LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1436, 10 May 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

WORKING MEN'S CLUB CASE. a { I n JURY ASK QUESTIONS, v ii AND FINALLY FAIL TO AGREE, s f ~~ — ~ r GREEN DISCHARGED, ° A R 'J I.ato last evening the Supremo Court c criminal sessions, woto brought to a " close. Mr. Justice Chapman presided. ; When tho Court resumed in the morning, the only case remaining was the third trial of Frederick William Green, c in whoso case the jury had failed to n agrco last session. Tho charge was one uf theft-of „C 175 IDs. Ltd. from tho funds e of the Wellington Working Men's Club. g -Mr. H. 11. Ostler, of tho Crown Law Office, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. A. L. Herdman appeared for Green, who pleaded not guilty. What Green Had to Face. In the evidence for the prosecution, the 9 following was alleged:—Green had been Jemployed for 3J years at the Working- J men's Club and Literary Institute. He a was a salaried officer, and part of his n duty was to receive money on behalf: of " tho'club, and tank it to the credit of the trustees. On November -6 last he was asked to resign his position, and his duties C for the time being were taken over by a Edward Mace, president of the club. e The latter had endeavoured to balance the books earlv in December, but had J found that there were discrepancies between the figures in the cash book and I those in the bank pass book. There was b an item in the cash book of .£lsl Cs., but the bank pass book showed only .£sl Cs. as ( having been paid into tho trustees' ac- a count. Similarly, with nn item of £U6 t Cs. in the cash book, only £K was shown in tho bank pass book. Accused, ou being interrogated regarding n sum of jC2S, J which was usually kept in the safe, nc- t counted for it by receipts for accounts paid. , ~ ~ c It was then discovered by the president d that Green had paid several accounts by cash, instead of following the usual custom, and paving them by cheque. There also were a number of erasures in the h books, and thoso in the bank pass book b were found, on inquiry, not to have been made by tho officers of the bank. c An audit of the books was then made, v It was tho custom to have an nudit every six months. One had been completed in f Juno last, and Messrs. Bolton and Morris, tho auditors to the .club, went through <■ tlio books on December 13 and 11. 11m a result of this audit was that Green was shown to have received on the club s ho- ( half .£3BBB Bs. Gd. (including X7l Is. 3d. t brought forward) from .Inly 1 until Ao- 'j voniber 20. The amount paid into the 0 bank during that period was-J:3(iß6 195., leaving a deficiency of .£2Ol 9s. Gd., which, j however, was reduced by the cash pay- f merit of accounts already mentioned. In some months the amount paid into the j bank was less than the amount of actual receipts, while, in other months, it-ox- ] ceeded the actual receipts. Subsequently Green was arrested by ( Detective-Sergeant M'llveney, and charged , with appropriating the club's money. In answer to tho charge, ho said; 'There roust be some mistake. I did not.steal any of their money. I was there for 3} years, and left without a penny. The Other Side of Things. j When cross-examined by Mr. Herdman, the treasurer and the auditor of the club ( admitted that they had not carried put . the letter of the rules in regard to the regular inspection of the books. i Frederick Wm. Green, the accused, gave < evidence denving tho charge. Before he left the club on November 20 last tho com- < mittee had been put out of office, and this, he said, had caused confusion. Green then had to pay ncconnts out of cash in hand, owing to* tho difficulty he had in getting members of the committee together to si?u'cheques. When called upon to resign Green handed in his resignation immediately, and left the club within a quarter of nn hour, after handing his cash and keys to Mr. Mace. Between the first and second trials Green had discovered and produced vouchers for accounts paid out of cash and not since balanced by cheque. These vouchers reduced the deficiency bv about J2O, and the accused remembered a further cash payment of something like ,£lO, for prizes for a billiard tournament. In addition to the other witnesses for tho defence that had been called at the previous trials, Mr. Herdman called Alexander Dixon, a chartered accountant and an expert in handwriting. This witness gave evidence as to the alterations of figures in tho books. The Jury Ask Help. The jury retired at 3.30 p.m. and re-turned-at 8.10 p.m., when tho foreman announced that they were unable to agree. His Honour: Is there any matter in which I can give you any assistance? Tho foreman: Your Honour, we would like to have the auditors' evidence read over. His Honour tool: tip tho typed copy of evidence and read over the testimony of the auditors. Tho foreman then remarked that there was some question raised as to whether both auditors were present at the audit. His Honour replied that they both had been present at the audit, though ono of them made a start beforo the other arrived. _ A juror: May I ask a question, your Honour? His Honour: Yes. Tho juror: Would you consider that evidence conflicting? His Honour explained that that was a matter for the determination of the jury. Tho jury retired again at 8.25 p.m. After an hour's further deliberation, they/ returned to Court, and tho foreman theiy stated that there was no chanco of an agreement. His Honour: Gentlemen, you have given considerable 'iine to this case,' and Idon't feel justified in detaining you any longer. You will be discharged from further service. I have to thank you for your attendance here to-day. Tlio Crown Prosecutor then informed his Honour that as three juries had failed to agree, it was not intended to further proceed. Tho Judge thereupon discharged the prisoner. CREDITORS' PETITION. OPPOSED BY ASSIGNEES. Wilhelm Eggers, of Dauiel Street, Newtown, assigned his estate to Messrs. Gold and A reus, accountants, Featherston Street, Wellington, on March 1. At the first meeting of creditors the assignees presented a lengthy statement, from which it appeared that Eggers was carrying on three distinct businesses under different names, viz., W. F. Eggers, land and estate agent, 31 Johnston Street.; Eggers Bros., builders, 84 liintoul Street; and the Newtown Painting Co., 55 and 5G liintoul Street, A motion was carried at tho second meeting of creditors that the estate should . be privately assigned to trustees for tlio benefit of tho creditors. Owing to the complicated nature of tho accounts, together with the fact that the assignees proposed to treat as preferential creditors certain persons, who it was submitted were not legally entitled to be so treated, the petitioning creditors (Biggs and Tyler) preferred that the estato should bo administered in bankruptcy. An application to this effect was made to Mr. Justice Cooper in the Supremo Court in Chambers yesterday morning. Mr. J. M*L. Hogben appeared for the petitioning creditors. Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. .T. S. Barton, opposed the application on behalf of the debtor and tho assiVnees. Uoughly. the liabilities amounted to -■£47,000, of which .£7OOO was unsecured. The amount owing to secured creditors was J!39,000. the securities ljeing estimated at .£11.(100. The other assets were set down at ,£SOOO. Mr. Myers put forward three grounds for opposing the application. The first was that the petitioning creditors were, and are bound by the deed of assignment, for though they had not actually executed the deed, stiil they had asssnted to it in such a wav as to estop them. Tlie second point 'was that the petitioning creditor." in any ca=e had no Mains, because after the deed wa< agreed upon and before the petition was lodged, thev aligned their debts to ono Pratt. The third

point was that the affidavits would establish that there was sufficient cause under tho Act. whv no order should be made, even tliouprli his Honour should come to the conclusion that the debtor and the assignees were not entitled to succeed on the two first points. Counsel referred to threats that were alleged to have been made to Kegel's. . Mr. nosj'lieii contended that his clients were not estopped, but if they were estopped then thov set up execution ot the deed as an act of bankruptcy. Counsel submitted that they were not estopped from setting up a second act ot bankruptcv. nainclv, the return of nulla bona on a distress warrant. Therefore it was due to the petitioning creditors that h.KRers should be adjudicated a bankrupt. The assignment, he argued, was never completed. There had been no attempt at extortion, and legal remedies only had l:?en resorted to in the effort to recover what was due to the creditors. During the course of argument', it w« suggested that if the rent preference clause were modified, the deed ot assignment might bo accepted. Mr. Hoglien declined to agree to this, and the hearing continued. , ~ His Honour intimated that be would give decision in a week's time.

CIVIL SESSIONS,

LIST OF CASES. The civil sessions of the Supreme Court commence on Monday next when there is a fairlv lengthy list to be dealt with. The list will be called over in Chambers at 10.30 a.m. to-day to arrange the order of cases. The following cases nro set down for hearing:— Before a Judge and a Jury of Twelve. D. G. M'Girr v. Phelps, Wilson, and Co., a claim for .£514 Ills. Gd. damages alleged to be due for bodily injuries, Thomas Hood v. John Braid, claim for .£5Ol damages for alleged slander. Peter h'arlsen v. Westport Coal Co., Ltd.. claim for .£5Ol damages alleged to be due for bodily injuries. William de Kenzv v. I'raser llamsay (New Zealand) Ltd., claim for .£10,408 damages alleged to bo due for breach of contract. Before a Judge and Jury of lour. A. Gray and D. G. Jackson v. Oliver Mcwhinii'ey, claim for ,£251 os. 2d. alleged to bo due for services rendered. Weslev Knight v. S. S. and T. Mason, claim for .£255 damages alleged to be due for breach of warrant, 'etc. Before a Judge Alone. H M. the King v. Walter Leopold Buller and others, claim for .£4OO alleged to be due for duty payable. Charles Pritchard v. John J. Harle claim for J2157 Bs. alleged to be due for work done, etc. . C. 11. Izard v. W. J. Jamieson, claim for possession, etc. James Gilbert and Co. v. Andrew Smaill Johnston, claim for JC7O7 Us. 2d. alleged to be duo under agreement. John Ewing..Walker and others v. Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the Loan for Tramways, paving and Town Hall, claim for .£IOB Os. 7d. damages alleged to be .due for breach of contract. F. W. Scott v. O. W. and W. E. Dickinson, claim for .£3lB alleged to be due for indemnity. II.M. the King v. Public Trusteo and District Land Registrar, declaration, etc. Geo. Bolton v. Martin Joseph and Amy Louisa Lee, claim. for injunction, etc. Harcourt and ' Co. v. K. Mackenzie claim for ,£350 alleged to be duo for commission. '..'.. . : . . , Hamanos • Kairooz v. Mary Ivairooz, claim for possession of land/etc. Wm. BrunskilT v. Barbara Mary Anderson and Goorge Cowan, declaration. James Drysdalo v. W. J. and Annie Perkins, claim for' .£2711 Gs. lid., alleged to be due for goods supplied, etc. Banks Co-operative Meat Distributing Co., Ltd., and Wm. Nicholson v. W. Dimock and Co., Ltd., declaration. Charles Pratt and Co. v. Frank Shaw claim for £225 alleged to be due for goods supplied. ~ • , G. H. Macewan and J. B. Macewan and Co., Ltd., v. Joseph Hopkirk, claim for injunction, etc.