CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 432, 2 October 1869, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tnis Dat. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Drukkenness.— Samuel Porthouse, for having been drunk and incapable in a public thoroughfare last night, was dismissed with a caution, the offence being his first one. — James Anderson, a young man of respectable appearance, was brought up for having been drunk and using obscene language in the city last night. There was a previous conviction for drunkenness against him, and his Worship, remarking that it wss only about a month ago, imposed a fine of 10s, with a severe reprimand, Assault. —Matthew Longdon, recently confined in the gaol for violent conduct in the Afreets, was brought up, on remand, charged with having violently assaulted his wife. The evidence tended to prove tbat the day he was liberated from confinement he went home, committed the offence complained of, and also violently struck the wife of a man named Fletcher in the mouth. The latter expressed his desire not to press his case, as the prisoner had expressed contrition, and was about to leave Christchurch for a permanent situation he bad recently obtained up country. The prisoner did not deny either charge, but said he was out of temper when he went home from the gaol, and he was very sorry for what he had done. He hoped the Bench would not punish him this time, as it would prevent him fulfilling his engagement, and lose him a very good situation. After some consideration, his Worship said, under these circumstances, the Bench would give prisoner another chance and dismiss the case, but be had better be careful and not appear again, otherwise it would be a very serious affair for him.

Embezzlement. — David McKay, until recently chief Immigration Officer of the province, was brought up on remand from Thursday, charged with having embezzled certain moneys, to the amount of £35,belongiug to the Government. Inspector Pender conducted the prosecution, and Mr Joynt defended. The following additional evidence was adduced, Mr Joynt declining to crossexamine any of the witnesses. John Edwin March : I am assistant Immigration Officer for the province. I have been employed under prisoner in that department for some time. The prisoner was Chief Officer, and on taking office he entered into bonds for the proper conduct of his financial duties. These consisted of receiving moneys on behalf of immigration, which he should first enter in the small receipt book, produced. There is a cash-book kept in the office, and when monies were paid over to the Provincial banking account, it was usual for hira to enter the amounts in it. Two receipts were always received on these occasions from the bank, one of which was forwarded to the Treasurer direct, and the other to the Auditor. The general regulations for governing prisoner's duties are comprised in the Gazette produced. The prisoner's attention was called to them on the 10th of August, 18*59, by a letter from the Treasurey, covering one from the Auditor, which contained instructions for all immigration moneys to be strictly p*id in future into tho banking account of the Government immediately on their amounting to the sum of £10. I know that the prisoner personally received these letters, aud up to the time of his leaving for Timaru the instructions contained therein were invariably complied with. The prisoner went to Timaru, on the 23rd of August, for the purpose of collecting outstanding immigration accounts. He took the two lists produced with him. On leaving Christchurch, prisoner out dned £15 for the purposo of paying his travelling expenses, and whilst there he had £5 more remitted to him. During his absence, I received a letter from him, dated the 26th of August, which, after announcing his arrival, staled that he was getting on better than he expected in the collection of moneys, that he would probably send a draft for £100 by the next mail, and giving general instructions and information connected with other business of his department. Subsequently I also received another, dated two days later, covering a remittance for £120, which was said to comprise receipts up to date, and asking for a £5 note to be forwarded towards his expenses by the next mail. The remittance produced is the one received, as also lhe annexed particulars, which prisoner stated in his letter would be forwarded by Mr Le Cren, respecting the amounts comprised in the £126. The £5 was s-.nfc prisoner as he desired, and he returned to Christchurch on the llth of *-cpteniber. On seeing him, I asked him how lie had got on, and he said very well ; he had collected a lot of money. I asked him if he had received any from Wilson; he said £15, and a guarantee for the balance. This was on the Saturday, and a littlo before 3 o'clock on the Monday following, finding that the money had not been entered in the receipt book, I asked him how much money he had brought back with him. He said, " None; I paid it all over to LeCren." On the following Friday I again asked him how much money he Baid Wilson had paid. He replied, " £15," and I remarked what a strange thing it was Mr Le Cren did not forward it, as it should be paid to the Provincial account. He made a trivial answer, and I reiterated my surprise. Ec then said, " 1 did not pay him that money, but I did all the other." He shortly afterwards left the cffiee^-Qn the following day I saw him again, when I had received a letter from Mr Le | Cren, enclosing a frank for commission on the moneys he had collected, and jthe expenses he had paid to lhe" " Magi's" trate's Court. I mentioned this to prisoner, and remarked whata strange thing it was Mr LeCren did not forward the money he said he had paid to him, asking how much it was altogether. He replied that he did not know, and I said that he must surely do so. He then answered that he did not pay Mr LeCren anything, but left the persons to make tlieir own arrangements. On the Monday following I saw the prisoner again, and told him that Mr LeCren was in Christchurch, and would meet him at the office at noon. At eleven o'clock, however, he went out, leaving a message to the effect that if LeCren called, I was to say he would be back afc half-past twelve. He did not, however, return, but shortly after four o'clock I met him in the street, when I told him a letter had been received from the Superintendent, asking for a written report on the result of the visit to Timaru, with particulars of collections, before 4 o'clock on the following day. In answer, he said " All right, I will make it out to-morrow." Kext morning I saw him again, and handed him the letter itself. 1 was then suspicious of his conduct, and said: " I know you have received a considerable amount of money, for which you have not accounted." I instanced the amounts originally owing by Hogers and another, asking him if. he had not really received them, and not accounted for them. He said "Of course I did," and I then asked him to account for them at once. He then made out a statement of these receipts, and immediately afterwards left the office. He remarked that altogether it was £50, but I had only s een a cheque for £15 in the cash-box, which he had placed there on the Saturday. He did not say anything about the balance b-fore going out, but returned about three o'clock, aud said it should be accounted for on the following day. He then wrote a report to the Superintendent respecting the £126 draft, and stating that on the following day he j would forward particulars of the outlying district collections, together with an account of his travelling expenses. On the Wednesday morning he came to the office, and I laid the Timaru papers before him, but he shortly afterwards went out. There was no account 1 rendered of the balance, aB promised. There

were no entries of the collections from Rogers, &c, in the receipt or cashbooks. All moneys should be placed in the cash box immediately on being received, but none of the balance referred to had been placed there. Frederick Le Cren : lam a merchant, residing nt Timaru, and have been acting for the immigration department in that distiiet. I recollect the prisoner being in Timaru. He paid over no collections to me excepting one item of £1. I know the parties named Benbow, Newall, and Bennet, snl Rogers. Prisoner never gave me any money received from them. He told me in a general conversation that he had received Bennett and Rogers' amount, but said nothing about the othi-rj. Whilst prisoner was in Timaru I sent a remittance of £126 through him to Christchurch. None of the accounts named above were comprised in that amount, but the £1 I received from prisoner was. William Benbow : lam a farmer. I owed the Immigration Department £23. I was applied to for the money by the prisoner, and paid him £12 on account. He gave me the rcceip; produced. Joseph S. Bennett : lam at present in charge of a public-house at Timaru. I owed the Government £17. I know a man named Rogers. He backed the bill for me for tbe amount. I saw the prisoner on the 7th September. 1 then paid him £17 on account of the bill, and got the receipt produced. Thos. Newell :lam an hotel-keeper at Waimate. I paid the prisoner £4 on the 6th Sept. last. It was due to the Immigration Department, beiug balauce of passage money. This was the case for the prosecution. The evidence was read over, and the prisoner said nothing in reply to the usual question. His Worship committed him for trial at the next session of tho Supreme Court. Mr Joynt said he had at present no intention of tendering bail, but it might be necessary to do so before the trial. He would therefore like to know whether his Worship would be disposed to take bail. His Worship said that, on an application being made to him to take bail, he would consider the amount. Of course, the bail would be of a substantial character. Lauceny. — Daniel Keniualy, brought up on a charge of larceny, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour.