CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4074, 17 March 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, March 17. ' ■ J (Before H, S. .Pish, Esq, and W. H, Reynold*.' 7 Esq., J.P.’a.

Allkqed Emskzzi.® meht.-—tiouia Baschwas' - charged, on remancb on the information of Alex. Bathgate, solicitor, wthhaving, on Febmary jw secretary to theV Colonial ■ Building and Investment .Cumpany, liken into v hwaccount a cheque for i 6, and, with embeszlmg the samp. Mr Barton defended.—Mr Bathgate explained that Mr Stout, who was retained for the p osecution, had gone , to the h.’M. s ( ourb to hear .a judgment delivered,. : and would be present immediately. ' Theßench could not be kept waiting for Mr Stout or anyone'else. As theie was no other busings before the Court they would a ijoum for five minutes, acd f counsel "was not then preseut the charge would then have to be ;: 3 go-.e into without him or be di u.issed.—Mr S out now attiv-d ahd apologised for detaining the Cour.,. He said the case was a wwmU .. one. the company was an incorporate body under the Joint . C tcck Company’s Act, 1860. ■ apJ accused was ap oinfed secretary. As , such be received from p osecutora cheque for ;; 1.5, but uid not pay it m to’tiie company’s account. On be ng questioued by the directors he told an untruth, saying that he had paid the cheque into the bunk and had got a pay- : slip which he would produce, but foiled to cto So, and the money had never been paid into the * company’s account Under the .Amended' * Ordinance the tench could,' at their discretion, deal summarily with a case where a . B ™ n of only L 5 was involved. He called Alex. Bathgate, solic tor, toho said that the'ao* eused w*s secretary to the Colonial Bniidine and 1 nVP9lmf>n f. i nmn.vin T • nr. n. .

iuvesuuenr,» ompany limited. (Mr Stout .. putiiu the certificate of inco poratlonof the ” Company.) As such. witness gave him the ‘ cheque produced for L 5 on February 12. (TVT r Barton objutted, the cheque net beingstpmped; ! ‘ but the Bench ruled fh tt its stamping was not necessary by an investment company.) The money was credited in witne-s's pass-book, I had i bee Hm Char S®d agaiust ■ by, the Bank -(The Bendh, in . answer i° Mr Barton, stated that they would' deal with the cse summarily.—Mr Barton ohjected, stating that the case was a.mosV im- . FM’ *ss?’ bf L 5.000 or , L6.ooo.—Mr Stout pointed out that the laris, lature never intended th.t the accu-ed should' bi* casebe sent t<- the Supreme Court. -Ihe Bench ruled against Mr Barton, holding ’ • that the Wniature intended that simple cases should be decided iu the inf nor CouTt where prac doable to .save unnecessary expense.—Wit-- - ness was prrtjont at a meeting of the dinctors . on February 17.- -Accused produced his cash- - book but there was no entry in it of the.LS. • In the first instance -he acknowledged hav'nr • receaved it, and that it bad ai pirentlv' bCen omitted, but said it was al right. He was " asked for the bank-book to show if the money ’ had hem paid in, but said he had not got He ..further stited that - he hnd got a sl.p on paying the money m, and went to get that; slip,. After being m the outer office for some tone, he said re could not find: the slip; but that it would turn up, and that it would be all right. The ' shp never turned up.—jiy JMx Barton; -Witmss was not one of the di-ectors of the society. He was its sohcitor, and was owe of the promoters. . The compady under the memorandum

association had power to erect houses. IMr otout objected to the jine of cross-©xfljninatiOD* 1 but was over-ruled,) Sevei al mortgages had Mea prepared for the company. Shortly alter the. registration of the company some money wis drawn out of the bank.. Borne cold he received from accused he mixed up with his money.—Mr B.rton: Then, I presume, you w-.uld be much surj ristd at being charged < with embezz ement?—Witness s I was not a 8 ‘la ved officer of the company. The money - waj handed to me ill a decision By the direo ors - h>yd been arrived at—The B -nch had no wish to put a stop to the cross-examination, but they failed to sea any relevancy to the ■ case.—Mr fetoufc egrin objected : “ Surely Mr Barton did not wish to impute a charge of embezzlement Mr B thgat c \”—Mr Barton was surprised at Mr Stout'.- observation. Mi Bath- : ■ f ga*e was a per onal fiend of hie, and he sh- uld * v& sorry to Ihink anything wrong about him. An ur seemly quarrel took pkee between 6dpo ing coutfs-l and :to cat Tt short the BerwS. T decided to ailow the examinat ou.—Mr Barton : said he hid no further questions to put Re-examined: Th- go»d he hj d referred to «a having b en paid, ir-to his account was retained by him till the directors decided whether there should be a o‘auge in ihe banking account. Jones, rasch a partner, had no conneotio . with the company George Har< is, oh ii man of the directors of the company, proved t iasch’s anpoir.ticent as eecr- Wy at a meeting n f

Sectors. Wr Bat&.te said that twT were two aru.-unti. paid to Basch, one by him and one by his father, wkch ■: were not entered. .Basch said, “Oh, ite a mistake. Jones has forgotten to enter them ’* > He said that he paid ‘‘he m-mej* into the hank but wold not find the slij) when he looked for 1 V Ba f 88 rotary, pot L6O a-yoar.'and a shire of the rent of his offices, t y Mr Barton*; * OT fcLe . wbw. the company had been in exist* - tence tie bunness bad be£n pretty large. Bach cosduotea the affair* of the company -nd their role management, receiving money and p.ying account* mhe payments wem made without the sanction of the directed * W itness had heard that Joa. b. Basch and fto had put some L7OO of their own into Se ‘ i? ci M account -‘ Ibeybadnorighttodow! had out Basch to be mdeb.pd to the companv. • A bpoks ha<-bfen p’ac:d in the auditor’s hands basch narde a voluntary statement, that he was short sml would,.pay up th p deficiency if he , B Stout: XheOom . Witness knew of row directory Meffcw Niven, .

M‘Kinlay, and himself. Any two directors could sign a cheque. —Mr Stout : Then, I presume, if you and Mr M‘3Unliy signed a cheque for L3O, the other two directors could sign another cheque for L3O ? Witness: Yes, if the secretary was rogue enough to ask them te do so. The bank has taken over all the bills, which, amounted, he believed, to over 1.3,000. The bank has charged an overdraft of L 1,300 against the Company. Until these proceedings were commenced witness was not awar • of any over’draft.—Mr Barton said he Would prove beyond a doubt that Harris’s statement that Basch had admitted he was short was f -lse; for the Company really owed Basch L2OO .or L 300. Witness .(by the Bench): Mr Evans made Basch LSOO short—Basch had admitted before three or four of the directors that«he was L3OO

Sbi L4OO short. Albert Larnaab, teller of the Colonial Bank, paid tbe cheque vroducad on Saturday, the 12th February u-st, giving five one-pound notes for it.—James M'Lean, clerk to the National Bank, said that no cheque for 16 by Mr Bathgate had been paid into the Bank on the Society’s account since Febinary 12.—Mr Barton did not dispute that the cheque had not been paid in.—John Niven corroborated Harris’s testimony as to the statements made at the meeting by accused about the bankslips. Witness knew nothing of theover draft.— (Mr' Bartrim would admit that the director knew nothing of the Company’s affairs. Everything was left to Bosch’s sole management.) Accused, in the course of a conversation with witness about a week before this matter, turned up, and wanted witness to advance him L2OO, saying that the over Iraft at the Bank w»d very am all. At a meeting of the directors after Bascb’s arrest, the.

latter said he' would. make it up if he was short. In another private conversation

witness said to Basch that they wanted securities for about LSOO. and Basch said- he was L3OO eh rt.—By Mr Barton: This took place at Batch’s house. Mr M’Kinlay and Mr Lambert, two of the directors, went with him They talked of making up the deficiency.—Mr Bathgate, re-called, said that the cheque produced by Mr Larnach was the one he gave to accused.—This was the case for the prosecutor. For the defence Mr Barton submitted that it must be shown that the company was a company, and had power to receive money. Mr Stout had kept back tbe articles of association and also the' rules.—Mr Stout submitted that the lules were in evidence—Mr Fish ’: I think they are not in evidence.—Mr Barton sfdd that the only rule which had been put in was the one be read- to Harris that part of the company’s business was to erect houses. The second point rcquis te to be proved in a case of embezzlement was that accused was a servant or clerk, and that his duty Waa to receive m r ney on behalf of his masters and to pay it over to some other patties. Not a single word had been offered to show what Bascn’s duties as secretary were, and no doubt that had been kept back designedly,: as there was no resolution appointing him secretary.. There was not a particle of evidence to show that he was to act as treasurer. In investment companies a director generally attended on pay . nights to receive money, but here the business had been so loosely conducted that everythin* was left to Basch, who was a mere volunteer in the place, of a director. There was’no' evidence to. show what his duty was with the money when he received it. If he was called upon to produce evidence he would show that Jones, Basch, and Co. were putting tbeir own money into the bank to help to r dace the overdraft; and therefore if Basch' kept bask- a cheque he was not guilty of embezzlement There was not a particle ©f evi- * deuce to show that Basch had converted the cheque to his own private use; the only evidence was that up to the ' 18th it had not been pndin'o the Bonk.—Mr Fish # : There is-certainly no evidence to show - within what time the ' em-tary must make his paymen's into the Bank.—Mr Barton: And consequently the case nairows itself down to this fact, that there is no entry of the amount in the cash-book. To cleat Basch’s character, and to shpw that his business had conducted in an honest manner, he would call evidence' though he was cle-rly entitled to ask for his client’s discharge.—Mr K. H. Leary stated that he had gone over the books, an 1 he made the receipfs. from the time of starting the company, L 5,829 10s, of which L 5,246 18s ha-i been paid in cash into the bank, thus leaving an appaient deficiency of LSBO. However, the firm of Jones Basch, and Co. had also paid in bil s to the extent of L7i4 7s, which would leave the company indebt d to them' to the extent of Ll3O odd. As Mr Barton was about to call evidence the Bench (who had he’d a silent consultation) through Mr Fish, said that they considered it unnecessary to enter into further evidence. They were of "opinion that- the evidence had not disclosed, what they really considered to i.e the, gist of the cnarge a felonious intent* on the part of the accused in appropriating the .money. There wos no extraordinary lapse of tunei between the 12th and the 17th February for accused to retain the money. Hitherto the law was such that in all

oases' of embezzlement' the hocused could not bS' sent to gaol 'without beibg pot on his trial iq the higher Court, and as the Befich now sat as judge and jury they had to consider whether the evidence was sufficiently strong to jus'ify a conviction in the ewnt of the case' going before the Supreme Court. Taking the circumstances into consideration they held (hat there was not sufficient evidence of a felonious intent on the part of the acc r Bed for a jury to convict, and accused would therefore be discharged.