THE CHRISTCHURCH FORGERY CASES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7088, 2 May 1901, Page 3

THE CHRISTCHURCH FORGERY CASES.

ACCUSED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. PARTICULARS OP TltE CASE. - THE SENTENCE.

At the Supreme Court this morning, before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston, Augustas Frederick Moore, who hail been committed for sentence irom the Magistrate's Court, Tfras brought up. The charges to which the accused had pleaded guilty in the lower Court, were those of embezzling £1941 10b, the property of the R«uter Telegraph Agency, and' of forging the name of William Wood to a receipt for £1300. On the first charge, that of embezzlement, the accused had given himself up to the police some time previously. The defalcations cotomenoed about Jan. 9, 1898, and continued to February, 1901. Mr Russell appeared on behalf of the accused^ and stated that accused was twenty-one years of age. He had gone as a lad of fourteen to Reuter's Agency, whioh was then held by Messrs Cook and Gray, accountants, sharebrokers and commission agents, Hereford Street, Christchurch, and two years later he had been given charge of the cash of Reuter's Agency. On Oct. 31, 1899, 5 of £340 was missing. The accused nwd stated to. him (counsel) that he knew nothing of that sum, and he was not at that time engaged in the ruinous speculation which brought about his downfall. The deficiency at that time was £340, and it was suggested that the accused had not 'taken the ancmey. He had been in the habit of paying out cash orf behalf of the Agency and hot balancing his accounts. In October he had found that hie cash was tfhort. There were four or five books kept in the office. The accused entered his cash into one book, and , all cash transactions of the firm and the agency were taken from the one common ca«h box. His Honor said it seemed a complex system. He could not understand the statements. Mr Russell, continuing, said the accused i had kept only Rentier's Agency cash, and I aU cash an connection with the office waa kept in the one box. The accused had told him (counsel) that the system of bookkeeping was singularly irregular, and nothing was ever balanced or checked. ' At anyrate, the books had not been kept according to banking principles. The accused had stated that the money had gone ' into the general assets of the firm, but when he (the accused) had found out the defioierfcy, he (counsel) wouid have- to admit tbe accused had not reported it, and had covered lis deficiency by kadixvg his ' employers to 'believe tha* at was m the bank. The accused, in other < respects, had been a model son. He had nob been m the habit of going out at night, and his habits were otherwise excellent. He had J**^ » saying he knew nothing about the £34U. His wages were not paid regularly, and on one occasion he had been paid five months -ealary on one day, which would account for his having a small sum of money an the Savings Bank on a certain, date. In 1899 his firm became agents for a kinematograph Bvnd cate,» and he had become conversant with' the r accounts. He had thought it would be a good speculation to run a kme- ! matograph, and he had purchased one m WeuSigton, and started in Christchurch opposite the Theatre Royal. The.speculathm had' not been a success, and £300 was lost on it in, Christchuroh, and altogether 'in New Zealand £1500 had gone. The robi bery was only possible because the system of checking was so bad, and it w*3 only when Mr Stringer replaced Oook and Gray tha* the dfefioiences and f Agones were discovered/ The accused hfj forged the receipt to meet the auditor, who was about to arrive at the time. Hi 8 Honor said it was a very bad case, and a very unfortunate one ; one that made him regret that his duty to sooiety prevented him, acting as he might wish to do. He was williing to'accept all that had been offered in, the plea for mercy, but the robbery waa only made possible by the confidence of accused's employers. The penalty was not, in such cases, to be measured by the amount of mdney taken, but in tins oase it was a very large sum, and a substantial penalty would have to be inflicted. The accused would be sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, with hard labour in Lytelton gaol,._ on each chaxge, the sentences-to- run concurrently %