REX v. TAYLOR.

Colonist, Volume XLVI, Issue 10586, 8 December 1902, Page 1 (Supplement)

REX v. TAYLOR.

The Grand Jury found true bills on three separate indictments against [Joseph Taykny alleging fraudulent intent in altering the books and ac- * | counts of the Puponga Coal and Gold Mining Company, of which he was manager; - . The Grand Jury wag thanked and dismissed at jaoon._ Joseph Taylor wa3 then arraigned on the first indictment laid under section 235 of the Criminal Code and charging him with fraudulently making certain alterations, detailed in, the books and accounts of the' Puponga Coal and Goldmining Company of New Zealand, Limited. ■■'..' Mir Maginnity appeared for the prosecuting company,- and Mr Fell defended. The following were empanelled as a jury: — w, p. Thompson (foreman), W. C. S. Sherwood, Ernest Kissell, H. F. Kidson, A. Stephens, Richard Tear, P. J. Dicksori, J. Jones, . Wilkens, R. Henry, T. Bullock, and T. E. Small. . . The following jurymen called were either challenged or ordered to stand down by Mr Maginnity for the proseicutioh: Messrs Bridle, Joseph Newport, A. Grossi, James Hockey, S. J. Flewellyn,' G. W. Brooker, C. R. Fairey, A.F. Moore, W. Cullen, and J. A. Louis. ; Mr Fell exercised a. similar prerogative with regard to Messrs J, F. : Kitching, C. Milner; J. S. Lessel and W. L. Lane.' Mr S. G. Hayward's examination as a witness lasted until close upon three o'clock in the In cross-examination, Mr Hay ward stated that as regards the wages and the sales for coalj etc., he had treated those items as being correct as-stated in the statement supplied by Taylor. He kept the r power he had as attorney back as long as he could, and saved Taylor's feelings as much as possible. He would not have put the power into force if occasion had not arisen for him to do so. He did not ask Taylor for any explanations. At thi s j u hctu re M r Fell raised the . point as to whether Taylor was the manager of a company within the meaning of the 235 th section of the Criminal Code Act mentioned in the indictment. He contended Taylor was only a local agent, and,; was not a manager, seeing he had nothing whatever to do with the finances of the Company, which were managed in England. Also that even-if Taylor had been manager of the Company he did not hold that position when he made out and supplied the Al statement, on which the prosecution was based, Taylor having been dismissed from the service of. t the Company prior to that. That the 235 th section dealt with making false prospectuses, and not with accounts between a servant and a company. . ~* Mr Maginnity contended that Taylor was » paahager within the jngga^Pa

ing of the Act, and that he could not be said to have divested himself of the responsibilities of that position until ho had handed 'over the books and papers of the Company. "** SSHis Honor ,<?aid tho point raised by Mr Foil might be fatal to the case proceeding. He would adjourn the Court until the next day, reserving decision on the point until then. 0 On resuming, His Honor summed up. and by his direction the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Rex v. Joseph Tayxou. The Court resumed at 10.30 on Saturday morning when the second case against Joseph Taylor was continued.' 1 Mr Maginnity appeared for the Crown, and Mr Pell "for the accused.

Mr Hayward was cross-examined at .some length. ,Mr Wilson- Heaps, Warden at Collingwood, produced the official correspondence regarding the accused's application for foreshore rights at Puponga, all accused's letters with one exception being signed as attorney and manager of the Company in question.

Joseph Eogers, who was manager at the Bainham sawmill during the time accused was managing the affairs of the Company, gave similar evidence to that he gave in the lower Court.

Henry Baigent, timber' merchant, Had sawmill owner, gave evidence as to the value, of mining timber and Piles for a wharf. '

James Walker, coalmine manager, gave like evidence. He was of opinion that suitable timber for the works at

Pnponga could have been obtained

at Pakawau, five or six miles from i Puponga, also that the timber could have been rafted from Pakawau. James Bishop, mining engineer, grave evidence as to a conversation Mr Hay ward had with accused about the accounts on August 11th. Accused said the accounts were ready, but he wanted to copy them, ' and -."Hay ward should have" them in a fortnight. ' On Mr Hay ward pressing for them, accused promised he should have them in "a week's time. The

witness also gave evidence as to prices for mining timber. He had scon the piles lying at Puponga; he would not use some of them, for worms had got into them. l)avidJohnCurrin, waggoner, gave evidence similar to that he gave in the lower Court. He stated in crpssoxamination that he- had r sent in a bill to the Company for work for which he had received £12 10s, because a balance was due to him. Mr Maginnity stated that was the case for the Crown. .

Mr Fell said before he opened the case for the defence, he must, raise a like objection to the indictment as he did. in the previous one, which had been disposed of. He contended the prosecution must prove an affirmative, which had not been done. The Crown had not proved that accused was a servant of the Company when the alterations in the books and statement were made.

His Honor said he would not stop the case, but he would make a note of Mr Pell's objection. . .

The. Court continued all day on Monday, when accused, gave evidence on his own" behalf.

The hearing of the chargelfagninst Joseph Taylor was continued and conclnded on Dec. 2

The jnry retired about 4.30 p.m,, find after a retirement of half an hours duration returned with a^yerdict of " Guilty.',

In reply to the?; usual question, the prisoner stated that though no doubt the jury had honestly arrived at their conclusion, he was an. innocent, man, and the helples3 victim of the machinations of others, which it was impossible to explain and expose under the circumstances. He bad c]one hi? best under unfavorable circumstances, and his conscience was clear. He concluded by saying that the day ■would come when it would be seen who was in the right.

His Honor said that the verdict brought in by the jury was the only one possible to arrive at, there was never a plainer case to be put before jury, and the talk of the machinations of others was idle. The sen- 1 tence wonld be two years with hard labor in Wellington. .:.. . i

Mr Maginnity intimated to "his Honor that he fn tended to apply to the Attorney-General by telegraph for leave to withdraw the remaining indictment. HAWKINS V. SLATE RIVER SLUICING COMPANY. It will be remembered that in an action against the defendant Company, the plaintiff, P. G. Hawkins, of Collingwood, gained a verdict in the Supreme Court for a large sum. .On appeal it was decided that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, and the case was reheard by Mr Warden Heaps, .who reserved certain points for decision by the Supreme Court. The present proceedings are the consideration of these points, and Messrs Pitt and Hayes represented the plaintiff, Dr Findlay, of Wellington, appearing for the Company. After hearing counsel, his Honor reserved his decision, and at 12.30 the Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning. ■