. The accused received very explicit instructions as to how the stock-list was to be prepared — he was to handle each articlo among the pledges and call it out to Mahoney, giving the pledge number, a description of the aiticle, and the money lent en it. With regard to the stj'CK that did not consist of pledges, the instructions given to the accused wero that he was to call out each article, giving a full description of it and the money paid for it, and numbering them from 1 consecutively. The stock list would bo produced in evidence. It was finished by the accused about the 30th April last, and was handed by h;m to the representative of the owners, lie was asked if it was an exact list of the stock, and he answered affirmatively; and, moreover, the stock list was checked oy the auctioneer of the firm of C. and W. Shiel, who from time to time conducted auction sales of unredeemed pledges. For reasons which appeared to be good and sufficient, the accused received notice, in the month of May, of the intention of his employers to dispense with his services as from the 28th May, and he was requested to give over the stock in his charge to the owners' representative, who happened to be Samuel Shiel. The jury would hear from the evidence that Shiel commenced this stock-tak-ing, and had only gone through a few of the lines when goods were found to be missing, and other eriors became apparent, and then the accused practically refused to go on giving delivery. The excuses which he gave would be stated m evidence, and the stock was not given over by him. Investigations were msde, and m consequence the accused was arrested at Lyttelton, and a large quantity of goods, which, it would be proved, formed part of the stock, were found in his possession. Some of the goods would be actually identified by the owners of the goods themselves. In one case articles would be sworn to by a man who had pledged goodsi, &orne of which wore found in the rosses&lol of the accused, while the rest of the "pledge" remained in the .ballarat office, and there were other articles that wore identified by Mahoney and by the Shiels. One article was a couch, in respect of which the accused admitted to the detective when he was arrested that he had sold it and received the proceeds, and he said he was prepared to pay for it, but, as an excuse, stated that his employers owed him considerably more than the value of the actual article taken. Counsel said he dwelt on that couch simply for the reason that it was the only article that he practically pleaded guilty to taking. Yv'hafc possible excuse could tho accused offer for making away with tms couch, whether he sold it publicly or privately, and for putting the funds in his pocket? If there was a criminal looseness in connection with a matter of that kind, counsel submitted to the jury that it made largely to strengthen the chain of evidence against the accused in respect of other suspicious matters in connection with his employers. When the accused wa3 spoken to by Detective M'Grath, he said

that all the articles were in the shop when he left, and he had a pood mind to get a search warrant to search the shop. JM'Grath sa^d veiy sensibly to tho accused that the best answer he could make to the charge was to find the goods, but the accused refused to go pnd hunt out the articles, giving as his excuse that he was advised by his professional adviser not to go near the premises. Counsel, having gone in detail through the list of articles alleged to be stolen, and the method in which they were respectively identified, pointed out that the opportunities that any man in charge of a business of that kind had of peculating the goods or money of his employers were very large, because there was really not much check on him — he bought goods for cash, and could readily over-estimate m his books the amount he paid, and he sold goods for cash, and could under-estimate in the books the money he received. He would a&k the jury to very patiently listen to the eviden ;e and to weigh the evidence given before them. It was no part of his duty to do more than put the bare facts and the full facts of the case, so tar as they were in the knowledge of tho Crown, before the jury,and if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of some one or more of the offences chargpd against him, it would be their bounden duty, ir respective of all other considerations, to bring in a verdict of guilty. If, on the other hand, the jury were not satisfied on the evidence adduced by the Crown that the guilt of the accused was proved — if there was a reasonable doubt left in their minds as to the accused' o guilt — it would be their duty to give the accused the benefit of that doubt. Thomas Edward Sluel, Samuel Patrick Shiel, Max Cohen, Lewis Albeit Paterson, Thomas Williamson, Reuben Hawkes, Frederick M'Arthur, Robert Lawson, James Mahoney, and Detective Crystal gave evidence for the prosecution.