SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 216, 17 September 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16.

[Before His Honor Sir Gh A. Arney, Knight,

Chief Justice.] His Hon'Oß took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock.

CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.

CONTINUATION OF THE TRIAL After the hour of our going to press yesterday the examination of 11. C. Lewis was continued as follows :—

These balances are not correct. They are wrong by £1,000. There ia a greater deficitthan this. The total deficit I find to he £3,78:, some shillings and some pence. I have not matte nny alterations m these books. I have simply marked the correct totals in red ink, and certified them. I have searched evprynliere, but there was do voucher in the office for £1,000. Other disbursments are properly vouched. Bee ipts should be vouched. Tin re i 3 tho sum I have mentioned deficient— £3,781. The accounts referred to in the letter are those from January, 1869. Accounts ought to be sent home every month by order of the War Office. It is the duty of Commissariat officers all over the world to forward accounts monthly. That was notdone in this instance. I have found several of the accounts ready made up to be sent home, and in some instances the proper letter to accompany them. In sending home accounts, the original vouchers are sent home and the duplicates retained here. I have found here both originals and duplicates for 'he same months. On the 17th of August I went to the defendant's house and found him at home. He asked me if I had received his letter. I told him I had discovered the deficiency for £I,G'OO. He said " Yes, that, is the first; you wid find another, and more afterwards, but the exact dates and amounts I cannot tell you. I can tell you when I come in and see my rough cash-book, and where 1 have carried forward wrong balances or totals." He also paid that he ha 1 latterly become reckless, and did not remember what he had taken. The policeman in charge was in the room. Dr. Tassell was also there. A bag was brought to me, on tho 18th of August, by Mr. Kelly, containing, as I understood, £500. The defendant had mentioned the day pro- j viously that he would send me a parcel con- j taining £500. The bag was sealed ; it has : not been opened. Mr. I'roolifield : Open it, and see what there is inside. 'Ilia \ilki e^s hyp-x-d the !>n.-, v.!:•;•!> c,ji.t;ii.i- ;i li' gi- i;u n! .'v <>■ jj 1 .

He w&3 also examined at oowidterable length as to the regulations prescribed by the War Office for ascertaining the contenti of the military cttest. A board of officers, appointed by the commander of the gari-ison, wts every quarter,. She officer in charge is invariably present. A similar board sits whenever tkere is a transfer of the charge. The mea«j is either counted or weighed—sometimes both.

(Receipt for £9414 6s. 4d, from Commis-sary-General Ibsttsou was pnt in.) Witness : There is a certificate of such a Board having sat on that occasion. BTo accounts have been sent home since December, 15.:5. (Certificate of Board of Survey tendered.) His Honor thought it should be shown that such officers ware here.

E. B. Caddy wa9 recalled, and deposed that the document was one of the records of the Commissariat. That it was under the control of the defendant. During the time Mr. Ibbelt son was in charge, Mr. Innes still kept the Treasury accounts. The certificate of the Board of Survey wa3 put in and read. It was signed: A. W. Le Motte, Captain (President), Gilpin Haynes, and Uazlewood; Jones. Annexed wa3 the receipt given hy the defendant.

In cross-examination, the witness 9aid he met Mr. Innes some fifteen yeare ago. Did not serve with Mr. Inues in the Crimea. Mr. Innes never serred in the Crimea. Told defendant that he was sent out i,i consequence of no accounts having been received. A statement had been heard in England that the uccounls hail been posted in New Zealand, but had not been received in England. I had no suspicion of Mr. Innes. 1 knew there was something wrong somewhere, bat I could'nt s-iy where. I inferred nothing from his conduct or manner lit first. Tile bocks were in the chest, but I did not know it when the money was handed to me. Mr. Innos handed me the key. I did not wish to pres3 him for >lie book?, as he said they were in arrear. I asked where the books were. He did not appear as if he wished to give an answer, and [ did not press him. I did not know Mr. Ibbetson before I was introduced to him by the defendant. I had no occasion then to communicate with Ibbetson. I have since had occasion to eommnnieate with Mr. Ibbetson. He was responsible for accounts during; a portion of the time included, bub he had n>.thing to do with the aetounts for January, 1869. He was under crders to proceed to another station. The communication with M>. Ibbetson had reference to a very small portion of the deficit wkich accrued while lie was in charge. The sum is iSOO. Mr. Ibbetson has explained, and lu9 explanation has gone home. I may say thai tha result of inquiries is, that Mr. Ibbetson is not criminally responsible for this sum of £500 ; but, as officer in charge, he may be held responsible for it. I never said to the defendant ' I was sorry he had not given me his entire confident j for if he had I could have made it a matter of account." I did iuk him why, in the first instance, ho did not attempt to raise fche money, and credit it to meet this £1000. I told even then he would receive a severe reprimand, or perhaps be dismissed from the service ; but he would, have saved himself the disgrace he had now brought upon himself. That referred to what he might have done in January, 1869. If lie had dona so I should not have been here. This could not h:ivebeen made a matter of account. I may have said that '' I was sorry he did not come to me and treats me ■with some confidence j" for if he had I woald hare endeavoured to get him through it as I would have done for any other brother officer. But I was not aware of the extent of the deficiencies. I only knew of the £1000. Something mi^ht be done to pay tho money. The explanation of the whole affair would go home, and I might not have been compelled to take these proceedings. Several people bave spoken to mo about Mr. Innee, bufc I never tolfl anybody that it could have been made a matter of account. I wish even now that defendant had come to me in the first instance. I could not treat the letter of the defendant as in any respect private. It related to official matters in respect to which I had to make inquiry. Mr. Innes, I beliove, took charge in August, 1867. In Janua y, 1869, Mr. 1 lines wa3 lirad of the department, and could draw within the estimate approved by the Home authorities. The estimates are made a year in advance. The bill must always be signed by «ome other officer. I have no doubt had he drawn a bill for £50,000, and gone to the bank with it, they would have cashed it. The only question is &3 to the mode of drawing the bill, for a bill cannot be drawn singlo handed. It must be countersigned, unless there were nobody here but himself. 'I he countersigning officer hns some responsibility. It is assumed that ho hq.B satisfied himself as to the necessity of the pußlic service. The practice was wroMjr if bills were drawn without being countersigned ; Now Zealand, at present, is a special case. The defendant has had opportunity of explainin;.' Ihe ncoouuts if he chose to avail himself of it. He said he would give me every explanation, but I have not seen him since I last went to his liousa. Me has been since in custody on this charge. The vouchers are correct, but there is still the doficiency. I found two vouchers —receipts in May for money paid, but not entered. Thore was some purpose in not entering them. Theamounts were small. There were no more in the office. Thero were vouchers for his own pay which had not been signed for, and these I sent out to him.

On being re-examined the witness said that the estimates for ihe commissariat were made out in New Zealand a year in advance. When there was any delay a warrant was given by the commanding otlicer. The object of having the bill countersigned by the commanding offlcei" was io act as a cheek upon the commissariat. Witness swore positively that he never offered to arrange tikis matter for payment of a sum of money, or said to anyone that he could or would do so. In fact lie tould not do so, for Ihe defendant vra& in custody. To the Foreman of .he Jnry : ':overal letters were a.klreJßed to the Wai1 Office and the Treasury, asking the reason that accounts were not transmitted. The officer in command was also written to, that ho might ask Mr. Innes the reason why the accounts were not | sent home. ifi*. Inne3 Tvms asked to explain. His explanation was that the accounts had been posted to England. They tad not been received at home. That explanation went horao tl rotigh tlue ccunmandluf? officer. He Yrn*thcn tin1 iioaii vt <lw <*o, nrfinetil". The :!jfi>-;t w ifi>!:i..'i:-U:?(iri'jii thf \fhd\u a" thase bio: .. I

To his Honor: If I had suppressed the letter written by Mr. Innes to me, and which has been read here to-day, I would have been liable to be tried by court-martial, receive a severe reprimand, if not dismissal from the service. I could not in any respect regard that communication as confidential. Fred. Henry Ibbetson, late Assistant-Com-missary General, said he had charge of the Commissariat in December, 1868. Gave up charge on the 81s,t ef that month to Mr. Innes. I had been ordered to the Mauritius. There was a Beard of Survey on the military chest on the 81st. Mr. Innes and myself were present. I then gave up charge of the department. I had nothing to do with the Commissariat in January, 1869. I was that month detached frnm the establishment in New Zealand. I took charge again on the Ist of February. There was a survey held then, at which Mr. Innes and myself were present. [The witne s proved the signatures of the Board.] The Board of Survey only see that the money in the chest corresponds with the balance in the books. It is not their duty to examine the accounts. I had charge from the Ist February, 1869, to 31st October of the same year. I appointed Mr. Innes my accountant and cashier. It was Innes's duty to send home the accounts monthly. I signed those letters with the monthly accounts to be posted. It was defendant's business to have sent them home when I signed the letter of transmission. He did not do so. I thought all those accounts had gone so, until the last month. I have seen those letters in the office. They were not sent. I trusted almost entire^ to Mr. Inues. I did not think it necessary to look closely after the addition or subtraction of his figures. CrOi-s-exainined :The defendant was Military Accountant, Sub-Treasury Accountant, and cashier. As Military Accountant he communicated with the War Office. The account current Was made monthly. I declared to it, and after I signed it it should be sent home. Tfie Commissariat draws Treasury bills. The Bank sends up the cheques they have paid with n draft Treasury bill and the premium. The Accountant makes a requisition to the officer in charge, who signs the bill. The bill is signed by the officer in charge, the bill cleik" and the cashier. (The witness explained at great length the process of providing the money far public service.) The defendant was his own chief cashier and accountant.