CHARGES OF THEFT

Otago Witness, Issue 3205, 18 August 1915, Page 29

CHARGES OF THEFT

THE MILTON CASES. HENDERSON FOUND GUILTY. The first of the series of charges with which John 801 l M'Clymont .and _ John Robert Henderson are put upon their trial came before the Supreme Court on the 10th, Henderson being indicted with having, on Febuary 18, 1913, at Milton, stolen £2O, being portion of an amount of £57 12s 4d paid on that date to him on behalf of the 14-th Otago Regiment by Alexander Edward Stewart, There was a second count charging him with having, on the same date, being an officer in the South Otago Regiment, making a false entry in a book belonging to that regiment, with intent to defraud. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hanlon. _ The Crown Prosecutor (Mr William C. MacGregor) said that the accused was charged with the offences, both of which were really one transaction, which took place more than two years ago. At that time accused was captain and adjutant of the Nth (South Otago) Regiment, and was stationed in MiltcVn, where the offences took place. The accused had since ceased to be connected with the regiment, and went away with the Expeditionary Forces towards the end of last year, and had been brought back from London, or had come back from London, to answer those charges. As adjutant of the regiment, accused had control of the regimental books, and it was his duty to act as paymaster of tho regiment, and in that capacity he received from Colonel Stewart, who was now Lieutenantcolonel of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, a cheque for £57 12s 4d on February 18, 1913. Colonel Stewart would be called, and would tell tho circumstances under which ho paid accused the cheque. That was the amount the regiment was entitled to, and was paid to accused on behalf of the 14th Regiment. * At that time—l9l3 —Colonel M'Clymont was the officer commanding the regiment, and both he and accused had asked Mr Stewart for the money, and it was finally paid to Henderson on February 18. Then, on the same date, Henderson took the cheque to the National Bank at Milton, which was the bank "of the regiment, and his duty was to pay the cheque into the regimental account. What he did was to produce the cheque to tho bank with a pay-in slip for £37 12s 4d, and 1m got the bank official to pay him the difference (£2O) in cash, which he put in his pocket, so that in place of the regiment receiving the full amount of the cheque (£57 12s 4cl) it only benefited to the extent of £37 12s 4d, and accused benefited by £2O, which did not belong to him. Then the difficulty had to be got over as to the regimental books. Accused kept tho books, and these would be produced, and the jury would see that there was no record in any of the regimental books of this payment of £57 12s 4cl, but there was a record in tho hank books qt the lodgement of £37 12s 4d, so that in some way this £37 12s 4d in the bank book had to bo ballanced by a similar entry in the regimental book. On February 18 there did appear an entry in the regimental book —a credit for £37 12s 4d, but it did not in any way connect itself with, the i;57 4cl. It apneared as a refund on range £37 12s 4d. The £37 12s 4d was credited as an amount paid into the bank, and was not a true entry at all. There was no entry foi the £2O handed back to accused. Accused, when he came back to the dominion early this year, was asked about this cheque, and he gave an account of it, but it was impossible to gather from that account what he meant. There could be no other intention than to defraud. Evidence was given by Alexander Edward Stewart, who, in cross-examination by Mr Hanlon, said he did not expect the money to be entered in the cash book ot the regiment. Of the £57, ho knew £SO had been paid into M'Clymont’s account. Re-examined by the Crown, witness said in effect that tho money would be got from M'Clymont. He did not know' that M Glymont was hopelessly insolvent. He did not know that he had made an assignment. He did not know he was overdrawn. jVlOlA" mont was a relative of his. Evidence was also given by Charles i’ orsyth Bruce (accountant in the National Bank. Milton) and Henry Theodore Thornson (Government audit inspector), who said that there was an entry of £SO in Colonel M'Clvmont’s books, dated March 6 about three" weeks after this transaction. That entry related, not to tho cheque for £57 12s 4d, but to a cheque for £SO drawn on the regiment and cashed by M'Clymont on March 6, 1913. Colonel Stewart was qnito mistaken in saving that that £SO related to the £57 12s 4d directly. The last witness called by tho Crown was Chief Detective Herbert. Mr Hanlon, in his address to the jury, said that the onus of proof rested upon the Crown. Tho Crown had called Colonel Stewarb, who said that a cheque had been handed to accused for £57 12s 4cl. But Colonel Stewart also said that the money was not the money of the regiment at all, and should not have been paid to the regiment. but should have been paid to Colonel M'Clymont. It would take a big stretch of imagination to believe that the young fellow who had told the jury, after a lapse of two years, that a certain person had come into the bank and got 20 sovereigns, could recollect tho occurrence. It was questionable whether his memory would allow him to say whether he paid out 20 sovereigns to Henderson. If the witness had been a few years older lie would not have been so foolhardy as to say from memory what had taken place after such a lapse ot time. He (counsel) invited the jury to believe that the witness’s recollection upon _ the point was not sound. The money was intended to go to Colonel M'Clymont from Colonel Stewart, and when accused had been challenged about it on his return ho had endeavoured to give an explanation. Ho said that he gave the cheque to M'Clymont, and that was the person for whom, according to Colonel Stewart, it was That money did not belong to the regimental funds, and (he regiment had no right to it. Accused said that ho had no remembrance of the passage of tho money after it went to M'Clymont. Accused had not been brought, here under arrest, but had oorao backTo face the charges made against him. Ona witness had sworn that there was an entry in M'Clymont’s books for £SO, and that -it referred to this £57 12s 4d. A Crown witness had sworn that., and how was the man to bo convicted for having stolen tho monov. As to the question of intent to defraud and making a false entry in tho cash hook, tho jury could not come to the conclusion that accused had made that entry

to defraud anyone. The jury could not possibly find that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there had been a false entry made by the accused with intent to defraud anybody. And, unless the jury oamo to the conclusion that accused had put the money in his pocket, and made a false entiy to cover his theft, it was its duty to acquit him. His Honor, in summing up, commented somewhat severely upon the attitude taken up by Colonel Stewart in the box. The jury retired at 20 minutes to 4 o'clock, and at 5 p.m. returned to tiho court, the foreman stating that accused had been found guilty of both offences. The following note was handed in by the foreman : —“The jury recommends the prisoner to the leniency of the court, and wishes to deprecate the slipshod manner of the keeping and disbursing of the regimental accounts and moneys from the time they came to Colonel Stewart until banking time. Sentence was deferred. Henderson was further charged with having, on February 1, 1913, at Milton, stolon £5, money received from Jno. M’Gibbon Shanks for ammunition. Accused* pleaded “Not guilty,” and was defended by Mr Hanlon. The Crown Prosecutor stated that accused was living at Gore, and had control of the regimental affairs ae captain-adjutantl One of the officers in E Company was a Mr iSlianke, who lived at Gore, and ho asked accused if he could soil him 2000 rounds of ammunition. .Shanks bought and paid for the ammunition, handing accused £5, for which Henderson gave him a receipt. Accused had never accounted for that £5, and had, as far as was known, put it in his pocket. The whole transetion was irregular. The defence authorities had a system under which alone the buying and soiling of ammunition could, be carried out. Evidence wae given by John M’Gihbon Shanks, Owen M’Guigan (defence storekeeper), who eaid accused had no authority to sell ammunition; Chief Detective Herbert, Henry Theodore Thomson, and John Bell M’Clymont. The hearing of the charge was continued on the 11th. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, traversed the evidence given by Shanks. It had boon said that accused had no right to sell the ammunition, but Henderson said that this ammunition had been sent over from the Bruce Rifles. It had been loft over by them and was not looked upon as Government property. Henderson held that he was entitled to sell it for the purpose of building up a group fund in the district. When asked in Wellington for an explanation as to this amount, accused had said it was quite impossible for him to elucidate the position in many respects on account of the fact that he did not have before him a small book in which he had entered, among' other things, amounts received for the sale of bolts and ammunition. Every sale was entered in that book. These sums were used when the occasion required for any purpose connected with the group or regiment. In a later statement accused had said that the sums of £2 10s and £5 mentioned in the charges were not the only sums he had received for ammunition, and probably the total amount was £l4 or £ls. The question was whether they were prepared to accept the accused’s explanation. If they thought that he had had this book and that it had gone astray, they were entitled to acquit him, but if they thought this was only an excuse, and that the money had not been accounted for, then they would convict him. The question for the jury to determine was: Did the accused really appropriate this money to his own use? If it was reasonable to’ suppose that the money was lost or misspent in the sense of having been spent in connection with the group, then Henderson was not guilty- o* theft. • . His Honor summed up, and the jury retired. After half an hour they returned with a verdict of guilty, to which thoj wished to add a rider expressing surprise at the lax manner in which the Defence Department controlled the supply of ammu nition, as it seemed a common practice foi ammunition to be sold by officers of com panics without the proper authority. Sentence was suspended. Henderson was further charged that about February 20, 1912, at Milton, he stole £2 10s received from David Moves for ammunition sold bv him to -Moves. _ Accused pleaded not guilty, Mr Hanlon intimating that Tie did not appear on his behalf. The Crown Prosecutor said the case was identical with the last one, but carried them further back. Moves w/s a bandsman in the 14-tli Regimental Band, and the 'ammunition was Government property, and accused had no right to sell it. The Crown, however, said that if he had the right to sell it ho never accounted for the money bo received for it, which belonged to the Government, but had been applied to his own purposes. _ TT Evidence was given by David Moves. Herbert Warren Hilton (who said that Rio cheque was cashed at the Bank of Now Zealand, where it was drawn, and wasendorsed by accused), Owen M Guigan, Chief Detective Herbert, John Bell -M Clymont, and Henry 7 Theodore Thomson. His Honor having summed up. the jury retired, and at the expiration of 20 minutes returned with a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to leniency 7, ami a condemnation of the loose manner in which the books had boon kept, not only by accused, but by his predecessors. Sentence was deferred. Henderson was then charged that on May 20, 1913, at Milton, he stole £2 Bs, being a portion of a sum of £ls 16s paid to him in May, 1913, on behalf of the Government as camp pay to the rear party of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, at Sutton camp. Henderson pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said that a regimental camp was hold at Sutton in 1913. After the camp some members remained behind as a rear party, and they became entitled to two days’ 'extra pay, at 8s a day. Henderson was adjutant, and was loft in charge of the camp, and it was ins duty to pay the men for their work. The practice in paying those men was to get them to sign what was called au acquittance roll before they actually received the money The acquittance roll was then sent in to the Defence Department at Dunedin to show the amount of the cheque required. Henderson cashed the cheque, paid some of the men, but did not pay three men. who would be called as witnesses. There was no doubt Henderson got the money. Evidence was given by Roy Adolphus Norman Barnes (Invercargill). Robert E’loxham (Dunedin), and Alfred Elliott Knarston (Taieri Mouth) that they had signed the acquittance roll but received no payment, and

also by Douglas Gordon Graeme Hunter (district accountant for the Defence office), and Herbert Warren Hilton (manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Milton). The Judge summed up, and after a retirement of a quarter of an hour the jury returned with a, verdict of guilty. Sentence was again deferred. The accused was then charged with having, about November 9, at Milton, stolen £1 10s received by him from Robert Turnbull for a military belt. Accused pleaded not guilty. Evidence was then called, and his Honor having summed up, the jury, after a retirement of 15 minutes, brought in a verdict of guilty. Sentence was deferred. The next charge against Henderson was that on November 1, 1913. at Milton, he stole £7 8s 6d, being a portion of a cheque for £2O, paid by him as adjutant of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment to one George Reed, carrier, at Milton. Henderson again pleaded not guilty. The Grown Prosecutor said that this charge was of a somewhat different nature from the last two or three, but ho thought the evidence was, if possible, even more clear. In 1912 and 1913 Reed had done a' good deal of carrying for the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, and also for Henderson privately. Reed sent in his account to Henderson time after time. The regimental account amounted to £l2 and a few shillings, and Henderson’s private account to £7 3s 6d. At Henderson’s suggestion Reed made out one account against the regiment for £2O, which included the two amounts. Thereupon Henderson made out a regimental cheque for £2O and paid it over to Reed. _ George Reed, in his evidence, said that the private accounts of officers for carting had become much entangled with the officers’ accounts. Henderson had told him on different occasions that some of me items m the £7 8s 6d should have been charged to the regiment. His Honor said that in view of what this witness had said it seemed to be very doubtful whether the £7 8s 6d accused was charged with stealing was not really an amount owing by the regiment. The whole case for the Crown was that Henderson had applied £7 8s 6d to paying his own account. The evidence of the last witness left that very doubtful. If the jury took that view of the evidence, they would acquit the accused without going any furthcr. The jury acted on this suggestion, and in a few moments returned with a verdict of not guilty without retiring. The last charge against Henderson was that, on June 12. at Milton, he stole the sum of £95 ss. being a portion of £1292 9s 6cl paid to him in May, 1912. on behalf of the Government in payment of the officers and men of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment during their camp at Milton. Accused pleaded not guilty._ The Crown Prosecutor said that the accountant at headquarters -posted to the accused a cheque for £1292 9s 6d for paying the men. Before any more money was sent the accused telephoned from Milton to the district headquarters in Dunedin to say that the pay turned out to be £95 5s less than the cheque sent. Ho asked that the £SS 5s be deducted from the rations and messing allowance cheque, -reducing it from £543 10s to £448 ss. The accountant got his voucher for £1197 4s fxl, and also a voucher foT camp allowance, £543 ICs. The books showed an entry for camp allowance of £448 5s in the accused’s handwriting. That was not correct. That wae £95 5s short of the amount sent for the purpose. Accused had fold the detectives that he could not then account *or £44 17s of this amount, but that £SO 8s of it had been paid to Lieutenant Hoggans. He afterwards said he had paid it either to Lieutenant Hoggans or to' Captain M’Clymont, lie was not sure which: but both those men would deny ever having received any such sum from him. The books wore a blank regarding this £95 ss, and no one knew where the money had gone. The Crown Prosecutor called eight witnesses. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at 3.30. and returned after a retirement of two hours to ask whether it was competent to return a verdict of guilty of misappropriating the sum of £44 17s, and to give the accused the benefit of the doubt in regard to the remaining £SO 3s shortage. His Honor said it was competent for the jury to find the accused guilty of stealing the £95 5s or any part of it. The jury therefore found him uilty of the theft of £44 17s. Sentence was deferred. CHARGE AGAINST M’CLYMONT. John Bell M'Clymont was charged with having, about March 6, 1912, at Milton, stolen £SO, being the amount of a cheque drawn on that date by himself,’ as commanding officer, on the banking account of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment.—Accused pleaded Not guilty, and was defended by Mr Solomon, K.C., and Mr D. Reid, of Milton. The Crown Prosecutor said that in 19121913 accused was the lieutenant-colonel in command of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, stationed at Milton. 'Ho was a tailor, carrying on business at Milton, and in the early part of 1912 lie supplied to the regiment a large number of mattresses or bed ticks (60C), required for regimental purposes. He charged the regiment £SO for thorn, and the evidence would show that he bought the mattresses from Ross and Glendining for £45. That happened in the early part of 1912, before the camp held in May. On June 10 a cheque was drawn for £SO for Roes and Glendining. The adjutant of the regiment (Henderson) would lie called, and would say what took place. Ho wrote out the cheque and gave it to accused, who was to pay for the mattresses with it. Then, on March 6, 1913 —nearly a year later—there was a further cheque, which appeared in the book on March 6. Mr Solomon i Is the book kept by M ‘Clymont? The Crown Prosecutor: Does that matter ? Mr Solomon : Yes, I think it does. His Honor: It may bo a question whether he saw the entry. The first cheque was paid, was it not? _ ■ The Crown Prosecutor: I don’t think it was. It was'paid into M’Clymont’s private account. Continuing, the Crown Prosecutor said a cheque was drawn originally, on Juno 10, 1912, for Ross and Glendining, and that cheque went into MClymont’s account. A further cheque was drawn on March & for £SO, for Ross and Glendining, which was cashed bv M’Clymont in gold at the bank. Henderson would toll" the jury that accused, cashed both the cheques, and that ho (Henderson) signed the cheque datlecl March 6, along with accused, at accused’s request. He understood M’Clymont /

to say that Ross and Glendining- wanted payment for the mattresses, but forgot that a cheque had already been drawn xor the payment. Roth these cheques were on the funds of the 3 4th Regiment. Henderson, in looking over the books, saw that two cheques had been issued for the same amount, and he spoke about it to M’Clymont, to whom ho had to hand over the books. M’Clymonfc said it was impossible. He had not been paid twice for the mattresses. Henderson said that it was there in the cash book, and that he had the butts of two cheques. The banker’s evidence would show that the first cheque for £SO, dated June 10, 1912, was paid in to.the accused’s private account at the bank on the day of its date, and that the second cheque, of March 6, 1913, was cashed to the accused M’Clyraont on ijho day of its date, and was paid out in gold to him. The accused had been interviewed by Chief IDetective Herbert at Milton, in the presence of Mr Reid (accused’s solicitor), Mr Thomson (Government auditor), and Constable Fox. Accused had said with regard to the cheque of June 10, 1912, that it was made out by himself, and payable to himself for* 600 ticks. Major Mitchell hud said that Is 8d was a fair price for these, and M’Clymont, as a business man, agreed to supply 600 of these for £SO. Ross and Glenclinir.g had charged him £45, and he had charg d the regiment £SO. That £5 represented his profit as a business man on the transaction. He did not know why the cheque was made payable to Ross and Gendining and not to himself. With regard to the cheque of March 6, 1913, he eaid that Colonel Stewart had held £SO in trust for part of the A Company. Colonel Stewart had ceased to. have command of the regiment, and the accused had taken his place. That was why Stewart had given him the £SO. Stewart had given the cheque to Henderson (the adjutant), and Henderson had told accused that ho had banked it to the credit of the regiment. Mr MacGregor took it that that was the cheque that was the subject of a previous charge against Henderson—a cheque for £57 12s 4d, Accused had told Henderson it was not regimental money, and told him to make out anorlv;--cheque for the amount in favour of I.i i personally. Henderson did so. Ac. ;;- J cashed it at the National Bank, and paid it in to his account at the National Bank, and it -was still there at his credit. It was still a balance to the band and the A Company, for whom the accused held it in trust. The ciiief detective made the following extract from the accused’s private book: —“1913 March 6, by cash £50.” The words had been struck out with a pen. The entry was under the heading ‘T4th (South Otago) Regiment, special.” The Government audit inspector would also speak as to the state of the books, and it would bo shown that on March 6, 1913, the date on which the cheque was got by the aci cused, there was no amount of £SO owing to Ross and Glendining. The balance owing them was only seme £l9, so that the cheque could not possibly have been paid to him genuinely for Ross and Glendining. It was obvious that the witness Henderson was to some extent discredited, and it was for the jury to say what credence should be given to his evidence. But whether they relied entirely on his evidence or not, it was perfectly plain that accused had got two sums of £SO in respect of one account. Mr Solomon objected to that statement as unfair. . Hir Honor; Mr MacGregor is entitled to invite the jury to draw that inference. Ho has not exceeded his rights in opening. James Thomas Martin (ledger-keeper for Ross and Glcndining) gave evidence that, his firm had supplied 600 bed ticks for £45 to. M’Clyraont. Examined by Mr Solomon, he said his firm had no account with the 14th Regiment, and the transaction was entirely with M’Clymont. John Robert Henderson said that on looking at his book ho might have sent the cheque for £57 12s 4d either to Ross and Glendining or to M’Clymont. The cheque, however, was endorsed “J. B. M‘G.,” and apparently must have ho. a given to M’Clymont. In answer to Mr Solomon, he stated that M’Clymont was his superior officer, and it -was witness’s duty to draw out a chcquo if M’Clymont instructed him to do so. Ho had known some time before 1913 that Colonel Stewart had held in trust £SO for the Brace Rifles. Colonel Stewart had held that amount for years. When Colonel Stewart was leaving, M’Clymont told witness to go to Colonel Stewart and get the £SO from him which witness knew belonged to the old Bruce Rifles. Witness got the £SO with £7 12s 4d interest added. That was the cheque from which ho had been convicted of taking £29, but ho did not admit that. His recollection was that he took the whole cheque to M’Clyraont. He paid £37 12s 4d in to the bank to the regimental account, and took £2O back to M’Clymont. If M’Clymont now held £SO for the Bruce Rifles, wdtness could not say where he got it from. M’Clymont had told him that the money did not belong to the regiment, and he could not say why he (witness) had paid it in to tire regimental account. Evidence was next given by Chief Detective Herbert. In answer to Mr Solomon, he said that when he met and questioned M’Clymont in Milton, M’Clymont did not know the details of the charges that were to be brought against him as far as witness was aware. Mr Solomon’s comment that Detective Herbert had not told- the court of something said to him by Colonel Stewart drew a sharp rebuke from the Bench, and led to several passages between counsel and judge. M’CLYMOXT ACQUITTED OX FIRST CHARGE. The charge against John 801 l M’Clymont The charge against John Bell M'Ciymont xw.as continued on the I2th. The Crown Prosecutor called James William Petrie and Henry Theodore Thompson. Mr Solomon, in opening the defence, said it was difficult to imagine anything, more serious than a charge like this being made against a soldier while he was on his way to fight for his country. Accused had been an honorary officer in New Zealand for 20 years, and boro an unblemished character. It '.vac- not a case where a rnaivstole a few shillings, and advanced upon his career of crime until ho stole large sums of money. It was a wilful and deliberate misrepresentation to eay that M’Ciymont wanted £SO for a particular purpose, and a deliberate Ho that he had been paid the amount he had asked for. That was the case the jury was brought there to try. It was aeked to believe that this £SO, which M’Ciymont re-

sicived early in June, 1913, was wanted by { him to pay Ross and Glendining for mattresses, that he did not want it for any such purpose, that ho told a. lie. and put the money into his own pocket. That story was a lie. There was never the slightest foundation for a statement that M'Clymont had got this money for such a purpose. The basis of the Crown case, which depended on the evidence of Henderson, was a lie. The accused never got the money for the purpose stated. This mat- ■ trees business had nothing whatever to do with the present case. The jury would bo surprised to hear that this transaction of £SO had been in existence for very nearly j seven years. It had been before and known i to the volunteers of the Milton district dur- 1 ing that time, and had been discussed by ! them many years ago. when there was a company called the Bruce Rifles. That company was a unit of the Fourth Battalion. These Bruce Rifles had a bazaar at Milton, and the result was that they got hold of £lls, of which sum £6O odd was i used for the band, and the other £SO re- i mained in the hands of the Bruce Rifles, j stuck to it like wax, and were going to : stick to it. notwithstanding the present pro- I and this £SO never belonged to the Govern- | ment, and, if the Government sued M'Cly- i mnnt to-morrow, it could not got it. The I moneys belonging to a unit wore protected, j and this £SO never belonged to the Government. That money came into the hands of j Lieutenant-colonel Stewart, the officer in i command. Lieutenant-colonel Stewart had ; made a statement which had drawn from his 1 Honor some comment, which he felt deeply. He (counsel) hoped that, when Colonel Stewart 'made -an explanation, his Honor would see that the whole store had not been before the court. When the £SO came into existence it was placed with Lieutenantcolonel Stewart, and hold for the Bruce Rifles. It'went into a mortgage, and it came out again. When the Government took over the defence systeem this £SO was paid back by the Government to Lieutenant-colonel Stewart, who held 5t as a trustee for the Bruce Rifles, and it remained in bis hands until he was succeeded by Lieutenant-colonel j M'Clymont. It was suggested that as Lieutenant-colonel Stewart was ceasing to be commander the money should be handed

over to Lieutenant-colonel M'Clymont, who was his successor. It was agreed that that was the correct course. It was discussed by the officers, some of whom he (counsel) would call, some wore away fighting, and some, unfortunately, had been killed at the front. M'Clymont told Henderson to got the money from Lieutenant-colonel Stewart, because it was to be handed over to M'Clymont. Henderson went and got the money, and Lieutenant-colonel Stewart, acting under no obligation and of his own free will, added £7 12s 4d for interest to the cheque. Shortly after this happened, in discussing the matter, Henderson said ho had the money, and paid it into the regimental account. M'Clymont said “ You had no right to do anything of the sort. It was handed to me as trustee. Draw a cheque as trustee and give the money to me.” That was the £SO cheque. When Stewart paid the money over to M'Clymont he stipulated that the money belonged to the Bruce Rifles, and tlnit view was agreed to. Stewart and other witnesses would say that this matter was discussed between M'Clymont and the officers of the regiment. Counsel went on to suggest that Henderson’s entries and statements could not bo believed. Ho would prove that the entry in the books for the second time as to Ross and Glondining was a lie. Mr Solomon went on to point out how Henderson might have made entries to protect himself. Evidence was given by the accused, who maintained that the £SO was money belonging to the A Company of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, the old Bruce Rifles, and not to the regiment as a whole. His Honor: Is it a proper thing for an honest trustee to pay trust money into his private account, that account being overdrawn? Is that an honest thing.—The accused said that he thought ho was acting honestly. To the Crown Prosecutor: The money was to remain in accused’s account till called for by the officers of the Bruce Rifles. The Crown Prosecutor said that the £SO was never paid into the bank. On May 7 £2B was paid in in cash, and on the following day £22 was paid in as a cheque, and the same day a further cheque for £7. On the other hand, accused’s-book showed the sum of £49 paid in favour of Messrs Sargood, Son, and Evvcn on a promissory note.

Alexander Hoggans (lieutenant), Gilbert Simpson, and Alexander Edward Stewart (colonel), and James Armstrong Stewart also gave evidence. Mr Solomon, addressing the jury, said that what bad been said was that this man had got £SO twice from the regiment for the same purpose. Had that not been absolutely disproved, and had not that attitude of the Grown, after the way the case had shaped itself that morning, been abandoned? The crime was that the man stole £SO. Had he stolen it? A man might be charged with attempting to steal something, but before an article could bo stolen it must be taken away. Gould it be denied that this man had left instructions that this money was to be paid to the person to whom it belonged, and that it had been offered to that person. The principle that the money was the property of the Bruce Rifles had been properly and soundly laid. His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that when Goloncl Stewart had given evidence in the lower court against Henderson it was made to appear that the money belonged to the regiment. He had sworn that that money with the theft of which Henderson was charged was the property ■-of the regiment, and had been paid by Henderson as the property of the regiment, explaining how the Bruce Rifles, afterwards the A Company, ceased to exist, and how the 14th Regiment became entitled to this money. Was it possible to imagine a more complete change of front than that executed by the gallant colonel that day? This change of front suggested very strongly indeed that this theory with regard to the Bruce Rifles was a theory staged for the purpose of the case and this case only. In his evidence on Juno 14 Colonel Stewart swore positively that the money belonged to the regiment, and did that not suggest very strongly that the theory about the money belonging to the Bruce Rifles had been staged simply for the purpose of getting accused out of the difficulty in which ho was placed? t'he jury retired at 20 minutes to 4, and returned an hour later with a verdict of not guilty. The next charge against M Clymont was one of having, about August 9, 1913, at Milton, stolen £2l 7s, the amount of a cheque paid to him on that date as the share of the canteen profits of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment. The Crown Prosecutor said there was a camp at Sutton in 19io, and a. dry canteen was run in connection with it. It fell to Colonel Smith to divide the profits pro rata among the different units comprised in the camp, and the amount the 14th Regiment became entitled to was £2l 7s, and a cheque for that amount was sent by Colonel Smith to Colonel M'Clymont on August 9. This cheque, it appeared, was not paid into the regimental account, but was endorsed by accused and paid into his own private account. On being questioned on the matter by the detective he admitted receiving the cheque, and said tiiat what was left of it was still in the bank, and amounted to £6 13s sd. Ho had disbursed £7 on account of a ball deficit, £3 was paid to George Reed in connection with a picnic at Taieri Mouth, organised by the accused, £3 5s was given to the adjutant for camp expenses, and 16s Id to E. Stewart for a purpose not stated. Accused added that as the officer commanding the regiment he had the right to spend all money outside of the Government grant at his discretion for the good of the regiment. The duty of the accused was perfectly clear, that the money should be spent in accordance with the provisions of the regulations, and subsequent regulations showed that regimental money must bo paid into the bank. ' Evidence was given by Colonel Smith. Chief Detective Herbert, and the accused. THE JURY DISAGREES. Tho case in which John Bell M‘Clymont was charged with having stolen £2l 7s was continued on tho 14th. share of the canteen profits of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, was continued on Saturday morning before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and a jury of twelve, Mr Solomon, K.C., and Mr D. Reid (Milton) appearing for accused. Mr Solomon, in opening tho defence, said the case did not require the same consideration as the previous one. The money, ho pointed out, was money which had boon provided by the men themselves, and it had been paid to tho commanding officer for tho benefit of tho men. The other money was known under tho regulations as maintenance money, and was provided by the Government for the support of the regiment. Accused took this canteen money and paid it into his own account. Tho Government auditor said that he should have paid it into tho bank account of the regiment. _ It mattered but little whether accused's view of tho position was right or wrong. A charge of theft was not a charge of cither improper or illegal dealing with funds that came into tho hands of the man in charge. Unless the jury were satisfied that accused intended to deprive tho Government of tho money and keep it. then he was not a thief. Accused held that it was his duty to hold tho money in his bank account, and that ho had tho right to deal with it at his own discretion. The money from the canteen was not for the purpose of the regiment, It must bo used for the pleasure of the men. Accused was charged with being a thief because he came to the conclusion under the regulations that it was not his duty to put the money into tho regimental account. This was not a case where a man asked tho jury to give him the benefit of the doubt. Accused claimed that ho was an innocent man, and that he never dealt with the funds of the Government in any way but in a strictly honest way, and that ho never robbed them of a single penny of it. What was the first thing ho did with tlio money? To pay it out for,the Government. Long ago accused told tho auditor how he spent ilie money, and in the books appeared the names of the persons to whom ho paid it. The auditor was satisfied, although accused might have made a mistake. that lie was not a criminal, because what did ho say? After inquiring into things for months and months, ho now swore that ho found accused to bo a decent follow. It had never boon suggested that tho payments made by accused wore improper. , • His Honor, in the course of his summing ■n. said that ho had no doubt that it was accused’s duty under the regulations to pay Hm cheque into tho regimental account, and ho was surprised that anyone should suggest that the regulations wore capable i.,f bearing any other construction. It could not bo doubted that what accused did was wrong, and there was little doubt that lie know ho was wrong in doing what he did. That, however, did not, prove that ho stole tho money. Before the jury could find him guilty of theft they must bo satisfied licit ho intended to convert tin’s money to his

i own use — that when he paid the cheque into his account he intended to deprive iho , regiment of it. { J he jury retired shortly after 11 o’cloci?, I and after being absent for the full period I of four hours, returned to the court, the I foreman stating that they could not come I to a decision, and there was no prospect of them coming to one. The Crown Prosecutor -suggested that a fresh trial should take place on Monday, and the suggestion was agreed to, accused being released on the same bail as previously. NOT GUILTY. M'Clymont was further charged with having, about February 24, 1913, at Milton, stolon £3 14s 6cl. being the purchase money paid by him to Hallenstein Bros, for a sword and bag presented by him to George Thomas Catto. Mr Solomon, K.C., and Mr D. Reid (Million) appeared for accused, who pleaded Not guilty. Tho Crown Prosecutor said that the facts wore very clear, anti very simple. In 1911 George Thomas Catto was staff sergeantmajor and instructor at Milton, and accused was tho commanding officer of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment. Catto was on very friendly terms with accused, his commanding officer. Catto got notice of transfer about the end of 1911, and on October 31 of that year lie got a memorandum addressed to Hallenstein. This was an order to supply to Catto a service sword, and to charge the game to M'Clymont’s personal account. Sergeant-major Catto presented tho memo, and got tho sword, which was engraved : “J. B. M‘C. to G. T. C., I—l1 —11 —11.” It was charged to accused’s personal account by Hallenstein Bros. Tho account was rendered to accused, who did not pay it. It was rendered again and again, and finally, on February 24, 1913 — nearly 15 months later —tho account was paid by a cheque on the 14th Regiment, drawn by M'Clymont and Henderson. From the receipt it was quite clear that this was tho personal account owing by accused to Hallenstein Bros, for goods supplied to accused. It was included in a larger sum of £4 2s 4d, in whch there were other articles. Accused had been asked about this hy the Government auditor, and was told that Catto said it was a private gift, and had replied that it might have been a present from tho regiment. That was all ho said about it. Tho evidence showed clearly that it was not a present from the regiment, but a private gift from accused to Sergeantmajor Catto. Evidence was given by George Thomas Catto, Edwin Nicolson, and Henry Theodore Thompson. Mr Solomon, in addressing the court, said that, in the first place, accused had never given the eword to Catto at all. It was not a private gift by M'Clymont. Ho (counsel) would place into the box M'Clymont and another gentleman, who was not interested in these matters—a responsible man. living in Milton, and who was at that time an officer,—and they would say that tho sword was tho gift of tho regiment. They would say that the matter was discussed amongst M'Clymont, the Milton resident, and another man, who was now at tho front or dead. The court would bo told that it was agreed that tho sword should bo the gift of tho Fourth Battalion. M'Clymont said that ho was never consulted about what should bo placed on the sword. Catto had asked M'Clymont if ho could have it inscribed, and M'Clymont had said yes. It was charged to M'Clvmont’s account because it was the gift of tho Fourth Battalion before the 14th Regiment came into existence. The old system had been merged in tho present system, and the account of tho Fourth Battalion had been closed, and there was no account open for use. There was no banking account of tho Fourth Battalion at that time, and there was no money of the Fourth Battalion out of which these monys could be paid, therefore M'Clymont said it could be debited to him. Hoggans would say that M'Clymont had stated that the sword was not a private gift, but the gift of tho Fourth Battalion. Accused, on being placed in tho witness box, said that nothing had been said between himself and Catto as to what should be put upon the eword. It was not true that there was in tho corner of the order (now cut out) to Hallenstein that tho sword was to bo a gift from himself to Catto. There was then no regimental money out of which these accounts could bo paid. There was no other way of treating the matter except to make himself responsible at that time. Alexander Hoggans stated that accused had said that the sword wps not a personal gifL It was the gift of the regiment. Gilbert Simpson and D. G. G. Hunter also gave evidence, tho latter saving that he understood that tho hooks had boon gone into, and that deficiencies running into some hundreds had been discovered. His Honor briefly dimmed up, and the jury retired at 2.15. In n little over half air hour the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty. Tho court rose at 3.15 p.m. M'CLYMONT ACQUITTED. HENDERSON SENTENCED. Tho retrial of John 801 l M'Clymont on a charge of stealing £2l 7s, canteen moneys of tho Fourteenth (South Otago) Regiment, was commenced on Monday. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Wm, C. MacGregor, K.C.) opened the ease for the prosecution, and called evidence. Mr Solomon then opened the defence, and in tho course of his remarks said that he would admit that M'Clymont might have made a mistake in paying tho money into his private account, but what ho was charged with was with intending to steal the money. He (counsel) would call persons to whom accused had paid moneys out of tho sum with which ho was charged with stealing, where they wore producible. Accused paid one sum to a Mr Purdie, who was at Ti’cntham, and- another sum to a Mr Reed. Ho (counsel) would call evidence as to the items to show that tho account had been handled in tho ordinary way for tho benefit of tho ‘regiment. lie would produce cheques for almost every one of the items paid out. Evidence was called in support of counsel's statement. Mr Solomon and the Crown Prosecutor both briefly addressed- the jury. His Honor summed up at some length. He pointed out that if the money had been paid into the regimental account it could only have been drawn upon by cheques signed by accused and his adjutant. The account was subject to audit, so that if any improper payments wore made they could be checked. On the other hand, if tho money was paid into aeon-sod’s own account one result was that interest on overdraft was to some extent reduced. Then there

was no control exercisable over the expenditure. Assuming that accused did not intend to steal the money, and intended to make payments out of it, there was no check whatever exercisable over these payments. The jury had only to take the two first items accused said were disbursed out of the £2l. The payment of the £7 for tho regimental ball could not bo justified under the regulations, and was wholly wrong and improper; so also was the £3 2s for tho regimental picnic, and accused had been guilty of grave impropriety in spending the money as he had. The fact that accused had behaved in a gravely improper way which no man with any sense of honour would have behaved was, however, no reason for concluding that he intended to steal the money. However much they might condemn his conduct, and regret it as a gentleman holding his Majesty’s commission as an officer, it did not follow that the jury should convict him of theft. The jury must bo satisfied that be intended to convert the money to bis own account. In one of tho previous charges accused had made a complete explanation. With regard to tho other charge dealt with, which was a much more serious charge, it seemed to his Honor that accused had been fortunate in getting the jury to take the view it did of tho case. The present was the last of tho cases, and it rested with the jury to say whether accused should go free or not. |‘lf,” said his Honor, “you decide that ho is to go free, ho will certainly not leave the court with _an unstained character. A British officer is supposed to be a gentleman and a man of honour and integrity-. It is clear that prisoner is hod that. Ho has not behaved in the way any man with a sense of honour and integrity would have behaved.” r l lie jury retired at 20 minutes to 4, and returned in half an hour, when the foreman said that the jury found accused not guilty- of stealing tho money; but thought ho was deserving of severe censure in putting the money into his own account. The jury wished to add that all money paid to the regiment should not in future be paid over to the officer commanding the regiment, but directly into the bank. The jury _ also considered that vouchers should be signed _by two or more representatives of tho regiment. Accused was then discharged from custody. John Robert Henderson was then brought up for sentence on five charges of theft and one of theft and making a false entry. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for him, said he had put in a statement, certificates of character, and documents relating to character and ability, and ho did not think there was anything more he could add, but he would merely submit, on the statement and certificates of character, that his Honor should extend such leniency as ho could to accused in fixing punishment. Tho Crown Prosecutor said that, outside the charges of theft, nothing was known against Henderson’s character. He had been about five years in the dominion, and had been in military service nearly all that time, and had risen to the rank of captain. Ho had returned to Dunedin of his own motion to answer these charges, as ho had been told he must do so or bo dismissed from the force. His Honor said he had had an opportunity of carefully reading the statement made by- prisoner, and also the reports by which it was supported. It was clear from tho statement and reports that prisoner was a very capable officer indeed, and had dono very good work in connection with establishing tho Territorial system, and high praise was given from his superior officers, by General Godloy downwards. It was a matter of very great regret, indeed, that a career such as ho had had before him should have been wrecked as it had been. The loss of Iv’fi character was the most severe punishment accused could suffer. But. under the circumstances, it was his (his Honor’s) plain duty to inflict a term of imprisonment. Tho facts were that accused had accepted a position of trust and had betrayed that trust. He fhis Honor) had no alternative but to inflict a term of imprisonment of 12 months with hard labour on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.