FOR TRIAL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19149, 4 November 1927, Page 9

FOR TRIAL.

CHARGES OF THEFT. LAW CLERK IN.COURT. . , Samuel Phoenix Briggs, described as a law cierk, appeared in the MagisCourt yesterday, before Mr E. L\ Mosley. S.M., charged with stealing over £3OO from an estate. He pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The charge against. Briggs, whose address is 401 Tuam street, and whose age is 42 years, was that between October 17th, 1926, and June Ist, 1927, ho did steal sums of money totalling £337 16s 3d, the property of the Simiv.onds Estate and others. Briggs eonJi'.cted his own defence.

. Charles Henry Roud, a gardener, oi j Spreydon, a nephew of the late Isaac Simmonds, said that his uncle' died on' January 18th, 1926. Witness was one of the executors in his estate. The beneficiaries were Mrs Elizabeth Roud, William David Simmonds, and Mrs Laura Gilbert. The affairs of the estate were, placed in Mr W. J. Cracroft Wilson's ,office. The ..estate . was to be divided equally among the three beneficiaries, and it included a Louse' property . in Kingsley street. This had a mortgage of £260. Mr Simmonds bought the house for £550. That left £290 which . was deducted from Ins share in the estate. A (glieque -produced, for £llß 2s 9d, wTjs paid to the accused Briggs by Mr Simmonds as part payment of the mortgage. It was signed bv witness and Mi- Simmonds. the body of the cheque being in Briggs's writing. On the date ot the* payment, October 14th, witness, with Simmonds, went to the Post Office and the latter drew £142. Accounts owing by the late Mr Simmonds amounted to about £52. and they were to be paid out of the estate, cheques ■being given to Briggs for the pur--pose. The accounts were not paid with the exception of £3 paid on the account of Rhind ,^.nd i Co., by tome anonymous person yjid £l3 paid on it later by Briggs:' When witness found that "the accounts had not been paid, Mr Simmonds settled them. When witness received an account for the interest on the mortgage, he went to Briggs to find out why it haa not been Wild. Briggs .said that Mr Cracroft Wilson had the £260. In Mr Cracroft Wilson's office witness had an interview with Briggs, who admitted that he had the money. Briggs said that he had paid honest debts with it. Mr Cracroft Wilson, Briggs had said, owed liim money and he (Briggs) had taken it to get square. In addition to the house property there was £I6OO in | the estate, £SOO of which was in the Post Office Savings Bank, and the balance on fised deposit at the Bank of Australasia. A cheque for £54 was made . out 4 for one of the beneficiaries and was dishonoured. To Briges: Witness went to tie office several times and found no one there bnsy with the estate Th* Magistrate: Wk&i is the jm*.,

pose of your questions? .' They do.not bear on the theft of illiis money. Briggs: I'want to show, if possible, that Mr Cracroft' Wilson neglected his work, and that I handled the work of the estate.

'. Continuing under cross-examination, witness" said - that with- the exception of the. £54 already referred to,-and the amount of the cheques already produced everything in connexion with the • estate had hoen settled.

Cyril A. Stringer, solicitor, said that ho was consulted in connexion with tho Simmonds estate by, Roud. He wrote J to Mr Cracroft Wilson, asking him to call oii witness. The accused Briggs called. ' Briggs admitted having taken the moneys paid in, and that he had taken them wrongfully. He made promises to repav the money. Since then Mr Wilson "had pa\d £IOO which he had held, and £5 was paid in on\ behalf of Briggs by a man named, Pratt. --

To Briggs: A sum of £6O was mentioned aB owing by the estate to Mr Wilson. ,

William David' Simmonds produced a receipt for £260 paid by him to the accused, representing the amount of the mortgage on the Kinzsley street property.

Evidence was given by Laura Jane Gilbert and Charles L. Hart, estate agent.

Waldegrave J. Cracroft Wilson said that Briggs was employed by him as a clerk. The terms of his employment were that he should receive onethird of the profits. Witnel knew of the Simmonds estate, dealt with by his office. Briggs introduced the clients and witness had left the work of the estate to him. He was not aware of what moneys had been received of the estate, except that Briggs paid £IOO to the trust .veount to cover costs of tlie estate. ..Briggs later came %o witness anU said that he had a shortage in connexion with the estate, and witness refunded the £IOO to the estate. Briggs: Ls there a cash book in the effice?—l daresay there is not. Are there any books in the office? — My books a*e with my auditors. Do you remember any sum of money being "paid to your trusty account by me, late in October last?— Yes. one was £7 10s.

What was the other amount:-—Do, vou want to know? " Yes—£2-5. A third of that should be mineDo you think so:-' Do you remember anything about the purchase of a house in Madras street?— No. 1 don't, except that you told mo you had bought one which you expected to'sell almost. at once. You were not aware that I was using seme small sums that came into the office, that I had-to have to livo on?— No. I was n<st. Detective Thomas said that he interviewed the accused on- October 10th. The accused admitted that he was the only employee- in Mr Cracroft Wilson's office and that he had the handling of the Simmonds estate. , Mr Wilson had- nothing to do with it. Accused admitted that he had received £260 from SimpjondB r -to payoff the mortgage on the house in Kingsley fitreei. H« farther admitted jfeaUb

; had '.. not paid. off tho, mortgage or Jan* part of it.',' ..•'■':< ; ,-' .' ■'■■},. : v' '• Witness said'that in the .course of a statement made to, him by, the 'ao 'c,used, vßraggs stated that gambling was his downfall.

Accused pleaded not guilty, reserved, his ■ defence; and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bajl. was renewed in £2OO and on« surety of £2OO. ":