SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2959, 30 November 1910, Page 15

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams) His Honor took his seat at 10.30 a.m. THE GRAND JTTRT.

The following grand jury was empannelled:—Henry Mitchell. P. Hovcus, S. J. Evans, A. M. Begg, J. R Melvin. C. S. Owen, H. H. Henderson, J. H. Dixon. D. Cargill, A. Howarth, D. L. Bruce, E. W. Batchelor, C. F. Johnstone, C T. Paterson, J. W. Blakeiey, G. M. Mac Lean, N. Reid, H. Edwards, and H A. M'Lean. his inxnß's charge. Ir addressing the Grand Jury, his Honor said ho did not think that as to the majority of the cases the grand jurors would find any difficulty. In to the charge of assault upon a woman, die case turned uon the question of identity, but', so far as the depositions went rber«s was plenty of evidence that the accused was* {he man. His Honor briefly mentioned several of the cases on the list, and then went on to say: There is- a case where a man employed as clerk by the Bruce County Council is charged with having fraudulently omitted to enter in* the bcoks of the council the fact that l.e had received certain moneys on account of the council The accused's methods scc-m to have bxsn this: It was part of his duty to collect rates. He collected rates from several pel sons, receiving their cheques, and these cheques he paid into the council's banking account, but he took out of the moneys in his hands, belonging to the council, the result of other collections, the equivalent of those cheques. He failed, however, to enter in the cash book the fact that he had r<ceived these rates. There was nothing, therefore, in the books to -.how that anything wrong had been dona The fraud was discovered when the persons who had psid their rates wer-3. called on to pay them again. I do not think you will have any difficulty about the case. There is also a charge of perjury. In this the facts are peeculiar, and it may be that you may have some doubt as to woother a lrm> bill shouht be found. The accused was charged in the Magistrate's Court en an information chaining him, as occupier of certain land, that within the space of six months before the hearing he had failed to clear certain noxious weeds freni the land. In the course of that case the :iccu-cd swore tint he did not own the sections —that he had parted with them nbout the latter end of July last year, wid had given up possession to his brother, and that his enly interest was to get the money that was owing. That was his statement. So far as I can gather from the depositions the facts are somewhat as follows :—About July of last year there was no binding agreement but a sort of understanding between himself and his brother that the brother would ourjhaie this particular land, and the brother went on to the land. In what capacity he was acting is not clear. It is quite clear that there was no binding agreement between the brothers to sell and to buy. There was. however, at the beginning of Februc.rv this year, an absolute agreement for purchase between the two brothers, and after that date no doubt the statements of the accused would be tiue —that all the interest he had was to get the monev, that he had given up possesion and that he was net the occupier of the section. The offence of perjury consists in this: That ail assertion as to a matter of fact is made bv a witness upon • >ath. the assertion known bv him to be false and intended to mislead the court. The quesetion is r.s to whether, according to the evidence before you, the pleased made an assertion which w.ts not oniv untrue but known bv him to be untrue and intended to mislead the court. If he made the a c sertion knowing it to be untrue, the iust inference is that he intended to mis lead the court. TRTTK EII.T.P. The G'-and Jur v found '«»" bilk .""'nst Robert Smrie. George K <~<ro(«. Gilbert S"ott. Wi'lia'n Kinvey, L. F. ilc-,'g. and Henry Pollock. jm wis. No bill »*R fo-.—d i" th° -ap» ~ f Cfiar'c, \r<>re*on, - T ohn WaH <<thl William W. '-Ti'jgin", charged with housebreak'ng at Oam aru PWWVB KOK SF.N'TENC. " Guilty " >n Hie lower eourf. on Friday to p. charge of having false statements to *hp> registrar touching the birth of her chUd ]a=t October, came un for «ent°no s . The C-ow-t Pro"»on*or (Mr J. F. M. Fraser. K\o.) said tha<- iot*>m" '"as known aorainst the wotnan. had been separated f'-om he>- husband. Hiis to the no lice ? Mr Br'igh: "Y~9 your Hone. She made a fmnk and fr**e "fcatement to $"» nol'C© explaining ••ow a n - " 4 <o do "uch a thine." She said sh~ had done ; t in c - dcr f o escape the, attenfiona of he'*i'i«of>nd. She had taken the nam" of Fllis before she entered t"e Matrnitv Hc«nital. and once the>*« she fool««hlv took the lin" of least resistance and ke-it tb«it n.«.«no throughout. Th» statement +hf>t she did po to escape husband was borne out bv the fact th°t bar husband w»« brought before the lower ccur*- charged with nwauHinjr *hf> woman with whom accused lived. She had been keeping herself for the last five months, and her mistress accompanied her to the lower court. She had bee" back in her place while on remand. Counsel nointed out that the child h!»d not suffered anv detriment owing to the action of the accused His Honor: That is so. Mr Brush : It is in the process of being adopted in a v/> ry excellent home. His Honor: The offence, does not appear to have been committed with anv mischievous intent. Of course she had no business to do it. I think it would be sufficient, as this is a first offence, if sh" vrt>"i* bound in bnr own recognisance of £25 to come up for sentence when called upon. THEFT or VEDICIKE. Leonard Frederick Hogg was indited for h<ivin°\ Ivtween Januarv 1 and Oetober. ♦hen in the se-r"ioe of the United Friendly Societies' Dispensary, stolen patent medicines. Aceus-ni. who was rervro«>nted bv Mr A. C. Hanlon. pleaded "Guilty." and gave his age as 21 years. Mr Hanlon. in speaking on behalf ot nrironer. said the vcung man had been indentured in the United Friendlv Societies' Disnensary for four «e»rs. and had served about two years and adialf of t.*>at Sme. From the evidence given by Mr

Hoffman in the \pourt below, prisoner appeared to have borne a good character, and by the depositions it would be seen that his employers had been ready to take him back into their service. He had made a full disclosure to the police, and it seemed from his story that ho had been led away by a man of more mature years than himself. There were several caaes of goods missing, extending over a year. Counsel submitted that the court would hesitate to send the young man to gaol, seeing that it meant everything to him. It should be avoided, as his employers, after making inquiries, had taken the young man back into their employ after he had been liberated on *bail. Counsel suggested that if his Honor could see his wav clear to order accused to come up for sentence when called on it would meet the ends of justice. The Crown Prosecutor said £l3 14s 3d worth of goods warn missed. Mr Hanlon pointed out that all the goods had been recovered. They were all found in Pollock's place. The Crown Prosecutor said accused's character was reported by the police to be good. His Honor: And his employers are willing to take him back again? Mr Hanlon: He is back, your Honor. The Crown Prosecutor, replying to his Honor, said the costs in the court below wore about six guineas. His Honor: I think, looking at the circumstances, a fine will meet the case—a fine equivalent to the cost of the prosecution—a fino of six guineas. WOUNDING A CALF. William Kinney was indicted that he did, about the "28th of September, at Rongahere, wilfully damage a heifer belonging to Alexander Paterson Stivens by shooting it with a gun. Mr Hanlon appeared lor accused,, who pleaded "Not guilty." The Crown Prosecutor said it was a matter for regret that a man ct the age of prisoner should appear in the dock, but for that he was responsible. He was an old settler at Ronganere, and had a neighbour named Stivens. Three calves belonging to Stivens came cut outside accused's house, and he shot one of them. Stivens and his wife, who were in hiding, both witnessed the act. They went up to the calf to see how it was injured, and accused levelled the gun at them and threatened to shoot them. Then he went back into his hut. Information was given to the police, and a constable went to his place and found he was possessed of a good armoury—a rifle and a shotgun,—and he was busy filling cartridges when the constable • arrested him. Ho said he would shoot the lot (cattle) if they came up against his fence, and that the constable would do the same if he was in h:s place. He said he had tried to shoot Stivens's cattle with salt, and had tried to shoot them with a pill, but that there was nothing like shot. He also said he had shot the calf in order to bring matters to a head. Counsel supposed his real grievance was that these cattle ran up against his fenoe and perhaps partially damaged it. Evidence was given by Alexander Paterson Stivens, Jane Stivens, Constable Coppell, and Sergeant Higgins. Mr Hanlon said the position taken up by Kinney must be perfectly obvious. lne old man stated that he was 72 years of and he did not think it would be deputed that he had in the Dominion bordering on 50 years He had been a miner, and naturally boasted of the fact that he had been at every gold rush on the West Coast and in Otago, with the exception of one at Hindon. For some years he had been staying at Rongahere, and there he had been subjected to a lot of annoyance by cattle belonging to his neighbours. Ho wanted to bring the matter to a head, and he had an idea that as the cattle were not branded, he would net b 3 able to get justice in a lower court. He thought he would not be able to prove that the cattle belonged to Stivens, and so for the purpose of Having his grievance ventilated before the Supreme Court he said he shot this calf when it poked its head through the fence. Counsel could <to no more than lay these circumstances baiore the jurv in order that it mignt express to the "court, if it so desired, the view it book of the matter beyond the mere finding of "Guilty" or "Not guilty. He asked it to consider that nothing was known against Kinney apart from this shooting business, and it must be obvious that he we* rankling from seme grievance against these people ar.d their catt.e. There were circumstances which might justify the inrv in adding some rider to its finding. . , His Honor, in summing up, said he could hardly see that the jury had any alternative but to find him guilty, but it could make what reeominciidaton it liked. The jury retired at six minutes past 12 and returned eight minutes later with a 'verdict of " Guilty." The foreman reed a rider recommending mercy en account of the prisoner's age, and on the ground that he did not appreciate the eftP-OUSness of his action, and had taken a wrong view of the proper way of getting redress for his grievances. Mr Hanlon handed in a. certificate or character and testimonial to Kinney signed by a number of settlers. His Honor remarked that the probation officer said that the settlors there were in dread of the man shooting them. Mr Frsser submitted that the accused was suffering from senile decay, and was reallv c-angerous. He suggested that the accused bo admitted to probation on condition that he regained in the Old Men s Home. ... , His Honor said he would .not like the man to be let go with this armoury in his possession. Mr Hanlon contended that now the man had had his grievance ventilated h© would cause no more trouble.

Kinney then obtained leavo to make a statement, in which he alleged that certain neighbours wished to drive bm away ar.d set his property for nothing, and that one lad had* threatened to shoot him. His Honor: There will be probation of 12 months on, the condition that the weapons and ammunition produced in the court be banded to the police to retain during the period of probation; and that during that period accused decs not buy, borrow, or obtain in any way any gun, rifle, cr pistol. Accused to pay £lO towards the costs of the prosecution; if not paid within the 12 months the weapons, etc., in the hands of the police to bo eold and'the proceeds applied towards the £lO. Kinney was re'eaaed on these conditions. PEBJUBY. George Edward Oroes was indicted that he did, on June 7, at Lawrence,, commit perjury in a prcseoution against himself in

the Magistrate'* Court for a breach of the Noxious Weeds Act in respect to sections in block VIII and X, Tuapeka district, by swearing that ho did not own the sections* etc.

Accused pleaded " Not guilty.-" The Crown Prosecutor said accused was one of two brothers in the district. He owned two farms, and his story was that he sold one of these farms to his brother. He said that 'the .negotiations between him and hia brother amounted to a sale to his brother. The other brother swore the land was not his. Then accused, when prosecuted for a. breach of the Noxious Weeds Act, swore that the land was not bis, and was now charged with perjury. He (the Crown Prosecutor) put this before the jury: Did accused believe he had sold the land at the time? He then proceeded to review the evidence previously given. Evidence was given ~oy Alexander Millar Eyes (clerk of courj it Lawrence) and J. R. Bartholomew. S3.M. Cecil Thomas Ctcss, farmer, ■of Tuapeka West, said .he had resided off ar.d on on sections 15 and 16, block VIII, and sections 1,2, and 3, block X, for about two years and a-half, and continuously during the last 10 or 12 months. His brother and ha first discussed the possibility of his buying the farm about the end of July, 1909. The stock and implements belonged to his brother. In May witness was prosecuted as the owner of the property, and' he'theni swore- that h? v/as not the owner for the lime being. He v/as in his brother's .service then. He was not the owner until March. He got stores before July, 1909, in his brother's name. After that Herbert and l Co. rent in accounts for goods in witness's name. Witness weo crcas-examined at great length by accused. He said he had registered his brand on the proeoect of getting the property. He sold a horse between July and November. He kept £1 out of the proceeds, and the rest -went to buy another horse. Accused': Being a servant of mine, you deliberately shore the sheep and branded them.—Witness: Yes, because I did not receive my wages.

Replying to further questions witness said he paid for shearing the sheep in the long run, but not until a settlement was put through. He bought turnips from Hart for the sheop, and finally paid for them because accused asked him to. He also bought poison from the Stock Department. Accused: Did you please yourself as to what you bought and sold? —Witness: Well, not always.

Continuing, witness said he might have sold a bag of wool, or sheepskins, before July, 1909. About 13th September, 1909, he engaged a man who was then working on the other property which belonged to accused. He gave this man to understand that he would pay him if he was successful in getting the property. He ordered manure from Wright, Stephenson, and Co., and had it put down to accused, but had no authority to do so. When the stock inspecto:called in March witness told him the pkco belonged to him. Ho considered he was the occupier. It was a surprise to him when he was prosecuted. Accused: Why did you not tell the inspector to prosecute me? —Witness: I did not think it was my plaoe. I think I told the police they had summoned the wrong man. I did not inform you that I had been summoned.

Accused: Did I tell you it was impossible for them to convict me?—Witness: I do not know whether you did or did not. You may have. Walter Russell Pkfclington, secretary to Wright, StapbenfO!!, and Co., deposed that the agreement produced had been drawn up in his office. He did not conduct the negotiations. The brothers had been negotiating, but G. E. Cross would not agree to the conditions of sale at that time. There was a dispute over some of the items. He believed that when negotiations were started between the brothers G. E. Cross thought he had sufficient reason for considering his brother the owner of the property. Alexander R. Olapoott, Inspector of Stock, also gave evidence. To aooused: Witness asked C. T. Cross if he was the occupier of the place, and he asked him about the thistles. No one couid escape a prosecution over the thistle?. C. T. Cross told witness ho had just purchased the property. This oloeed the ca.se for the Crown. His Honor (to the Crown Prosecutor): Have you got a case, do you think? The Crown Prosecutor: No, your Honor, I don't think so. His Honor: I don't think there is a case to go to the jury. The evidence is proof that Cecil Cross was in possession. There seems to be n dispute between the two brothers as to liability. To conviet accused you (the jury) have to find that acoused stated on oath something ho knew to be untrue. What he stated on oath when the case was before the magistrate was: ''l don't own the sections." At the time he did not own them. He said he parted with the sections about the latter end of July, and gave up possession to his brother, and the only interest he had was to get the money owing. In his letter to Wright, Stephenson, and Co. in January he said ho considered his brother was to undertake all liabiities from July. The brother s-eems to have been in exclusive occupation of tho land from July tiU the time of the forma! agreement, whatever the actual position in law may have been. It is not. looking at the whole cir cumstanoE'?. whether the statement is actually true in fact, and we have not to decide what are tho rights and wrontrs be tween the two brothers. The question is whether accused made the statement, knowing it was false, and made it with the intention of deceiving the court. In order that acoused be convicted it is nec«sary to show that he -was the occupier, and the evidence £OO3 to show he was not the o-jcupisr. The Crown Prosecutor thinks there is not sufficient to go to you. o.nd I am verv much of the wimo opinion, but if you think there is anything to answer, or want an explanation, the cas? can goon. My own opinion is fc is not necessarv to go into tb* defence. Accused said he had a good rWence. but ho did not want to waste tho time of tho court. Tho Crown Prosecutor: It is obvious that this man mad© a statement and believed it to be true. His Honor (to jury): I think, gentlemen, you should find a verdict of "Not guilty." The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of "Not guilty," and ace lsed waa discharged. SKKrouB Offences. Henry Pollock wlas charged fihat on various crates between January 1 and Ootoi»r 11 he did receive * quantitj ©* natenfc

and proprietary medicines, knowing them to have been stolen, and there w-» a second count that he did, between the same dates, steal medicines the property of the Friendly Societies' Dispensary. Accused, for whom Mr Hay appeared, pleaded " Guilty," and was then indicted on a charge of having attempted to commit an unnatural offence at Dunedin. The court was cleared during the hearing of the case, and an order was made suppressing the publication of the evidence. The Crown Prosecutor outlined the facts. and proceeded to call evidence, which lasted till 5.30 p.m., at which time his, Honor intimated he would hear counsel for the accused next morning at 10.30.

Tuesday, November 22. • a sebious offence. The charge against Henry Pollock of having attempted to commit an unnatural offence again came before the court at 10.30 a.m. Mr Hay, at the close of the evidence called by him, said the suggestion he had made as to blackmail was now shown to be something more than a suggestion. Tho ease for the Crown bore the colour of a money-making concern. It had been a case of endeavouring to extort money from the person accused by threatening to bring a fake charge against him, and if the jury was satisfied as to that, how could it think of convicting anybody? Counsel proceeded to refer to discrepancies in the evidence, •specially that of the boy concerned in the case, who had modified his evidence. He (counsel) suggested that the whole story was a fabrication. First there had been an attempt to extort money on the ground of alleged libel as to one of the witnesses for the prosecution, and that failing, there ■was the graver charge made for whioh accused was now before the court. _ The whole thing was tainted from beginning to end with money-making and blackmail.

The Crown Prosecutor, in summing up; drew attention to the fact that there had been no word of blackmail in the lower court. Mr Hay: I did not say a word. I reserved the defence. The Crown Prosecutor continued his summing up, which he completed after tho luncheon adjournment. ' His Honor then summed up, and in the course of so doing reviewed the evidence at length. j The jury retired to consider the verdict at 2.45 p.m., and at the expiration of the four houTs—that by 6.4 s—had not agreed. ' On returning to the court the Foreman, in answer to the usual question, said the jury could not agree upon a verdict. His Honor: You are quite sure, gentle<nen? The Foreman: Yes.

His Honor: Then I have to thank you lor your attendance. Kindly come again at half-past 10 to-morow. The Crown Prosecutor: I propose to retry the acused. It is inadvisable to try him with this panel. His Honor: Yes. Probably. I thini 40. We can fix a date. The Crown Prosecutor: *t7o can try him on your Honor's return from Invercargill. His Honor I will be back by Monday fortnight. The Crown Prosecutor: Yes, that would do, your Honor. The retrial was fixed for December 12. BBUCE COUNTY COUNCIL CASE.

Gilbert Soott was indicted that he did, jbout the 29th of March, 1906, then being the employ of the Bruce County Council, receive the sum of £2O Os 6d, the moneys of |he Bruce County Council, and did fraudulently omit to enter the receipt of it in the "Jash book, with intent to defraud. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for accused, sfho pleaded "Not guilty." He Crown Prosecutor savi accused had been a clerk in the Bruce County Council. He was appointed on the 4th of March, 1902, as assistant clerk, and was then a youth of 18 years of age, and stated (the jpeaker understood) that he had no, or very little, previous training as a bookkeeper. Hie duties were to collect the Tates and pay the money into the bank, and keep the rato cash book. It seemed that in receiving the money for this body he would probably handle from £SOOO to £6OOO a year, and what he was accused of doing was practically falsifying the books. That was to say, two ratepayers would pay accused £lO, the one in each and the other by cheque. He would keep the cash and make no entry of it. He (the Crown Prosecutor) thought it was his duty te explain at some little length the environment of this young man from 1902 to 1909 In September, 1910 he was arrested, and charged by the police. The first offence with which he was charged was in 1906. The court would be informed by Mr Nel■od, the then county clerk, that the aarears of rates in earlier times were never considerable—probably £IOO to £2OO a year; perhaps less, —but after Scott's appointment, and after he commenced to manipulate the money, the arrears commenced to

mount up. No one appeared to have paid the slightest attention to the fact that they were mounting up, and so the arrears grew until they amounted approximately to nearly £BOO. He (the Orovrn Prosecutor) could not give any explanation as to why the defalcations were not known. It was a very unfortunate thing that in the evening of Mr Nelson's days he should have to appear before the court as a witness under such an extraordinary state of facts. He had been for many years clerk to the County Council, and it would appear from the evidence that after Scott's appointment he (Mr Nelson) almost wholly devoted himself to his engineering duties and did not exercise any supervision over accused, who was then a youth. Mr Nelson latterly had left undone those things which he should have done and in almost every case had done what he should not have doneThere was no suggestion on the part of the Crown of anv criminal misconduct on the part of Mr "Nelson, but he (the Crown Prosecutor) was bound to tell the court the exact state of the facts. He was, however, unable to explain many facte. Mr Nelson in the court below had said that he really kept the books and the money jointly with the accused, but he (the Crown Prosecutor) found, on going through the rate book very few entries indeed made by Mr Nelson. The books had been gone through, and there were very few entries mado by Mr Nelson. For four years-from 1905 to 1909-there were scarcely a dozen entries made in tho cash book by Mr Nelson, and the bankings were about 20 as against 400 or 500 by accused, so that it would appear that accused had absolutely no supervision exercised over him. That, of course, was no excuse for having committed the offence he was alleged to have committed. Most of the members of the County Council were farmere, and it was scarcely fair to expect them to have a olose knowledge of t)he condition of the accounts. However, the men who had been chairmen during this period' were by no means free from blame. No one took the slightest interest in the details as to arrears of rates. Accused gave receipts for the money received, and some of tho receipts would no doubt be in form, and would state when the money was taken, and would be in some book other than the book that would bo produced to the auditors. In January, 1909, there was a special audit by one of the Government auditors, and all these arrears were taken out, and accused assisted. Then he (the Crown Prosecutor) presumed detection was regarded as inevitable, and accused left without any warning. The money as it came in was kept in a safe, and sometimes in a drawer in the clerk's room. There were three keys, one being kept by Scott, one bv Mr Nelson, and, he. belieyed, one by the office boy named Thomson. Alexander Nelson, olerk to the Bruce County Council, was the first witness called, and gave evidence similar to that given before the magistrate. Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness admitted that the council's accounts were not always correct. They might be a little wrong either way sometimes. Between the time Scott left and the time when Browne took up his duties there had been no audit to show if tho books were correct. Wjtness checked Scott's work once a week, but did not compare tho bank slips with the rate cash book. Mt Hanlon: If you had looked un any of the slips wou would have seen whether they wore verified in tho rate cash book? The Crown Prosecutor: He never verified anything. Mr Hanlon: He took it for granted that what was entered in the rate book tfas all that had been received. Witness: Yes. I never doubted his honesty. Witness further said that he took out another receipt book with him, leaving one with accused; and therefore the receipts would not bo in sequence. On being asked whether since Scott had been in the council's employ there was one single entry in the rate cash book made in his (witness's) handwriting, he replied there was, but a long search two accountants and others failed to find any. Further evidence disclosed that the premises were not alone used bv the County Council, but by Masonic bodies. Continuing, witness said that at the meetings signed cheques with the body left blank were left with which to pay the railway accounts. Thev never paid anything to the railway people except by those cheques. They never paid away cheques paid to the County Council for rates. The netty cash never ran up to £3O a month. Sometimes he made up the sum required for petty cash out of his own pocket, but he never took it out of tho till. Thev bad not burned any of the books at the Council Chambers. No books were burned by his instructions. Every book was in court. _ Mr Hanlon : Were not two men tearing out the blocks and burning them in the fire, and engaged at it all day? You don't know about it?—Witness: No.

Mr Hanlon: It was in June. 1909. The Crown Prosecutor: That was in Browne's time. Witness: I don't know of any books beine burned. Continuing, he said the

engineer's travelling expenses were never paid out of rate cash. Mr Hanlon: You 6eem to have been unfortunate out there. I suppose you have lost thousands of pounds. ' Witness: I would say about £llOO. Mr Hanlon: Altogether? Witness: Yes. Mr Hanlon: And yet you have written off £2OOO. Witness: The auditor said Scott took £6OO.

Mr Hanlon here read a letter from witness to accused's father, and, commenting on it, said: You seem to have been exceedingly anxious that this young man should plead _ guilty. Further evidence was given by William Smith, farmer, Stirling; W. W. P. Hall, bank manager; James Wm. Petrie, and Harry Law, farmer, at Greenfield. The further hearing of the ease was then adjourned to next morning.

Wednesday. November 23. bruce county council case. The hearing of the charge against Gilbert Scott, at one time a clerk in the employ of the Bruce County Council, was resumed at 10.30. The charge was with having, about the 29th of March, 1906, received £2O 0s 6d belonging to the County Council and fraudulently omitting to enter the receipt thereof in the cash book, with intent to defraud. Mr A. C. Hanlon defended accused. Cosmo Augustus Ralston (inspecting auditor for the Government) stated that the books had been carelessly kept, making it hard to find when moneys had been paid. The bankings did not correspond exactly with the receipts. Between 1905 and 1908 only 18 bankings were made by any person other than Scott, out of a total of between 400 and 500 bankings. From the evidence of Mr Nelson he did not think that the rate cash-book _ had been written up as the rates were received. He thought it had been written up as each receipt-book was completed. On March 28, 1906, a cheque for £2O Os 6d was received from Mr Smith by Gilbert Scott. Accused banked the cheque, but there was no record of it in his rate cashbook. Moreover, the receipt given 'by accused was from a block not produced at the audit, and from a book from which no entries were made in the cash-book. The transaction, in everyday language, meant that accused had, upon receipt of the cheque, taken a corresponding sum from the office safe, and then paid the cheque into the bank. In other words, he had cashed the cheque in the office. Witness gave details of similar transactions by accused in respect of other cheques. In some cases receipts were not given; where receipts were given they were from receiptbooks not in use. out of sequence, and not produced at the audit. The method alleged was in all cases practically the same. An examination of the arrears made from the rate-book and the rate cashbook should have shown anyone intimate with the district that the arrears were swelling, and that regular payers were falling ; n arrears. His conclusions were that rates had been received at the county offices, paid into the bank, but never entered, and not accounted for.

Replving to the Crown Prosecutor, witness said that over a period of four years about £2OOO had been written off, independent of Browne's case. A. H. M'Lean also gave evidence. C. A. Ralston, recalled, said that in respect of the 18 bankings by Mr Nelson, all the cheques banked by him had been accounted for. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, said that the charge was merely a polite way of saying that accused stole the money, and the deficiency apparently alleged to his door amounted to £6OO. Taking the specific charge, the first thing the Crown had to prove was: Did Soctt receive this sum of £2O 0s 6d ? And they had not proved it. All they had proved was that Mr Smith posted a cheque to the Bruo© County Council, a receipt was sent by Scott, and Scott apparentlv pafd the cheque into the bank And neither of those facts proved that Scott received the cheque, the latter fact showing merely that he had the cheque ; n his possession when taking it to the bank. Mr Nelson had said in hia evidence that he himself had received payments for rates, and had paid them into the bank; also that on some occasions he had told Scott to send receipts for these rates. There was absolutely nothing to show that this sum of £2O had not been, received by Nelson, that he had not paid it into the special cash-box he kept, and afterwards got Scott to send a receipt, and take the cheque along to the bank. Quite easily, under the muddled system, it might have been Nelson who omitted to enter the amount m the rate cash-book. But assuming that Scott received the cheque, the Crown had still to prove that he wilfully and fraudulently omitted to enter such receipt. And to ascertain that the jury had to look at the whole of the circumstances, and weigh them carefully. They had been told that the accused went to this position as a lad of 18 years. Ha was apparently inexDeri-

enced, and to give him experience the blind started to lead the blind. For had it not been abundantly shown that Nelson did not keep his books satisfactorily? It had been shown that both Scott and Nelson collected rates, using different receipt books, and this accounted right away for one of the points made by the Crown—viz., that if everythng had been aboveboard the receipts would have run in sequence. How could they run in sequence when two books were used? Now, when Nelson came home from collecting he put his money in a private cash box in the safe. This meant that Nelson had access to all the cash in the safe, while Scott had access only to that he had placed there. Now, what happened? The money put into the safe was taken out, and the_ two mem, without seeing if that amount "corresponded with the amount that should have been collected, pushed it into the bank. Everything was done in such a loose way that nobody knew how to find out if the sums were correct. Here were two persons, both having access to the cash, and yet Scott was asked to account for it. He did not suggest that Mr Nelson took the money. He could not, for he did not know. But he did know that Nelson had access to the money as well as Scott. Moreover, where two receipt-books were used, as they had been here, there was always the element of muddle, and the books were kept so badly here that nobody could find out the position. The only way to describe the position was to say that moneys were collected and flung about the office or kept about the men's clothes. There was no system, no management, no supervision of any kind. And so they found a young, inexperienced man in an office where there was no system, in a county of muddledom, with thousands', passing through his hands, and paid the munificent salary of 32s 6d a week, expected to look after the books, keep things straight, and now be the scapegoat because they had gone wrong. It was known that at least three persons had access to the moneyScott, Nelson, and the young fellow,—and was it fair that Scott should now be asked to account for the money? That, m plain terms, was what was asked of him. Counsel urged tihat it was absurd. Again, when aocused went away he went to Auckland, and it was common rumour that he was there. The county did nothing until 20 months later, when police investigations were pursued concerning another person. It must be assumed that they had not prosecuted because they knew there was no fraud. If Scott had wanted to olear he would have left the Dominion altogether, and not taken a permanent post in Auckland, as he had done. His Honor, in summing up, said the rate oash-book was the foundation of the whole structure, and was entirely in the handwriting of accused. Aooused did all the banking business, and there were only 18 payments made into the bank by other persons than accused. The amounts paid in should have bsem entered in the cashbook but the books did not seem to have been kept verv well, though there was nothing wrong w-th them on their face. AH that was wrong seemed to be that the arrears of rates had been mounting up, but that was consistent with negligence in collecting them. The jury retired at 2.30, and a quarter of an hour later returned with a verdict of " Not guilty." , . ~ . His Honor: There are some other indictments. __ _, The Grown Prosecutor: Yes. They are practically the same. The whole of the evidence has been traversed, but if your Honor thinks it is my duty to try him again , .... His Honor: Oh, I don't see that it is. The Crown Prosecutor: The better way would be to let him plead and offer no evidence. , ~ , His Honor: How many indictments are there ? _, The Crown Prosecutor: Three, your Honor. . , Scott was then formally charged with having on September 20. 1907 March 2, 1908, and March 15, 1907, fraudulenUy omitted to enter the following amounts in the Bruce County Council's books:— -hi 5s 7d £22 6s 3d. and £5 0* lOd. He pleaded " Not guilty " to each charge. The Crown offwed no evidence, he was found Not guilty," and was discharged from custody. CRIMINAL ABSAULT. Robert Searle was indicted for having, about July 30, at Waipori, criminally assaulted a married woman. There was a second count for attempting to commit the assault. . , . . Mr Hanlon appeared fo- accused, who pleaded " Not guilty." The court was then cleared. The Crown Prosecutor opened the case for the Crown, and proceeded to call evidence. The case fcr the Crown was concluded shortly after 5 o'clock.

IN CHAMBERS. Letters of administration were granted I in the estates of Abigail Walsh (deceased) and William Snow (deceased). m , Aspray v. Newman. —Order made, giving directions for service. m j In re the Burnside Hydraulic Lime and Cement C««u>any, Limited (Mr D. Raid.

jun.J, order made, giving directions for service of petition, and giving date of hearing for Tuesday, 13th December.