SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, 5 December 1900, Page 38

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tue°d.vx, November 27. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10.30 a.m. EMBEZZLEMENT. Percy Henry Day (29) was charged on three indictments with having stolen from his employer, Charles Henry Osmond, the following sums of money: — On December 14, 1809, £8 2s 6d and £5; on January 8, 1900, £91 ss; on March 15, £25 12s; on April 6, £55 and £21 ISs 6d ; on April 10, £55 4s 2d ; on April 19, £55 6s 3d ; on April 24, £34 7s 6d.

The prisoner, who was unrepresented by counsel, pleaded Guilty to each charge. In addressing the court he said: Your Honor, I admit having taken these moneys. I made the admission to Mr Osmond in the month of June. I told him I was sorry for my conduct, but would endeavour to make whatever restitution lay in my power. In the early part of July I obtained assistance, and was able to repay him £150 — half in cash and half in securities. I told him that I would also endeavour to repay him what further sians I could. At his expense I cabled to my mother in England to send me £100 or £150, and he paid for that message. But unfortunately she was away from home, and we did not receive an immediate reply, otherwise this prosecution would never have been instituted. I had every intention of acting in an open- and honest manner. X accepted an appointment here in the Colonial Mutual Insurance Company, where I was employed at the time of my arrest. I never attempted to escape, though I have had every chance and opportunity of doing so if I so desired. If Mr Osmond was desirous of punishing me I think he should have done so immediately. By his silence he led me to believe that he was intending to overlook the matter and give me every consideration; and so I tmderstood that was the position under which we were then. I think, sir, if he wanted to punish me he should have taken steps immediately, to do so. However, he kept the matter over, and I was arrested and had to remain in gaol three months. Although I did him a great wrong it was hardly fair treatment in return for the open and fair manner I was acting towards him. I have a wife and two little children entirely dependent upon me, and thoy are totally unprovided for at present. Since my arrest my home has been seized and sold up, and my family turned out into the street. I have had time for serious reflection, and am deeply penitent for the crime that I have committed. I throw myself upon the mercy of the court, and ask your Honor to take these facts into consideration, together with the 12 weeks I have been waiting trial, and kindly give me an opportunity to retrieve the past. I hope I shall never again appear m this degrading and humiliating position.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser) stated that the prisoner was born in India, and arrived un the colony in 1899 by the s.s. Umta, from Calcutta. There was nothing previously known against; him. The defalcations extended over a period of some months, and amounted to dS3SO. The accused gave three cheques back — one for J825 and two for £50 each. A cheque for £25 was honoured, as also was a cheque for £50, but a second cheque for £50 was dishonoured.

The Prisoner: I gave him securities of the value of about £75.

Mr Fraser said the securities realised only £20.

His Honor, in addressing the prisoner, said: Yon appear to have" stolen from jour employer a considerable sum of money — not in one sum, but in several sums, and during a period extending over some four months. It is not like the case of an isolated offence which might be treated with leniency. It is a series of offences. There may be some palliation of your conduct in the fact that you have to some extent attempted restitution, though, in the face of the

letter which has been produced, I doubt very much the genuineness of the cable which was purported to be sent to your mother. I shall take into consideration that fact that you have attempted to some extent to make restitution, and also that you have been in gaol for three months. The offence is a very serious one, and cannot be dealt with like a case of simple larceny. The sentence of the court is that you be sent to gaol for 18 months on each indictment, and kept to hard labour, the sentences to be concurrent.

Reginald Findlay Haskell (30) was charged on two indictments with stealing from his employers, the Commercial Property and Finance Company, the following sums of money: — On December 21, 189 i), £27 and £30; on July 31, J37 12s Id and £68 14s 4d.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty to each, charge.

Mr Hanlon said he wished to point out that the accused was a 'young man who was respectably connectsd, and had been in the employ of the company foi some 18 years. During nearly the whole of that time he thought it would be said that theie was absolutely no fault to be found with him. On the contrary, he was punctual, careful, and honest to a degree. During the whole of that time he lived with his two mirnairied sinters and supported them. However, some 12 months ago the manager of the company became chairman of one of the Stiock Exchanges, and' gradually more work fell upon the shoulders of the accused. Under the strain his health seemed to have given way, and he bec.irae despondent, and it appeared that during that time he pilfered the moneys of the company. He (counsel) intended to call the auditors of the company, who would corroborate what he had paid with regard to accused's conduct during a great pait of the period he was working for the company. At the tirue he was arrested he was not arrested upon the charges now laid again&t him, but upon a charge of lunacy. He was taken to Dr Barnett' s house, and the doctor, after Axp-miniiMc him. recommended him to be taken

to the hospital, seeing that he was mentally deranged. However, after some days' rest, he was remanded for a week in gaol and then examined by two medical practitioners, who, although suggesting that his mind was not what it should be, still thought that he was not insane. Then the books of the company were examined, and the present charges were laid. He would call two witnesses, and then ask his Honor to pass such a sentence as he coiild reasonably do under the circumstances. The accused had been in gaol for some five weeks.

Thomas Kerr Harty deposed that he was auditor of the company for about 14 or 16 years up to about two years ago. During that time he found the accused very assiduous and correct in his work, and in every way a desirable man in the office.

James Brown deposed that he had been an auditor of the company for ten years. Up to the time of the discovery of the defalcations lig held the opinion that the accused was a painstaking, zealous, and careful officer. His work was remarkably well done, and he was just such an officer as one could wish.

Cross-examined: The defalcations commenced in the month of October, 1899, and went on up to February 28, 1900. The total amount was about £800. About £200 of this was taken during the last few days he was in the employ of the company. To his Honor : Witness had no certain knowledge as to what accused did with the money. Mr Hanlon observed that accused gradually got into debt with housekeeping. Then he probably took example, from the head of the firm and, began to dabble in shares, and they had cost him something. His information was not always reliable. The money that was taken at the last was taken to pay up some debts for shares purchased and for calls upon shares.

The Crown Prosecutor stated that there was nothing previously known against the accused. He believed that what counsel for the defendant said was correct, except that accused was induced by the example set by the manager to speculate in shares. Mr Hanlon : Ido not say so. His Honor: I am afraid the*.} are many other examples.

The Crown Prosecutor said he was afraid this was not an isolated case as the result of share speculations. Probably the accused realised his position when he was arrosted on a charge of lunacy.

Mr Hanlon said Dr Barnett stated that he had been attending the accused during the last eighteen months, and accused had been giadually failing in health and becoming weaker and thinner, with less mental faculty ; that was before there was anything wrong financially.

His Honor: The offence is a. serious one. It is not a simple theft, but a series of thefts extending over a long period. I do not think that the suggested state of the accused's health is any excuse or palliation. It may be that his health was not very strong at the time he began these defalcations, but there is nothing at all to show why his possibly being in a somewhat weak state of health should have led him to steal considerable sums of money from his employer. That at the end. of the time after ail these defalcations had been committed his nervous system should have broken down is not at all to be wondered, at, especially as it appears from Mr Hanlon's statement that he had been speculating. The fact that hehad been speculating and had got into this tremendous trouble, would naturally tend to break down the nervous system of one not naturally strong in the first instance. I do not think the state of his health any palliation of the offence. However, there is this to be said: that for a very long period he bore an unblemished record in his employment. I shall take that into consideration. At the same time, the offence is one that cannot be passed over lightly. His Honor then passed a sentence of eighteen months on each indictment ; the sentences to run concurrently. FOEGEKY AND UTTERING-. Eobert Cameron M'Kenzie, alias Eobert Cameron, alis Eobert Fraser (35), was charged with forging a cheque for £42 on the 16th ot October, and also with uttering a forged cheque for that amount. The accused pleaded " Guilty " to uttering. The Crown Prosecutor said that accused was a native of Scotland. He arrived in the colony in. 1884. On the 7th of June, "18S8, he was convicted at Invercai'gill on five charges of obtaining money by means of false pretences, and received a sentence of eight months' imprisonment, with hard labour. On the 26th of February of this year he was convicted at Dunedin on a charge of false pretences, and received a sentence of nine months' imprisonment. He was discharged from gaol on the 10th of October, and the offence with which he was now charged was committed six days afterwards. The police gave him an ind'frerent character. In the present case accused went to "Wright, Stephenson, and Co.'s and asked a clerk for a blank cheque, which was given to him. His Honor said the ohnnces were that when a strange man went into an office and asked for a cheque he was not going to make a good use of it. Accused wov.ld be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, with hard labour. , ASSAULT. William Nicholls (56) was charged with having, on August 30, with intent to- do grievous bodily harm to Mary Ann Windsor, did her actual bodily harm. He was also charged, on a second count, with having assaulted Mary Ann Windsor, so as to cause her actual bodily harm. Accused said he pleaded " Guilty " to throwing a knife at the woman, but not with the intention of doing the harm that was done. The Crown Prosecutor stated that in IS9I the accused wa.3 sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for robbery. In 1892 he was convicted of drunkenness, and in 1893 of a breach of the peace. In 1894, 1895, and 1896 he was also convicted of charges of drunkenness. The man was of indifferent character, and the associate of prostitutes. Accused said he was not the associate of prostitutes. He was living with the woman in question. His Honor sentenced acciised to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour. A VALUELESS CHEQUE. Con O'Brien was charged that on the Ist October, at Pukeuri, he forged and uttered a cheque for £3 03 4d, purporting to be drawn on the T3ank of New Zealand at Oanraru, and to be signed by Henry E. Mann. Accused, who was undefended, pleaded " Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor said the evidence in this case was so clear that accused forged the cheque that the jury would have no hesitation in arriving at a proper decision. When he was charged With the offence he said: "Oh, well, it is no use denying ifc. I did it, but I would not have done it had it not been for the drink. I have been drinking for a week. However, it is only a valueless cheque. His name is not spelt right. Accused went to a storekeeper in Oamain and asked for a blank cheque on the Bank ' of New Zealand. Mr Smyth, the storekeeper, said he had not a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, but gave him one on the Bank of New Saufch Wales. Accused altered the. cheque and filled it up, and presented it at the Boundary Creek Hotel, where the landlord's daughter gave O'Brien drinks and tobacco, but refused him the change till her father had seen the cheque. The result of the landlord's inspection was that accused was given into custody. When charged he said it was no use denying it — he did it, and would not have done so but for drink. In a'uy case, ' he added, there was no forgery, for there was

no such person as the one who was supposed to sign it, and it was a valueless piece ofpaper.

Evidence was given by William. Smyth, Mabel 'Schluter, Henry Schluter, Frank W. Dawson, Thomas H. Mann, and Constable Hunt.

Accused said that the so-called cheque waa 1 not a document that anybody would be likely to cash, and that it was not proved that he filled it up His Honor, summing up,, said that O'Brienevidently did not know the provisions of tha Criminal Code. The fact was that even although a document was not complete, and not binding by law, it was a forgery if made and intended to be acted upon as genuine. The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of " Guilty." The Crown Prosecutor said that accused arrived from Sydney six months ago, and had been in trouble for drunkenness and damaging property. Accused was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. THEFT. James M'Laren [26), charged with stealing a watch, chain; and locket, the property of John F. Perry, from the dwelling of James O'Connor, on the 10th November, pleaded Guilty. Mr Hanlon said he had been asked, by the relatives to say that although accused had a. bad record,, he. had for the past 15 montha apparently tried to turn over a new leaf, and* they asked that he receive as light a sentence as .possible in the hope that he would do better . in future. The Crown Prosecxitor' said that there were 18 previous convictions. His Honor: The offence is not a serious one, - but accused has 'a bad record, and. this- 1 must take into consideration. I shall also- take into consideration that for 15 months he has been getting his living honestly, but that does, not get away from the previous convictions. Hip Honor then sentenced accused to 12 months' imprisonment. THKFT FROM AN EMPLOYEE,. George Knight Noble and William Trigance were charged with stealing a serge suit of clothes from their employer, Adolph Lorie, on September 5. On a second count, George Knight Noble was charged with receiving a. suit of clothes he knew to have been stolen from. Adolph Lorie. - 1 Mr Solomon, appeared for the accused, who pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, in stating the particulars of the case, said that Noble held the position o£ cutter in Mr Lories establishment. He was paid a salary of £5 per week with 25 per cent, increase in the profits he showed. Trigance was a hand in the establishment. Noble held a position, of very high trust. There was little or no check kept on hia goings to and from the establishment. He had access to it aifter hours, and w.as trusted implicitly by Mr Lorie. When the case first came before the court it was brought on the information, of Mr Lorie. Directly the magistrate had decided that a prima facie case had been made out the Crown took it over. It might be found that the case against Trigance was not so strong as that against Noble. It was almost a matter of regret that the counsel who prosecuted in the case in the- lower court was not prosecutor that day, 'because the case was one of considerable intricacy. Counsel, then detailed the facts of the case, stating that from information received Mr Lories suspicions were aroused, and he got a search warrant, which. '. was executed, by Constables Hanson and Kennedy. They searched a house called Jersey Villa in Serpentine Avenue. Amongst other things found in Noble's bedroom was a vest, ' which Mr Lorie identified as his property. Noble said he got the material in Christ6hvirch, and his 'wife made it up -there. Mr Lorie told him thai he wa3 stating an untruth, and asked for the coat and trousers. Noble Eaid that no coat and trousers of that material "had been made at Mr Lories place. It would be proved that the material of which the vest was made was part of a piece purchased by Mr Lorie from Bing, Harris, and Co. The whole piece waa bought by Mr Lorie. The lining was bought '■from Mr Jsmieson, and it was impossible to matcn it in Dunedin. E-xperts would be called who would identify the materials in the vest with the pieces from Mr Lories shop.

Evidence was then given by Adolph Lorie, Margaret Whitelnv, Ada King, Joseph Gott, Alice Lawrie, Charles Kealey, Frank H. King-, Richard Jamieson, Robert Duncan, Robert Proctor, Charles Holloway; Constable Hanson, and Constable Kennedy.

The case for the Crown was then closed. The opening of the case for the defence waa adiourned till 10.30 next morning. The court rose at 5.30 p.m.