MISMANAGEMENT IN A LODGE.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5155, 30 May 1891, Page 3

MISMANAGEMENT IN A LODGE.

Ab Dunedin last Friday, before Messrs Burns, Jonos, and Hurt, George James Clark, ftto secretary of tbo Loyal Prince of Wales Lodge, M.U.r.0.0.TT., waa charged wilh embezzling the funds of t!/e lodge— £s lGi 8d 31st of that month. Mr Fraser appeared to prooeoute and Mr Solomon for tho accused. Mr Fraßer having oponed as to tho facts, and elated that accused was arroated m Sydney, proceeded to call evidence James Crawford, accountant at Port Ohalmori, aaid that on January 13th and 27th ha anted as secretary to the lodae at the request of tho accused, whose hooka date buck to 1883. On Ihoso dates ho banded the sums montioned to accueod. Frederick G. Downop, who was treasurer to the lorlgo up to the time when accuoed ceiiued to be eoerotary, and sni'l he never at any time received moneys from the accused.lt was not customary for him to do so. Tho custom was for accused to roooive moneys, ontor them m the pence books, and bunk the amount next morning. Witness's duties wero coniinod to signing cheques. Ho wai not even allowed to be ut the audit, or ho would pretty • soon havo found nut Mr Solomon : Thoro ia ono quosti'in I should like to ask : Does anyone m this precious lodge know whore tho funds really arc, except the financial secretary - that is, botween the half-yearly audits ? Witness :I do not; think bo. Tho moneys are read over ovory meeting night. Mr Solomon : Yes : but whern that money ia, whether it has been robbed or not m the interval, nobody knows ? — Witness : No. Do I understand you to cay that it is possible for any poraon io tho lodge to argue that because monoy has not boon paid intc the bank by the secretary, it has beer embezzled?— l most certainly think that il the ponco book hat been initialled by tbt secretary ho should bo ablo to account, for it If not, it has bean embezzled. Ho ia aup posed to pay ia tho money within forty-oighl hours. But does no oco know whether tho mono; is paid into tbo bank forty-eight hours afte: receipt ? Do you, us treasurer, know wbothe that monoy is pjid or not?— l do not. ] have taken the trouble to insist on boinj present at tho audit, and T didn't get euffi cient notioo to enable me to be present. And during the intervals you did not knov , where tbcuo moneys wore ? Ho might hay carried it m his pocket for aught you knon —Tea. • . Mr Hurt ; Perhaps ho ban it yol.. | Mr Solomon oaitl that pnrbups that wan sc , Ho anticipated that tho proseoution wouli , now call evidence to show that tho bank hai , not received thoao moneys from tho secretary ( and would rely on that as establishing th j crbo ,■ but ho (Mr Solomon) would point ou

ti the Benou that nothing could be argued r 'V m that. There would certainly n t be BufficiHiit to mike out apnmafacie case uni ess tlio theft were shown, i Mr Fraser : It is as e'ear as the noonday t kuo that the money has beon taken, and that is enough for this Court. i When the, case for tha prosecution had t been closed, Mr Solomon said that he could s not help putting it to the Bench that no 1 ptimajacie case had been made out. The i man wan charged with embezz emout. ; that i meant that moneys came into his possoaai a lawfully and that h» hud stuck to them. , What wore the fuots ? Here thoy hud an i institution managed m as disgraceful a way I as it was possible to imagine. There was a : treasurer, who calmly said that he knew nothing about the funds. The whole of the i management wa» thrown upon the hands of the seorotary. Before it could bo said that a i prima facie case was mado out, surely it. i must be shown that it wan the secretary's duty to receive this money and to do Bomo [ thing with it, and that he had not performed that duty. Whioh of the witnesses had i shown what that duty was ? Downes did not I know. He did not know when the moneya were paid into the bank". And the banker did i not know. Nobody know when the moneys were paid, or where they were to be paid. ; There was evidence that Clark received i moneys, but none that ho had failed to pay them away. It had not been proved that the money was not. accounted for. Mr Burt: There is tno custom shown, i Mr Solomon would admit that, but Bornething more than breach of custom was required beforo the bench womd take away thie man's liberty. He (Mr Solomon) did not. ' aek the Hench to do anything out of the wny, but ho did not think he should be doing hia duty to the pi'isoaer, if he did not show that 1 tho outlets were not stoppod up m thin case. ' It seemed to him that the idea of asking a 1 jury to convict on thio evidence was absurd, and if their Worships wore sitting ac a jury 1 they would themselves sny it was farcical. Mr Jonea : Ho wont away to' Sydney. Mi 1 Solomon : What of that ? There is n; suggestion that he bolted. There was no warrant out for him whon he wont away. The Bench ruled that there was a rase to answer, and accused was committed for trial, bail being allowed- two suroties of £100 each and accused m £50. He was also committed m respect of other sums.