SUPREME COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18723, 25 August 1932, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

NEW TRIAL ORDERED. ALLEGED FAILURE TO ACCOUNT. JURY DISAGREES. Charged with failing to account for a sum of £4O lis 6d, money collected by him on behalf of the Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Society at Rotorua, on or about April 29, an insurance agent, Basil Stanislaus Brogan, stood his trial before Mr Justice Smith and a jury, in the Supreme Court, at Hamilton, yesterday. The Crown solicitor, in outlining the facts of the case, told the jury that prisoner had sent in a cheque to the Hamilton office for £54 12s lOd, covering his collections for that week. Knowing the cheque to be worthless, two representatives of the society called on prisoner at his home in Rotorua on Saturday afternoon and were told that the cheque would be quite ali right if presented at the bank on Monday morning. Prisoner paid over to one of them the sum of £2O 10s lOd, and later wrote out a cheque for £4O lis Gd, the balance owing to the society after the deduction of commission. This cheque, on being presented on Monday, was dishonoured. Robert Arthur Kemp, superintendent, Hamilton, gave details of Brogan’s employment. Arthur Hubert Shalcrass, superintendent, who accompanied the previous witness to see accused at his residence at Rotorua, recollected Brogan telling Kemp that he had an account in the North branch of the Bank of New Zealand at Rotorua. Kemp told Brogan that he had no account and this Brogan denied. Accused apologised to witness .for making such a mess of things. Brogan gave him a cheque for £4O odd, to be presented on the following Monday. Tlie cheque, on being presented, was dishonoured. Oliver Earl Thomas, Insurance Manager, in charge of the Auckland province, stated that no money was owing by his society to Brogan. Brogan had £3O provisional credit. Statement by Aocused. Detective Herbert Edward Knight, Auckland, produced a statement made to him by accused. In this Brogan stated that according to the agreement between himself and the company commission earned by him in the Industrial department was paid out to him up to a maximum of £4. Anything above that was credited to his account in the Society. When he forwarded the cheque in question to the Society he considered that the money to his credit in the Industrial Fund and the premiums due him on the money would enable him to meet the cheque on the Monday. Kemp and Shalcross came to see him on a Saturday afternoon, when he was suffering from the effects of liquor. Kemp took his books away and dismissed him. 110 did not bother about (he cheque then, as he considered he had sufficient to his credit in the Society to meet the £4O lis 6d owing them. He forwarded balance to the Hamilton office by cheque. He had always forwarded his returns by cheque until a misunderstanding occurred in February. He then sent money through by money order. On this particular occasion he deducted commission owing to him and forwarded the cheque to Hamilton. At the time there was over £3O standing to his Industrial credit in his account with the Society. In addition to this there was a further amount owing in this fund which had previously been debited against his account and should have subsequently been recredited lo him. When Mr Kemp called he had sufficient money in the house to meet the cheque. He had given Mr Kemp nothing, but his wife had handed him £2O. Witness could not remember giving Kemp a cheque for £4O 11s Gri. Accused considered that the amount credited to his “Industrial account" was money which was held by the Society, unconditionally for his benefit. That money was owing to him at the time. Cross-examined, accused stated he could remember everything of the interview with the two inspectors, with the exception of the signing of the cheque. He had not paid them the money at the time because Kemp had commenced to bully him as soon as he came in \is house. Counsel for accused, in his address to the jury, submitted that his client had retained the money collected by him to square a debt owing him by the Insurance Company. Such an action, he held, was not fraudulent conversion or theft. The question for the Jury to decide, His Honour pointed out, was whether the accused could have honestly believed that he had a right to hold the money in question and put it to his own use. After a retirement of four and ahalf hours the Jury disagreed and A new trial was ordered for to-day. TO-DAY'S TRIAL. SIMILAR EVIDENCE TAKEN. The re-trial of Basil Stanislaus Brogan was heard to-day, when evidence on similar lines lo yesterday’s hearing was taken. At the time of going lo press the jury was considering ils verdict.