LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1697, 13 March 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

' MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Biddell, S.M.) ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION. CHARGE'AGAINST A NEWSPAPER CAM'ASSEIt. Before Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, George Lnsk, recently an employee ot t7ie "i.V'W Zealand Truth," was charged with failing to account for ccrtain moneys received by. him whilst in the firm's employ. The accused was an advertising canvasser.for the firm, and was also a writer of afhlctic notes for the paper. ile was alleged to have misappropriated the sum of X.'ii l?s.,' being money which, it was alleged, he had collected in payment of accounts owing to tho linn.

Mr. M. Myers appeared for the accused, and Chief-Detective Broberg represented tho police.

Evidence was given by Herman W. A. Wollerman, manager for Wollernian and Co., wine and spirit merchants, Wellington, who said he knew Lusk as a canvasser for the "New Zealand Truth," and had made various payments, totalling about .£25, to him, the last being made on August 19. On each occasion witness had received a receipt signed by tlie accused.

Evidence as to payment of accounts to tlie accused was also given by W. S. Hood (treasurer, Wellington Cricket Association), M. J. Donnelly (of Messrs. MacMahon and Donnelly, picture proprietors), P. Rodgers (liccnseev Shamrock Hotel), P. W. Corby (licensee Terminus Hotel), and B. C. Warnes (manager, Oxypathor Co.). t George Bradley, motor and cycle dealer, Ilower Hutt, said that on or about October i ho received a 1 letter from the accused, stating that he (accused) had just come back from tho country, and asking Bradley to hold over, his account until ho came out, as some mistake had been made. In the letter accused mentioned that there was a new man in the oCice.

N. AVestbrook, commission agent. Lower Hutt, also gave evidence of payment to the accused. Witness said that on one occasion he met the accused and_ anctlier 'man at the Duke of Edinburgh iTotel, on March' 15, 1911, and., the accused asked him for is, saying that 110 wanted the money to .send his friend to Napier. The witness gave him a cheque ior the amount, but did not get any receipt. Later, Lusk'called on him again, and said that lie had been asked by the "Truth" management to collect £3 ss. in .settlement of an account, aud that the sum of *C 5 he had already received, with the .£3 55., wuuld .settle'the account. Accused said tie would "square" the account, and promised to send a receipt. In 0 nsequpneo of something which camo to witness's knowledge subsequently, ne spoke to the accused with regard to his account with "Truth," and told him that Pratt and Co. had written to him in respect to £7 55., said lo be due to "Truth," and threatening to sue him for it. Lusk said he would see Pratt and Co., ;uid settle the matter, and tell them not to sue. Witness had previously received an account from "Truth," and hocused had said "Don't take any notice of it—it will be all right." Claude L. Kae, accountant, employed by "Truth," said that the accused's duty was to canvass for advertisements for the paper. Lusk had 110 authority to c.-.'.lect accounts and give rcccipts—he (witness) knew of 110 agreement to that ct'.ect. Once or twice he had told Lusk not to collect'accounts, as there were collectors to do the work. "Truth" had an account with AVollerman and Co., and between April (J, 1911, and April 4, 1912, there were pavments made by this firm totalling Ills. A number of receipts were produced for amounts which were r.ever paid into "Truth" ollice. During that period the accused was earning *11 average of ,C 5 per week, on commission, aud besides this was' earning ,£l lor literary contributions. ; Frederick James Dawson, nianagingeditor or "Truth.," said llr.it 011 November 2-1 he spoke to Lusk with respect to his-having "collected a sum of .money from Howe and Sotvman. Tho accused denied this at first, but witness said it was nonsense telling lies about the mutter, and subsequently gave him m-ticc, with twenty-four hours wherein to make up the balance in"lloue and gowinan's account. Accused did this, and when asked if he had misappropriated any other moneys, he made out and handed in a list, totalling «£H4 ss. Gd. AA : itness then asked the accused if' the commissions duo to him would cover defalcations, and ho said they would. Regarding the letter which Bradley received from accused, witness said that Lusk's statement that there was a new man in the office was untrue.

To Mr. Myers: Lusk had < i-licclcd moneys several times, but he had no authority }o do so.

Detective Andrews gave evidence as to arresting the accused, who then remarked that he had only collected the accounts of those people whom 110 met 011 his rounds. In reply to Mr. Myers, his AVorship said that it was 110 use addressing him ::n the case. He was aware that the case was not a very strong one, but it was one for a jury to decide. Tho accused pleaded not guilty, and reserved his defence, and was committed ta tiie Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in the stun of £50. ! FAILURE TO ACCOUNT.

Seven charges ol| failing to account for various sums of money, totalling .£3B 10s. 5d., were preferred against a young man named James Moore, an employee of the "New Zealand Times" Company, Ltd. The charges were that:—(l) On Ji.jmnry 19, 1912, ho failed to account for the sum of .El 10s.; (2) on March 1!), 1012, for the sum of <£5 19s. 3d.; (3) on March 25, 1012. for J:3 2s. 4d.; (f-J April 27, 1912, for .CO 10s.; (5) July 25, 1012, for ,£2 14s. Gd.; (6) September 21, 1912, for «E3 10s.; and (7) that on October 18, 1912, having rc-ceived the sum of .£7 3s. Id. from the liicsden Piano Co., he did- fail to account te tho company for the sum of £2 10s. /Mr. P. Levi appeared for the accused. In this case the evidence of one witness was taken, in order to allow Her to return to Christclnirch. The witness, Agnes Maud Adnnms, employed by Aulsebrook and Co., biscuit and confectionery manufacturers, Christclnirch, on being examined by Chief-Detective Broljerg, seated (hat on April 25, 1912, she forwarded to (he "Times" Company a cheque for i! 9 10s„ on behalf of her employers, in payment of an account. Witness received a receipt (produced) from the "Times" Company. This concluded her evidence, and the accused was remanded until March 19, bail being allowed in the sum of £SO. Five charges of failure to account for moneys totalling .£53 Is. 10d., received on behalf of the "New Zealand Times" Company, Ltd., were also preferred against a young man named Herbert Gregory Bailev,. an employee of the firm. The charges individually v;ero that (1) on January 27; 1911, he failed to account to tho company for the sum of .£2O, which he received from the British Empire Trading Company; (2) on May 23. 1911, he failed to account for tlio sum of .£G Is.; (3) on February 21, 1912, for the sum of >£U lis. Gd.; (i) oil April 25, 1912, for the sum of .£3 7s. (id.; and (5) on July 30, 1912, for the sum of ;£S.

31 r. Percy Jackson appeared for (lie dofondant. who was remanded till March 19. Bail was in the sum of JJSO. CHANGES OF THEFT. John Watson,, alias John Power, was charged with the theft of slb. of tobacco, valued at ill 10s., the property of Harriott Smith. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. Edward E. Bentlpy, who pleaded guilty to charges of theft of a glmistono bag and contents, valued at £i 10s„ the property of A. A. Keaddie, ami a pair of boots, valued at 255.. the property of Albert C. Cate. was fined 40s. on each charge, in default 14 days' imprisonment. The accused was ordered to refund the cost of the boots, 255. INSOBRIETY. Ivato Robinson was fined 10s., in default IS hours' imprisonment, on a (diarge of insobriety. For a similar oll'cncc, Michael Scullion was lined Ids., in default iS hours' imprisotiiiteii 1. One first offender was lined a similar amount. Cn.VTJGK OF ASSAULT. Fitzgerald (.'lark (represented bv Mr. Perry) was further remanded to .March 111, »ii a e.lmrno of assault on Ed. Doherly, »vlnj ia still iiim.ble to lwvf the hospital, Bail wm allowed in (lie sum of £150 or two sureties of i£7o each,