MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2394, 25 February 1915, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

OFFICIALS IN TROUBLE

CHARGED WITH THEFT OF .. MONEYS COMMITTED FOR TRIAL Two ex-Civil Servants appeared bofore Mr. D. G. A. Coopor, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yostorday, ohargod with the theft of largo sums, tho property of tho Government.' Ernest Alfred Woloh. and Jnmoß Gibson ISriant, tho two accusod, wore charged in tho first place with attempting to commit tho tboft of £790) tlio property of tho Now Zealand Government, at Wellington, on February 12. Other charges against Woloh wcro as follow:—(2) Having roocivod £17 4s. lOd. from C. H. Treadwell on torms requiring him to account for the samo to the Receiver-General, and fraudulently omitting to account for thosame. • (3) On November 29, 1011, stealing £44 Is. lid., the property of the Becoivor-Gon-cral; (4) June 18, 1913, stealing £42 from the samo; (5) September 1, 1913, attempting to defraud by omitting to make a material entry, in tho cash Dook regarding a cheqno for £70 10s. lid.; (6) October.l 3, 1914, fraudulently failing to account for £30 ss. 2d.: (7) December 8, 1914, stealing £30 from the Receiver-General; (8) Decomber 11,

1914, stealing £63 -7s. 6d. from the same. Briant was furthef oharged with the theft of a olieque for £790, the property of tho New Zealand Government. ■ Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared . for Welch, and Mr, P. W. Jackson for Briant. Ludwig A. Toutcnberg, registrar of the Ikaroa Native District of the Land Court at Wellington, said that prior to. February 12 last Welch held tho position of registrar..of tho Nativo Land' Court for the South Island.. ..Witnoss knew the hand-writing'of Welch, and the handwriting on the cheque, for £780 (produced) was that of Welch's. Tho cheque .came from tho back of witness's law trust account cheque book, which book he kept in a drawer in .his office. Neither of the accused had a right to use this, cheque book. There was nothing in the Native Laid Court to warrant Welch drawing a chequo for that amount. The accused Briant was not connected with witness's Department, and consequently had no right with the cheque produced. ' To Mr. Wilford: 'Accused had .a free run on the law trust account. ' Since July, 1913; there had been no countersigning of oheques, no audit, or no supervision- apart from' the man' whowrote the cheque.' The Jndgeof the Native Land Court had no authority over the issue of the cheques.' The cheque produced was a .valid cheque on the account under-accused's control, as thero ivas mora than this amount in the'account in question. • If' Welch had cashed the cheque produced, arid paid' it into the Receiver-General's deposit account there'would be nothing against instruction to do such. a thing, though •it would have been correct to put through the cheque itself .on to the .ac-! count.- ":

Mr. Wilford: Do you- not know that for some -weeks prior to February 12 Welch was. in the "horrors" from, drink? : • Witness: Not of my own personal knowledge. > . '' '' ' Mr;'Wilford: Well, you know he had been drinking heavily., Witness: Yes. .. ' Mr. Wilford: Aid do you know that since I asked for a remand a week ago Welch has been in the delirium tremens at the gaolP Witness: No. Mr. Wilford: Well, such-is a fact. To Chief Detective BoddamFive oheques were missing from' witness's cheque book. , . ■ To Mr. Jackson: As far as the cheque was cphoerned,. it was in order in that Welch had a; right to sign the cheque without it' being countersigned by anyone. As..far as witness knew, Briant had no .right to the cheque, but if it were "given to him innocently he would have a colourable right to it.

- A Ledgorkeeper's Suspicions. Walter Francis Drake, Government ledgerkeeper at the Bank of New Zealand, said that he know accused Welch, and knew his handwriting. Welch had a Law Trust Account at the bank, and tho writing on the cheque produced was Welch's. On February 12 there was £1864 lis. 9d. in Welch's trust account. Oil the morning of the'twelfth Briant presented the cheque to witness, but as the Government Auditor had been making inquiries into this account, witness went back to Briant and asked him if he had reoeived the cheque from -Welch. Briant replied, ''The day previous." Witness did not oash the cheque, but detained Briant. - To Mr. Jackson: The cheque was perfectly in order under 'ordinary circumstances. Wheli Briant came to tho bank he smelt from drink, and did not appear to have his clear senses about him. Later Briant waa taken into the accountant's room and kept there until Detective Cameron arrived.

A Deteotive's Evidence. Detective Cameron said that on February. 12,, in response to 1 a message from the Bank of New Zealand, he went there and saw the accused Briant. The cheque produced ,was handed to witness. Briant' refused to' tell him his • name, occupation, etc.- Subsequently accused wrote down-his name as "T. A. Burns, 178 ■'Tinakori Eoad, tradesman." . Asked for an explanation as to how he came possessed of the cheque, Briant remained silent. On- coming away from the bank accused said he worked in the Treasury in an office on ( the second floor. He was taken to the ' Chief Detective's offioc, where Chief Detective Boddam told him that if he did not give a reasonable' explanation'as to how he came possessed of the cheque. he would be charged with theft. Briant replied he had none to make. The Chief Detective then.went to the Superintendent's office and accused said his name was T. A. Burns, that he lived at 153. Tinakori Eoad, and that he had picked up the cheque in Molesworth Street that morning. The Superintendent then arrived, and on asking accused for an explanation, accused replied, "I picked it up." The Superintendent said, "Did you get it from Welch?" Briant replied in the negative. Briant was subsequently charged with the theft of the cheque. Welch's Arrest. On February 13 Constable Cameron and witness arrested Welch at Lower Hutt on another charge. On the way into Wellington witness a6ked Welch, "Do you remember meeting anyone you knew?" Welch said "Yes, a man in [ the Government." Witness said. "Do you remember goinjj anywhere with that nian?" Welch replied, "Yes, I mot him near the railway station. I don't know his name. I know the man well. I suppose you know all about it, that's what I'm afraid of. I wrote out a cheque—it was for some hundreds, and gave it to him .to cash. Anyway ho is innocent." ; Accused showed signs of having been on a' heavy drinking bout. This concluded tho evidence for the prosecution". . The Defence. On behalf of accused. Welch, Mr. I'. M. Wilford handed in tho • following statement from Welch: —"I gavo tho chequo to Briant to cash for me as I was under.the influence of liquor. I did not tell him what I wanted it for. He had no wrong intention, and is innocent of wrong-doing. I am innocont of fraud." Mr. Jackson'submj/ted on Briant'e behalf that what he aid was an entire-' ly innocent act. It was true ho had attempted to cash tho cheque, but quite

iiuioecmtly, Rriaiit m«l> Weloli morning, 'awl luitli lunl Ihwii < Ir(tn(jiUJ heavily, wlinn Uti.oi' 111 tllf* IlKirlllllU Wololi ftfilitwl liini lo on nil llt« cheque. 11, was true l-liitl. Hrliuili luul niml«> n wrong sliitoniiMili lo Dol.wl.lm Oiiimt)'«>n, but tiliiH wiui-only lo »hk>kl Ills as wlion (in ttiuv .llic (M-oolih'fl l" 1 thought |x>rhaj>n iiomol.hing wait wroiu; with tho (ihwjuo. Brlnnt In tho Box. Briant thon wont into tlio box tfl g'w oridonoo. 110 wiul t'lmi prior to i'oliruary 12 ho had bouti a olorlt In llw Post and Tobgrnph ,I)i>)nuimoiil lor Ui« l>ast 2-1 yoarii. On aoajunt of Inti IwHig absent without loavo, )\6 was mIM to resign. Wituosa mot Wololi tlio morning of February 12, and both luul boon drinking. Later in l>ho mornuiK Wolch aslcod kim lo caali tho ohwitio ail ho did not want to go into tlio bunk, being conscious of a toar in h>« ooat. Wlion Dolcolivo Cameron arrived wilr noss <lid not say anything, and gavo hln wrong name, as their presence immo liim fear that something was wrong with tho chequo. Witness's nund was not cloar at tuo polico station. Witnoßs did not think ho was doing anything wrong ,and ■understood ho was to hand tho money to 'Wolch, To tho Cliiof .Detective: Witnoss and Wolch had boon good companions for four or five years past. Dotectivo Canioron was recalled for the defencc. Witness said he had omitted to stato that he asked Wolch tho quostion, "Was Briant with him when he wroto out tho chequo?" Welch replied in. the negativo, and said he had written out tho choque the morning previous at tho office when no one waa there.

Committed for Trial. Mr. Jackson then reaffirmed that the case of BriaAt should not go to tho Supremo Court. ■ ' Both accused then pleaded not guilty and were committed to • the Supremo Court for tri.il,. Bail was fixed as. before at £200 in each case. Welch was then remanded to Wednesday next, when the - six further charges will bo heard. • > . • On tho application of Chief Detective Boddam, the other, charge against Briant was withdrawn. Bail in respect to the other charges against Welch was fixed. at £50. OTHER CASES.... James Hendrick' pleaded not guilty to a charge of deserting from tho Expeditionary Force on December 25 last. Inspector Hendrey explained that thero was another charge pending against accused,' that of trying to dispose of his uniform. A remand was granted to March 1. i , A seaman named Robert Logan pleaded guilty to charges of drunkenness and deserting from the Buteshire.' Accused pleaded that he had only left his vessel to enlist at Trentham. The Magistrate took a lenient view of the case in consequence of this, and convicted him and ordered him to pay 7s. costs, in default 48 hours' gaol. Cecil Bullot was remanded to Monday on a charge of stealing a gold band ring, one stone, and a post office bank book containing £3 from Ernest Ching. Bail was allowed in £20. - • ' . ■ John O'Neil was fined 40s. with medical expenses 10s. 6d., in default'seven days"gaol, for drunkenness. Similarly charged,-John' Goorge Conroy was fined 10s., or 48 hours. • Arthur Pearce was. remanded to February 25 oh a charge of thieving a ring, a brooch, arid a sovereign, valued at £9 15s'., from' Daisy Amy Lazelle at the Empire Hotel. George Harold Tobin was further remanded to.Monday on a charge of being idle and disorderly, in that he consorted with people of reputed ill fame. Mr. H. P. O'Leary appeared on his behalf, and biil was allowed in £20..

Mary Brown was remanded for a week' for curative treatment on a charge of being found helplessly drunk. May Gibbons, an old offender, was sent to gaol for. a month for being disorderly while drunk..,, Henry Morgan Dwyer was oharged with committing a serious assault on ,a little girl of four years. He was dofended by Mr.. H. F. .O'Leary, and at the concrasiqn of the evidenoo was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed m £50.

A CIVIL CLAIM. A. claim to recover £99 9s. 6d. for goods supplied was heard before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., Kempthorne,Prosser and Company's New Zealand Drug Company, 1 Ltd., proceeding against P. G. Peillon and T. A. ,Smith, formerly trading as Peillon' and Smith, of Hastings, cordial manufacturers. Mr, H. E. Anderson appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. C. H. Croker, of Hastings, for defendants. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate reserved his decision.