AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 66, 6 March 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, March 5, 1877. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and E. C. Latter, Esq., J.P.) A STOWAWAY. Charles Barnes appeared on the information of the purser of the s.s. Wanaka, as being a stowaway on board that vessel between Port Chalmers and Akaroa, on the occasion of her last trip. Sergeant Ramsay stated, that on the arrival of the s.s. Wanaka on Sunday last, the purser had given prisoner in charge, remarking that Mr Wood, the agent, would prosecute him ; but Mr. Wood had declined to appear against the prisoner. The Bench, in the absence of a prosecutor, discharged the prisoner. EMBEZZLEMENT. Robert Anderson Buchanan, late clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Akaroa, was charged on three separate counts, with feloniously and fraudulently embezzling moneys, the property of the Crown, while holding the position of clerk to the said Court. Mr. Duncan, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Nalder appeared for the accused. F. deC. Malet deposed.—l am acquainted with the duties of clerk to the Resident Magistrate's Court. The duties are, wherever there is a branch of the Bank of New Zealand, to pay in the fees daily. Last month I received instructions from the Government to examine Mr. Buchanan's books. I took notes, and made a report to the Government. I have before me the plaint-book. On the 10th November, 1876,1 find an entry, Columbus v. Lelievre, to recover the sum of £24 10s, upon which fees to the amount of 13s are entered for the price of the summons. The instructions that the Government give to all clerks are that all fees must be prepaid. No person has power to obtain the issue of a summons without depositing the fees. I examined Mr. Buchanan's casli-book, and found that those fees have not been entered in the cash-book. I drew Mr. Buchanan's attention to the fact that the fees had not been entered in the cashbook, and he admitted to me that he had not accounted for them. On that I made a note in the book,' recording the fact. I have now before me the Civil Record Book, which contains a record of the judgments given by the presiding magistrates, and I find on the 14th November. 1876, a judgment given in the case of Columbus V. Lelievre, upon which a fee of 12s was due. No hearing or judgment fee is entered in the cash-book. I don't remember Mr. Buchanan saying anything about that fee. He afforded me every possible information to investigate his books. In the same book a judgment appears in the case of Rodrigues v. Hartly. The fee in that case was Bs. In the plaint-book of the 7th November, 1876, a summons was issued in the same case for £12 18s., and the fees payable would be lis. The two fees added together would make 19s. I had a conversation with Mr. Buchanan about these fees, and the result was an admission of having received of them. The summons waa issued in the first instance without the fees having been paid. He admitted having received the hearing and judgment fees through Mr. Hartley's hands, and also admitted to me that he had not accounted for them. It was simply this—Rodrigues took out a summons, for which he did not pay, and obtained a judgment of 3s. Hartley paid

in 225., of which 19s. were due for costs of Court. Buchanan took Rodergue's receipt for 35., but omitted to insert it and the 19s received from Hartley in the cash-book. I examined the books right through, an*l find that the gross amount of fees unaccounted for, independent of trust ac r count fees, belonging to the Crown, amount to £45 18s. I have ssen the Gaz4te notifying Mr. Buchanan's appointment; His appointment took effect from the Ist July, 1873, and he was suspended on the 20th January, 1877, by the Minister of Justice, by telegram. Crsss-examined by Mr. Nalder,—-Mr. Buchanan afforded me every possible infortion. Ido not represent the Crown, but I am here as a witness at the instance of the Crown Solicitor. I cannot tell the reason why Mr. Buchanan's salary was stopped. I do not know whether the Government are indebted to him to the amount of £80 or £90. Mr. Buchanan could not have conceded the information in respect to his accounts more readily or more cheerfully than he had done. By the Bench.—The whole of the sums received by Mr. Buchanan should have appeared in the cash-book, and it was his duty to have banked every day. His cash-book is a record of all sums received, and should be similarly posted up to thfet used in mercantile firms. When a summons is issued, the clerk should first enter it in the plaint-book, next in tlia cash-book, and it would at the close of the day, be his duty to pay all fees into tse bank. By the Crown Prosecutor.—Mr. Buchanan informed me that he was in the habit of paying in his accounts into the bank once a-week. B. T. Missen deposed.—l have been bailiff of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Akaroa, since December, 1873. Mr. Buchanan was clerk to the Court during the greater part of that time. In the plaint-book before me in the case of Columbus v. Lelievre, there is a fee of 13s charged by me. I saw that fee paid by Columbus to Buchanan. I went through the cash-book, and no entry was made of it, Buchanan admitted having received the money, and not accounted for it. On the 14th November, 1876, in the same case, the judgment-book shows that there was 12s charged. I collected that amount from Columbus, and paid it to Mr, Buchanan a few minutes after receiving it. That amount was not entered in the cash-booK He admitted having received it, and not accounted for it. 1 know nothing about the case of iiodrigues v. Hartley, heard on the 14th November, 1876. Mr. Buchans* admitted in my presence, before Mr. 1 Malet, having received 8s and other fees amounting to 19s. The amount of judgment recovered was 3s, making in all 225. 3s of which amount would go to Rodriguez: The receipt produced is in Mr. Buchanan's hand-writing, bearing Rodrigue's signature. The fees have not been accounted for

Cross-examined by Mr. Nalder.—Mr, Buchanan has frequently asked me before the present prosecution was commenced to go through the books with him, as there were indiscrepancies which he desired to find out. James Hartley deposed.—l reside in Akaroa. I remember the 14th November last, Rodrigues had a case against me for the sum of £12 18s, and recovered judgment for the sum of 3s. I paid 22s to Mr. Buchanan, who gave me a receipt. 19s of that amount were for costs. Mr. Nalder, in addressing the Court for the accused, stated that he had not a word* to say against the manner in which his learned friend Mr. Duncan, the solicitor for the prosecution had conducted the case, or to the impartial evidence given by Mr. Malet, but he could not stigmatise? l the conduct of the Government in too strong language. Here was a case .in which a young gentieman, by birth, matfners, and education, had been appointed to the responsible situations of Clerk to the Bench, and Custom-house Officer, at the paltry salary of £135 per annum, a sum barely equal to the wages of a day labourer. Since June, 1876, this young man's salary, amounting to £90 or upwards had been stopped, thus throwing him into temptation. He (Mr. Nalder) had asked Mr. Malet, as acting for the Minister of Justice, whether this statement were true or false, but did not receive a satisfactory reply. Should his client be committed, the truth would be elicited at the trial. He considered the Government greatly to blame in withdrawing from one of their servants, the absolute means of subsistence for so long a period.

Mr. Duncan contended that there was no blame whatever due to the Government. As to the statement of his learned friend that accused's salary had been stopped ever since June last,- he might state that the Government requested Mr. Buchanan to send in certain returns, and he knew right well that if he persisted, in withholding these returns, his salary .must be stopped till they were supplied. The*' obliquy cast upon the Government by his learned friend was entirely out of place. If such laxity as shown by the accused were tolerated, there would be no end to such cases. The present case had been laid under a special Act, and not at the instance of the Government, but by the ' Commissioners of Revenue. Whenever a commissioner had just cause to suspect a deficiency in any officer's account, he immediately communicated with the At-torney-General, and therefore it will be seen that the Government in no way interferes with the prosecution. The Government funds have to be accounted for, and every efficer who becomes a defaulter must expect to receive similar treatment, and if Mr. Buchanan had his salary stopped in Junp last, it was owing to his own irregularities. The Bench, after cautioning accused in the usual maimer, committed him to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court to be held in Christchurch. ■ "*• A second charge was then preferred against accused for embezzling the sum of Bs., amount of fees received in the case of Watkinp v. McGirr. " ' F. de C. Malet deposed that on the 15th November, 1876, in the case of Watkins v, McGirr, to recover £5 7s. 3d., a fee of Bs. was payable. I called Mr. Buchanan's attention to the fact of these fees not having been entered in the cash-book. He admitted having received them, and not accounted for them. On the 17th November, 1876, judgment was given in the same case, a fee of ss. being payable. Mr. - Buchanan made the same admission in this as in other cases. In the case of Davidson v.Wykesmith, on the 21st November, 1876, a fee of ss. for a subpoena/ was charged, but not accounted for. i'

examined the cash-book, but failed to find an entry. Cross-examined by Mr. Nalder—Every information was furnished to me by Mr. Buchanan, who, although very ill at the time, came down and rendered mo every assistance. By the Bench—The Clerk has no power to issue a summons without all fees being prepaid. H. G. Watkins deposed—l had a case against McGirr on the 15th November last. I daid a fee of Bs. to Mr. Buchanan. On the 17th November the case was heard, and judgment given. The fee of ss. was chargeable, which I paid on the 2nd December to Mr. Buchanan. T. B. Missen's evidence merely corroborated that of Mr. Malet. The Bench, after cautioning accused in the usual manner, committed him to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. Accused was next indicted for embezzling the sum of ss. being amount of fee for surpnions in the case of W. Aylmer v. McGregor. F. de. C. Malet deposed that on the 12th January, 1877, judgment was given in the case of Aylmer v. McGregcr, and that a fee of 5s was payable. I examined the cash book, and found that it contained no such entry. Mr. Buchanan made the same admission to me as in the other cases. On the same day there was a fee of 5s chargeable in the case of McKay v. Wilson The fees in the case of Hartley and Hewer were also not entered in the cash book. B. T. Misseu gave corroborative evidence. The Bench, after cautioning accused in the usual manner, committed him to take his trial. Mr. Nalder made an application for bail, which the Bench took time to consider. The Court then adjourned.