Pahiatua S.M. Court.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 176, 18 July 1894, Page 2

Pahiatua S.M. Court.

Monday, July 16th, 1894.

(Before Mr Hutchison, S.M.) ALLEGED THEFT. Alex. Black was charged on two mfor .nations with having on or about th® 19th July received from F. G. Moor® th® sum of lGs on behalf of the l’ahiatua News paper Company, and stolen lb® sauie. The seoond information was «n re®p®ct of u sum of 10s paid by W. Cooper. Mr Hasleti appeared for the prosecution and Mr W. B. Edwards, of Wellington, for the defenco. It was agreed that both casts sb®uld bo taken together. Mr iluslett stated the case for the prose oution. He said in opening that last Court day something was said to the effect that there were other matters behind this. Oe behalf of the prosecution he said the only matters behind the esse were those which would be brought out m evidence —m the auditors’ report and the facta of the ease. The prosecutors were reluctant to proceed but being forced— At this point Mr Edwards raised an objection. Mr Jiaslett, continuing, said that between the months of Ma.v and December, 1893, accused whs employed as clerk in the 11 p.itald office for tho i’aniatua Newspaper Company. During that time part of his duty was to enter in the cash book any moneys received on behalf of the Company, and to account for the same to tho present prosecutor, the secretary. On the two occasions dealt with bv the informations he received sums of money, and did not so account for them, in one case he did not account for any portion of the sum of lGs ; and in the other case he received the sum of Zi 11s Gd. aud only accouuted for the surn of £2 Is Gd. The books of the Company had been audited lately and these discrepancies had been discovered. All witnesses were ordered out of the Ceurt.

It was agreed that the case should be dealt with nuramarily. Henry William Br:ggs deposed : I have been secretary of the Pahiatua New.paper Company, Limited, stare its formation. 1 produce the certificate of the mcorporat.on of the Company. I know accused, Mr Blaok, who was employed by the Compuny from the start on a salary of £3 a week. He continued in their empioy until 11th or 12ih of December. 1 instructed him in his duti«s as far as the books were concerned. I pasted a slip inside the cash book giving certain instructions (exhibits A and B) to enter m tho cash book all cash received, so as to have a balance at staud times. The cash was to ba handed over to me to bank. When the cash was handed over the amount was entered on the nghthani side of the book, and the entry initialled by tne. The receipt® were entered on the opposite sid®. Items were posted up iu the ledger from the eaeh book.

By Mr Edwards: I am the informant on behalf of the Company. The m formation was laid by resolution of the Directors—Myself, Messrs Baillie, Crewe. Toss will, and Job Vile. Mr Edwards: Which of the Directors voted for this resolution. Mr Briggs : Am 1 oompolied to answer tiiAt question ? The S.M. : The book would b® the proper record. The minute book was produced and the minute read : —Proposed bv Mr Crewe seconded by Mr Tosswill That criminal proceedings be taken against A. Black in connection with the <1 screpancies iu the cash. . . After considerable discussion the motion was carried. Mr Edwards; Which of tho Directors voted for the resolution ? Mr ITasletl: I submit th® whole of the Directors are responsible. The S.M. said it had been ruled that companies wer® liable m cases of malicious prosecution. Mr Edwards : Yes, and individuals may be liable also. A di»sentiug Director could not possibly be liable.

Mr Briggs : I decline to reply to this, j I think it is a wrong thing to ask. ' The witness (continuing): I can draw no other conclusions from the facts than that Black stole the money. When ihe Cempuny was first started th® paper was printed under great difficulties. The offices were iu a small room upstairs and afterwards in two rooms. The paper was printed in an ouuhod about five chains away from where the type was set up. The formes were carried to the printingshed. The actual office business was carried on in the room where the type was ! set up. I do not remember seeing any chairs or tables in the room. At this time Black was acting as manager and was setting up type at times. I could not say if he was setting up type more than half his time or all time. My only duty was to receive the cash. The paper was started in opposition to the Star, uid op position was keen. 1 am awar® that from the start the instructions wer® departed from ; be was not t>uppo*ed to pay current accounts from cash. He had th® right to pay small sums, but not accounts He was uot expected to pay accounts, and 1 objected to huu doing so. I knew he had done eo. I cannot point out any particular instances. I cannot remember mentioning any objections to the Board of ' Directors, but I behove I have. I do not remoinber his paying the telegraph mc- | couut. I know he has paid some wage® | out of the cash. It was not impossible j for him to adhere strictly to tho rosolu tions. Did not remember the telegraph officials refusing to deliver any more tele i grams until the account had been paid. ; When the paper was started it was repre . sented it was started for Black's benefit. J The tir>t issue of the paper was on the i ‘24th of May. Mr Crewe, Mr Tosswill and I myself initiated the paper, and were the ! first to move in the matter. Mr Black was . mb bankrupt. I think Mrßlackrs j lied upon the sympathy of the public. I i Hid not personally care a straw whether i th® paper was a success or not. I gave i the'money for Mr Black'# benefit. It was understood Black, when lie got his d;s • charge, would have a sixth of the paper. . ! it was understood so. Th® only condition 1 was Black would take th® management, and work for us and do his best for th® paper. For Black s benefit 1 was anxious 1 the paper should succeed. Thu condition was made solely for his own benefit. At a later date there was a difference of ! opinion. Mr Black went on the *• burst,” and that the cause of it. We then stipulated that if Biack stayed with us six ■hare® each six month® for two year*. I have an impression Black had r grievance before the purchase of iho Star; he also had a grievance cboul the purchase of the Star. This was not th# first time be mis conducnd himself On the 24th of May, the first dav of issue, 1 got a cobl 1 will River got rid of. T was looking after Mr Black all night. Black was at work tint day and help d got out the follow ug misconduct that the 'stationin th® altar® * 1 , thing. Black was not doing his dut> and was working disagreeably. H® was not giving ki« time wholly to ins p-.ipsi. I oe oilier gentlemen concerned

in the start in* of th# paps/ did eo enlaly for Block's benefit. I believe. As a personal friend 1 wa# grieved to see Black injuring himself Blaok claimed hi® share®. The reeolntioa about the ehare* was passed on September 11. Black was discharged oe I>erember 11th. There wae then no ill-feeling between Black and me at tkat time. Before the informal.on waff laid I believed Black had ill-feeling a+’amsC me. I had unfortunately known that for some time. I knew that the earn® wa* the case with regard to Mr Torn will and Mr Crewe. I knew that he ani other® had concocted a vile accusation against us which had not been proved to be true. I knew he nad made eom* chargee of a criminal character agaiast us to the Official Assignee. He c®erg*d us with making false declaration* and faia.fying our accounts for hie benefit. I w*® more sorry than angry with no® Tm* information had nothing to do w.La n. Black was not th# only person who received money on behalf of the Company. I received some money, but could da M j who elee did a® Mr Black had the uus.a* *# arrangements. 1 know of only onetiioogh there rney have beea others. I did nut know all that was going on. I had nothing to do with the management of the pejer except to receive the money. 6.n~e Line® wae discharged I have been recti* ogAlOu . per annum to do the Coy’s bus ass® as ' managing director and for finaac.ng. and have had to expend £125 for a clerk to do the work. He doe® other work Urk.de® and is not a!way® at the Herald office. I : had a clerk before. Before Blat* s dismissal 1 received £*2s a year as secret! y and J now receive £IOO ae secretary. Door-

keeper and managing director. 1 and tne earn® clerk month® before. When Black left we gave him a eert.fieale mat n«. was on the book a* the owner of 100 paid up share® io the Company. We subsequently learned that that certificate wae uot good in eonsequenc* of the nonregistration of the contract for the issue of the paid up wnaree. The Directors were aiked to put that right, nod had not done eo. Tae appi.eat. ,n to pot them right wa® made > a Feb. sth, 1894. Did not know wnemer 1 then hear 1 any&hing of cozap.aic.s to t: e 1 Official Assignee. First heard of tne coa* plaint® definitely about two mentne age, but cannot any whether I heard of tne a before the 3th of Feb. We w*re app... i to bv Mr hmita about Black's share®, t _t toe Directors could not agree to acvUiing aad notning was done. No app I)cation ad sine® been made, but Mr Sm.ih nad, io converses do. told him be snoogei they • hould have put is<a right. WedM t | put mem r./at because w# could not agree upon the subject. Some of the Directors were not in favor cf putting them right. I am not m favor ef putting them right tut may be at some future date. I n«v#r had any ill feeling towurde Black. Ivm oa ■ Feb sth iu favor of putting them right. I did try to have idea, put ngat by cai .ag a meel.ng. Blank asked for a eer.ffioaie as to the shares aad we gave him one. I . had no opinion wnaterer as to its validity » or otherwise. Mr Black was not called upon for any explanation of these mature before the information wa® made. 1 decline to say whether I d ssenied from the reeolution to lay the information.

By Mr Has'.eit: I had no personal feeling against Mr Black. The accusations against myself and others made by Mr Black I be .eve are not now pending. Mr Gully. Crown Prosecutor, certified that there was nothing m them. The bankruptcy occurred in the eeriy part of May. 18&3. or perhaps before that. Black was discharged on the 11th of Dec. The business ef the Company was earned on in the small room for six or seven weeks. The new premia s Srere enured tbe first week :a July. Before the information was laid I took the opinion of a solicitor. The resolution passed on the subject was that I should take the opinion of m disinterested solicitor ae to the defieiencies m the cash. lam new a holder of GO shares :n the Company. By the S.M.: The ofcjcot in prosecuting was to act ae a warning to others rootßing monev.

Mr Hasleitsaid he intended to ask to he allowed to recall Mr Brings at s iaier tie.

The S M. disallowed tne app iratien. Wimeee (to Mr Haslett ; I have ne>er received a certain sum of money claimed to have :-een paid by Beech Br.'f. I have only received the amounts I have e oaei for in the cash book. There is mo entry of this amount in the cash book Triers is a sum of £2 Is 6d credited to W. Cooper and Co in the eaeh book crier date Oetober|4»h 1893 ; the «um of £2 11s fid was not credited. I received all that was entered in the cash hook. Th® entry «u in Mr Black ® writing. I have received no farther amount on account of Cooper and Co.

Bv Mr Edward®: It was right for Mr Black to reeeiv® money for call# on shares. No one exe«pt Mr Ccvr*er as far as I remember. hal paid Mr Black rah* on share®. Tenshil'inr*supposed tobc■ mimics were paid on acco ml of shares. It would He correct to enter into the cash book all cash received. No competent book keeper would be misled by eulernc cash received for call® on shares in the cash hook produced. Mr Black was authorised to receive any money for the Company and to cuter all money received in the cash book. I know Mr Tail. Would uot swear that he did not pay Black lss on account of shares which the latter haudei over to me. If the usoaev were Im-

mediately handed over to me. it would not be neeeeesry for Plash to eater the cash in the cash book. For all I know there mar be an entry of Cooper * cash • : n the cash book. Mr Coop#i s ebeque was handed over to me by Black I oouli aot swear to the amount. Would not i swear that Biack did not hand me a cheque for £*2 11* fid. but the amount was xuar hat. Mr Black handed me amongst which correspond#*with what ought to -* ! only shows £2 Is 6d instead of £2 11sfid. He entered the amount received from Cooper in the) cash book, lee® UXs. Mr Black took th® £fi entered m the cash . book on the eve of going to Masierton for bis clearance. The tuoasv wa® stopped br B ack, and n>•pa dby him. At lh*.x date the bank'ng account wa® largely overdrawn. 1 will not swear it was M a fact that at that time the bank would n.® bare paid a cheque for Black s wage*. Did not r« i>ember B ack coming to I*ll inc he wanted a cheque. I remember him telling me h® wa-» g ;ng to Mastern n ✓ for his discharge. I will uot ewear I did | not tell Black I could not give him n rdeque as the ace* ct was overdrawn*ba t ' « ■ot gi\e bun ft’fi. Mr C ooper ® t he.jus went through the Company*® banktnc aecount. I learnt I think in March last that Cooper had paid two call® for which hs bed a. t been credited. 1 dd kfi am xp a . *n. I : i ' i v v e them with M« Black. Cou d BoVa*v in which ot lit* amounts the che ioe had been included- It wa-very poe*u»le it® « paper Company/ The re/ pi ptvJu'Jd given to Beech Bros, was m h * vrttix g Hu rUT'r'wd he had paid th® moncr to Mi Black but he would not or trai Wilfred Cpvper deposed that he

paid £2 11a 6d to Mr Blaok, and receipt produced waa the receipt for the money. William H. Granger depoeed that he waa an accountant, and lately audited the books of the Pahiatua Newspaper Company. He had examined the rough cash book and the ledgera. Beech Bros.* a ledger folio showed a debit entry for 16a (for a subscription, and a credit entry of the same day showed the amount on the other aide. The entry did not appear in the cash book. An entry in the caali book credited Cooper and Co. with L2 la 6d, and the same amount was oredited in the ledger. He had not found in any of the books an entry crediting Cooper and Co. with 10a.

By Mr Edwards : He would draw the inference from the entry in the ledger that the money had not been accounted for. He had had no opinion that these proceedings should not have been instituted. B v M r Haslett: During the time Mr Black had kept the books they were very badly kept. Alex. Baillie identified the handwriting in the ledger in Beech Brothers’ account as that of Mr Black. This closed the case. The B.M. dismissed the case.

Tuesday, July 17th.

D. Mclnnes v. Andrew Young, of Wellington.—Claim £3 for work done. Mr G. Harold Smith for plain till'. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. Brigbtmore v. Nestor, a fencing claim adjourned from last court day so that the parties could come to some arrangement. As there was no appearance of the parties the case was struck out. P. Trewby ▼. McMahon.—Claim for goods supplied. Judgment for £2 4s 7d and costs. Mr G. Harold Smith for plaintiff.

William Johnson ▼. Saunders.—Claim £54 12s 6d. This was a claim for fencing done on the defendant's section at Makuri. Owing to the plaintiffs not carrying out tha contract to specification, the defendant contested the case. Mr G. Harold Smith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. Fitzherbert for the defence. Evidence waa given by tha plaintiff, A. Smith, and David Cockburn as to the amount of work dona. After hearing the evidence of Mr Beauet, who acted as agent for Mr Saunders, the S.M. gave judgment for the plaintiff for £2 10s without costs. Kippanbarger v. McCarthy.—Claim £2 10s, balance of bushfelling contract at 30s an acre.

Evidence l6c the plaintiff was given by Holdaway, K. White, and tho plaintiff. For the defence Mr Guerin and the defendant gave evidence. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for L2 2s 6d and costs. Mr Toss will for plaintiff, Mr G. Harold Smith for the defence. i Olsen v. Scanlon. Judgment was given * in this case as follows : —The ground upon which an order is asked is that tha defendant has the means to satisfy the judgment. The only proof of means is that the defendant holds a deferred payment seotion, which, it is said, he ean turn into a freehold on the payment of a sum of L6O. ft is quite clear that the defendant has not L6O, or indeed 60 pence, but it is said that the defendant if ha chose could readily get a sum upon the security of tho section sufficient to buy his freehold title and pay his debt to the plaintiff. The avowed object of the proceedings is to force tha defendant to follow- this course. And it is suggested that if an order were made for payment within a given time sufficient to permit tiie title to be converted, this result w’ould be effected. The defendant’s means, it is obvious, are therefore not j actual, but potential. If an order were j made it could not be on the ground that 1 the defendant has now the means, but j only because if lie ohose he can prooure j the means by doing a particular thing. And, further, assuming the defendant's willingness to do this, his possession of means is conditional on the Laud Board sanctioning the conversion, and on some person advancing a sufficient sum of | money over and above what is required to purchase his title. Apart from the question of the policy of the Land Act, 1&86, to preserve the land to the holder inviolate from his debts, I am quite satisfied that the circumstances forbid the making of an order. The object of the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act is, as Mr Justice Denaiston says in Ackroyd v. Bishop, 9, N.Z., L.R. sec. 250, not to give a creditor a means of putting a screw on the debtor and so enforce payment of his debt, but to punish contumacy and fraud on the part of the debtor. No fraud is alleged in this case. I dismiss the summons.