ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AT A BOARDING-HOUSE IN WEST QUEEN-STREET.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 192, 20 August 1870, Page 2

ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AT A BOARDING-HOUSE IN WEST QUEEN-STREET.

Information was lodged at the Police Station last night or a determined attempt at suicide in ilannery'a boarding-house, West Queenstreot, by a man named Patriui Peed, lately from Dunedin, Oiago. It appears thee Eeed, who was a shoemaker, and working at his trade in Auckland, had lately been subject to great mental depression. He had only been a week in his present lodgings, and last evening informed his landlady that feeling somewhat indisposed he would go up-stairs to his room. About a quarter to ten o'clock his comrade went; up to bod, in the aatue apartment, but; without tating a light, expectpeoting to flud the candle burning. On entering thb rooiii, to his astonishment he stepped into some slippery liquid matter on the floor; immediately on striking a light he discovered a pool of blood, and the prostrate body of the unfortunate nun Eeed, who had evidently cut his throat a shoemaker's knife, which was lying beside him. Medical assistance was called in. Dr. Nicholson was coon on the syet, s,ud Eosd's wounds were .speedily dresied. It appears that in the act of attempting the committal of the rash dned he had thrown his head back, uvraag to whioh circumstance the arteries were i-ofc floinpletoly severed, and there arc thereijio hopes of his ultimate imovevy. The oxcassive loja of blood, howevor, which he has endured, loaves him in a oomewhat critical condition.— Herald,

POLICE COTJET.— Saturday. [Before J. O'Neill, T. Ritchie and R. E. Porter, Esqs., Justices.] DETJNKENNESS. James Murray was fined. 55., or to be imprisoned 24 hours with hard labor. ASSAULT.

The same offender was charged with as3atilting Peter Hurley. The case was adjourned till Monday, the lad assaulted being unable to attend. VAG-EANCY. Catherine Douglas, charged with being a vagrant, and proved by Sergt-Major Morrison to have been found wandering in the streets at one o'clock in the morning, and to having been convicted ten times for larceny, and three times for vagrancy with the last three years, was sentenced to be imprisoned three months with hard labor. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. James Lawrie was charged for having unlawfully discharged from service on board the Sea Gull, engaged to trade between the Thames and Russell, S. E. Ruddles, and refused to pay him his wages and compensation to the amount of £6 10s.

Mr. Thorne for complainant; Mr. Sheehan for defence.

S. E. Ruddles deposed : On the sth August I shipped with Captain Lawrie on the Sea Gull at £4 10s. a month for air months. I refused to take my discharge because I wao not settled with. I refused to go with him to Fiji; he has shipped another in my place. I claim a moth's pay, and £2 previously due.

To Mr. Sheehan: On the day I left the captain complained that I did not do nny work. He had not blamed me before. I was offered £2. Another offer was made to refer' the case to the chipping master, but the ca*s was already in the lawyer's hands.

For the defence,

John Smith, examiued by Mr. Sheehan, deposed : I am the mate of the schooner Seagull. Had told plaintiff to work a little smarter, and reported to the captain that the man was not doing his ■work altogether to my • satisfaction ; he seemed not to mind it much. The captain said he would discharge him. He was hardly doing a fair day's work. To Mr. Thorne : Ruddle's conduct was s\ich that I would have discharged him. He did not refuse to do his work ; lie was slow about it. I was about two days only aboard with the men, viz. the 16th and 17th.

James Lawiie, captain of the Sea Gull, deposed : Complainant was 14 days on board. For a few days I had no fault to find. So soon as it was known we were laid on for the Islands work was neglected. I threatened to bring him to Coui't. I did not ask Ruddles to come to the Islands. I discharged him on the 18th. They went with me to the shipping master and I offered to refer it to him. They said they had employed a lawyer, and would see it out. I placed the whole amount in the hands of the shipping master to arrange it.

The Bench decided that plaint iff should get £2, tiic unioimt of wages due, and £2 55., being half a month's wages, as compensation; each party paying his own costs.

In a similar charge brought by E. Davis, I another seaman, against Captain Lawrie, the decision in the former case wa3 accepted by council as the verdict of the Court. LUNACY. On the evidence of Dr. Lee and Dr. G-oldsbro a person of unsound mind was sent to the Lunatic Asylum. EMBEZZLEMENT. On the information of Henry Clutterbuck Lewis, Assistant Commissary General, this charge was laid against Francis Innis, Deputy Assistant Commissary-General, Auckland, being employed in the service of Her Majesty in New Zealand, that he did, within the last six months past, embezzle the sum of £50, being monies received or taken into possession by him by virtue of his employment, and did apply the same to his own use and benefit, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.

Mr. Brookfield for the prosecution, Mr MacCormick for the defence.

The defendant took his seat beside his counsel.

The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, showed that by the 70th clause of the Larceny Act, embezzling moneys of her Majesty by a person in her service in New Zealand was felony. That the charge was nominally for £50, but he would show that in January, 1869, £1000 were deficient, and in June, £500.

Edward Barnett Carey deposed : I am a clerk in the Commissariat in Auckland. I was so in January, 18G8. Defendant was Military Accountant and Comptroller, in charge 0/ the Commissariat, in New Zealand. By virtue of that office, he had the management of the War Office funds, or the Treasury chest. He was Deputy Assistant Commissary-General. He kept the Treasury accounts of receipt and expenditure. In the books now produced, the writing in black ink is Mr. Inne3'; it was the Treasury account for the month of January, 1869. The signature is in the hand-writing of Mr. Innes. In the accounts of June, 1869, produced, the hand-writing also is that of Mr. Innes. In the rough cash-book produced, containing the Treasury and War Office accounts for June, 1869, the writing and signature are those of Mr. Innes.

To Mr. MacCormick : The red ink entries in the Treasury Accounts, June 1869, are in the same handwriting; but not thoso of January 1869. I cannot say when the'entries were made by Mr. Innes.

To Mr. Brookfield : The accounts bearing his signature purport to be made on 30th January, 1869, and 30th June, 1869.

H. C. Lewis deposed: I am Assistant Commissariat General in Her Majesty's service. Defendant was in charge of the Treasury chesb from Ist January, 1869, till 31st January, 1869, and subsequently. I was sent out lrom the War Office to investigate the accounts for New Zealand, and to relieve Mr. Innes of his charge. He gave me over the balance in the cLest on last, Monday, the 15th. I got the bookfj and accounts tho following morning. On Monday Mr. Innea made an appointment to meet me s,t ten o'clock on Tuesday morning—to vvhich tima I had given him to make up tha books and hand tl ten: over. He did not meet mo according to appointment, nor did I see him on Tuesday. I received possession of the books on Tuesday; th<_y were in the chost. I looked through ILe accounts for January 1869, aa now produced. The balance on hand January Ist was £9414 6a. 4d., and corresponds witL the receipt produced. This book contains all the items of receipts into, and expenditure from, the Treasury chest for tha month of January, 1869. I have carefully conpared the vouchers for the month.

The balance shown by the book, in Mr. Innes s figures, is £7340 Bs. .The totting up by defendant is wrong by £1000. The error is in the expenditure, which is made to be £1000 more than it actually was. The balance shown in the book ought to correspond with the cash balance in the chest, so that in that month the deficiency was that amount, The balance ought to be £8340 Bs. The new book commenced in Feburary appears with a balance of £7340 Bs. The correct totals, in red ink, in the book, are in my handwriting. On Wednesday, the 17th, I received a message from Mr. Innes, asking me to go out and see him. I went out about one o'clock in the afternoon, and saw him where I balieve he resides. I conversed with him regarding the aecount3._ T said to Mr. Innes how sorry I was to see him in such a position, and asked him to explain the deficiencies in the chest, telling him that I had discovered £1000 in January, 1869. He replied, " That was the first, but you will find another, and more afterwards. The exact amounts and dates I can't tell you." He assigned no reason for not knowing the exact amounts. I have since investigated the accounts for June, 1869. From February Ist to 31st May the accounts are correctly kept. The balance on" June, 1869, is £6,791 ss. Bd. There is an error of £500 in the receipts, which are less by that amount than they ought tc be; making for the six months a deficiency of £1500. In the rough cash book for 1869 produced, in the month of June, I find erasures on both side 3of the account in the totals and balance. There is £500 short-added in the receipts in the last column, and corresponds with the deficiency in the cash-book. I have found another deficiency in March, 1870. I have not completed •subsequent accounts. The Treasury chest accounts ought to bo forwarded home regularly every month. It was Mr. Innes's duty to see the account for January, 1869, sent home. No Treasury accounts have been sent to England since December, 1868. Defendant again took sole charge on Ist November, 1869. Mr. Ibbetson was senior officer, and nominally in charge from February 1 to November 1, 1869. The books and accounts were still kept by Mr. Innes. The books have not been made up since November 30, 1869, but the vouchers arc all forthcoming. The £1,500 deficit has been carried all through the books.

To Mr. MacCormick : The period of eighteen hours for making up and handing over the books was all he asked. My instructions from England were to relieve him at once, and take charge. I have made up these accounts in the absence of Mr. Innes. I have been only able to check the accounts by such vouchers as I have found in the office. I did not go further back than January 1, 1869. I assumed the balance receipted by defendaut at beginning of that month as correct. The previous accounts had gone home, and been audited. He was solely responsible to the Home Government only during January, 1869, and from November 1, 1869, to August 15, 1870, when I relieved him.

To Mr. Brookfield : The account for December, 1868, was kept by defendant, and signed by hijn, and shows the balance as then in the chest, and taken to credit on January Ist, 1869. I have not denied to Mr. lunes in any way an opportunity of examining the books with me.

To the Bench : The quarterly surveys were held so long as there were any military here. This Board merely counts and weighs the money in the chest. There is no examination of the books on these occasions. The rule of the service is to make no erasures, but to run the pen through and make alterations in red ink. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Lewis, re-called by the Bench : About £33 have been handed over to me in the Treasury chest. I cannot swear that there is a deficiency at the present time in the Treasury chest. I believe there is, but Ido not kiaow it of my own knowledge. The Clerk of the Court having read over the evidence, prisoner was committed for trial. Bail allowed : a personal bond in £1000, and two sureties in £750 each.

Messrs. Lyell, sen., and J. P. Dv Moulin at once tendered the required security, which was accepted.

The Court then rose,