Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. Fjriday, April 10. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman,) EMBEZZLEMENT. William Sturrock was charged with embezzling, on the 3rd ovember, the sums of 12s and LI 5s lid, the property of Messrs David Dewar and John Hialop, Tokomairiro .The Crown Prosecutor stated the facts of the case, from which it appeared that Messrs Dewar and Hialop were appointed as trustees of the estate of a Mr Ford, who had got into difficulties, and, actmg m that capacity, employed prisoner to collect soma book debts. He was to be pa'd seven per cent, on the moneys he collected. Prisoner, it was alleged, had collected L 27 on account of the estate, but had not paid in any of it. Mr Haizgitt concluded by pointing out that these were totally different •-barges to that of the previous day, and the jury should not be influenced by the verdict m the other case on which he was acquitted. charge on which he was arraigned on the previous day was that of embezzling 16s which also formed part of the 1.27. David Dewar, captenter, of Tokomairiro, said he and Mr Hialop wore appointed trustees in the estate of Mr Ford, and then ap* j

pointed prisoner to collect the debts due to the estate. He was instructed in the month of October to collect them, and pay the amount either to the witness or into the trustees account at the Bank of JNevv Zealand. About a month afterwards witness, asked him how he was getting on, to which he answered that he had got in about L 27. He’ was then instructed to sue for the remainder, but had no. done so in a fortnight’s time. Witness then asked what he had done with the L 27 he had received, prisoner saying he had paid ic into his own account at the Bank of Otago, now the Aatinnal Bank. Witness made inquiries and found such was not the case, and. had never received anything from prisoner on account of the debts. John Hisiop, the other trustee, gave similar evidence, adding that when they found prisoner s statement about paying the money iuto the Bank to be uutru.e, they said they c mid not trust him any more, and that he had better give up the books. Prisoner said he could do that any time, and arranged to give them up on the following Monday at 7 o’clock, at the Commercial HoteL. Witness • waited about till 9 or 10 o'clock, but prisoner did not go there.' Proceedings ware then taken inthe Resident Magistrate’s Court at Tokomai- : riro, and prisoner was committed for. trial. -—Robert Chalmers, farmer, said he had owed Mr Ford some money, which he paid prisoner, who collected is on behalf of Messrs Dewar and Hisiop.—Mary Powell, residing at (Jiarkville, Tokomairiro, said her husband owed Mr Ford 12s, which she paid to prisoner, who gave her the receipt produced.—B. H. Solomon, manager of the ‘ Bruce Herald,’ proved the insertion in that paper of a notice by the trustees appointing prisoner to collect debts due to the estate.—Gerald WiHiem Spooner, teller in the -National Bank at Tokomairiro, said neither of the trustees, had an account with that bank, :■ but prisoner bad. The latter had not paid in any money since October.—By Mr Stout: Witness never left the bank during business hours, unless it were to post letters, m that case the manager or accountant would act as teller.— A. Joues, manager of the Bank of New Zealand there, said the' trustees had an account for the estate at bis bank, and also individual

accounts. Prisoner had not paid any money in to any of these accounts since (November 3 of last year.—Unward Smith, sergeant of police, stationed at Tokomairiro, said he arrested prisoner in the Criterion Hotel billiard room at that place. On searching him he found some papers oh which were what appeared to be statements of accounts received. I'he names of Rowell and others with amounts against them, marked “P,” were on them.— James M’Cubbin, baker; said that one day in February prisoner left some account books or ledgers at his shop. He had a black eye, and so he had on a later day. Mr Stout not calling any witnesses, The Crown Prosecutor said that the excuse that a black eye prevented prisoner from meeting Mr Hislop on different evenings appointed on which to pay over the money he had collected, could not hold good, as it was proved that he had, during the same time, frequented billiard rooms and gone about as usual. The moneys were due to ■he trustbes whenever they demanded them of prisoner, and, although he admitted collecting part, still he would not pay it over, but said he had paid it into an account of his own at the bank. This had been proved not to be the case. ■

Mr Stout said this was a charge of embezzlement, whereas it was really only a failure to account for certain moneys. Prisoner had told trustees the exact amount he had collected, and they, had' really, never demanded it of him. Because prisoner had told Mr Dewar a falsehood in saying he had paid the money into his own account, the learned Grown Prosecutor would have it he vas guilty of embezzlement. That was simply absurd : to say that telling a lie was to be guilty of embezzlement. The law said that there must be a time fixed for the payment of the amount collected, or else the collector must be distinctly asked for it. His, Honor said it was necessary in cases of embezzlement to establish the relations of

master and servant. A collector was really a servant. Then the jury must go into the facts of the evidence, and decide as to the appropriation of. the money. There was no doubt in ‘this case that certain sums'had been received by the prisoner '; the question was whether he had appropriated these to his own use. Was the delay of over three months iff 'accounting for these sufficient bo prove embezzlement, when taken with the false statement that he had paid- the money into a bank, and the non!-keeping of the appointment with the trustees. Uhe jury retired for a -few minutes and then returned a verdict of guilty.’ 1 His Honor sentenced prisoner to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. 1 Buuqlary. Jdhn Fearen was indicted for breaking into the house of the Hon: J. Paterson, High street. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Barton. The evidence was given in full in our report ff the proceedings at the kesident Magistrate’s Court the day following the committal of the offence. The trial was proceeding at 4 30 p.m. The trial of Manassey v. Bell has been postponed till the, 29th inst.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740410.2.12

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3473, 10 April 1874, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,142

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3473, 10 April 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3473, 10 April 1874, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert