SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2082, 17 May 1907, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTINGS The criminul sittings of the Supremo Court was concluded yesterdaJ' ALLEGED THEFT.

Sydney Herbert Eddoll appeared to answer four charges of alleged theft from several women, amounting in all. to £47 14s 6d.

Mr. Stock appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The following jury were empaunellod: Messrs. G. K. Pasley (foreman), J. AY. Cook, P. Barker, Reos Jones, lv. H. Humphries, J. D. Harries, C. Blackburn, CJ. E. Olding, AV. L. Mitchell, F. AV. Rettie, AV Allen and J. D. Roll.

The Crown Prosecutor, in opening, said that accused was employed as a carter and he was authorised to collect accounts. At the bottom of his month’s bills was put down “account rendered” These were not delivered. Before dolivory to the customer, the bottom was torn off, showing only the current month’s supply. This discovery was only made when one of his employers was bankrupt. Mary Charlotte Davey, boardinghouse koopor, deposed that she had hocen dealing with Boavis, butcher, since he started and until'lio ceased business. Accused delivered the meat to her and also tho monthly accounts. Identified an account produced for £5 6s 7Jd, dated January of last year and receipted by accused. Also identified other accounts for various sums. Paid £4 15s on tho last aocount which was for £5 3s od. In the butt of the account book was shown £l3 8s 6d, being an addition of £8 15s Id. Amelia Elizabeth Adams, boardinghouse keeper, in Kahutia street, said she had moat from accused and paid linn every month. Identified his receipts for an account for £8 10s sd. By Mr. Stock: Did not see accused make entries in a book.

Ellen Driscoll, wife of Tliomas Driscoll, laborer, said accused supplied her with meat till November, 1906 Identified aocount for £3 5s lOd paid by her aunt and receipted by accused. By Mr. Stock: Accused made entries in his book. AA’as not certain if he entered that account. Margaret Jennings, wife of Michael Jennings, stated that accused supplied her with meat until Beavis closed up. Never received any accounts from him. Entries were made m her book by accused. In January paid him £1 14s 6d, in February £1 13s 9d, in March £1 2s sd, April £1 19s 4d, May £1 19s 4d. Never had an account rendered during that time Never paid £3 in one lot.

By Mr. Stock: Accused always carried a book but never saw him make any entries in it.

•Henry Beavis, butcher, deposed that accused was employed all through the business. His duties was to sell for cash and for credit, to collect money and give receipts. Upon his return, lie, laid his bag on the table, deducted out the £2 change he commenced with in the morning and would write on paper the amount of money he had received and the balance would be cash sales. Accused was driving number one cart. Witness entered these statements in the day book. On 7tli February there was no entry of £4 paid by Mrs. Davy. On 28tii July there was no record of any payment of Airs. Davey. If monies were received on that day they were not accounted for by accused. On 7th May, 1906, there was no entry in Mrs. Adams’ credit. No credit was ;iven Mrs. Jennings for 30th January ast, nor-on g7th or 28 February, but he paid £3 on her behalf. In the second bill book there were a number of accounts for delivery to Mrs. Jennings. One in January showed account rendered £1 17s 7d. AVitness rave this to accused to deliver. Bill rook number three showed an account to her for £1 5s 2d, and account rendered to £3 Bs, making £4 13s 2d. Another showed £1 13s 3d, account rendered £4 13s 2d. These should have been delivered by prisoner! The day book showed two credits .of £3 each on July 4tli and May 7tli. The ledger which was kept regularly posted up showed the two credits of .£3. His Honor said that tho prosecution wore trying to show that Mrs. Jennings was credited with £6 6s sd, but she stated slio had paid monthly.

Air. Nolan said that the entries wer enot correct. Tho amounts’ received by Eddell were entered in Airs. Jennings’ hook and ho triod to show that the monies .were, not paid fo Beavis.

By Air. Stock: Could not say if any money was owing by Airs. Jennings on 31st Alay. A good clerk .would look to tho ledger to see if there was any balance owing by tho customer. On 3rd June slio owed £3 3s Id, and by the day book and bill book lier account was wiped off. Accused usually watched the entries being; made on the books. Had never had accounts from customers marked account rendered, which they previously paid. There was an account to Airs. Taylor on Juno 30tli, receipted by witness. This was recorded in tlic cash boo’k which was not produced. Knew Mrs. Pearce and receipted an account for her oil Alay 30th.; AVas always in a fit condition to receive tlic money. It was untrue that he had been drinking heavily for months. Admitted taking out a prohibition at his own request to prevent him from drinking. Regarded such a statement as confidential. Alary Elizabeth Beavis, wife of previous witness, said accused was in her employ as a carter. "When accused returned his statements were entered by witness or Bartlett. Op July 4th," some of the entries were hers. The total cash takings for that day were £1 9s lid. If any money was received from Airs. Driscoll it would have been entered there. By Air. Stock: Accused always remained while she entered up the books and counted the money. The day book showed all monies received. Any customer’s payment in the shop would bo entered. If Airs. Pearce paid £4 on loth Alay it would be in the hook. Gerald Bartlett, employed by! Airs. Beavis, said part of his duties was to receive the monies brought in by the carters. Entries on May 7th, J 906, were in his handwriting. There was no entry for £8 or any other sum on that day. If any money were paid him it would have been entered. Bv Air.. Stock: AA 7 as usually present when accused returned in the evenings Accused waited till the business was completed. Airs. .' Pearce’s account was stamped and dated 12/5/06. The book' showed no entry for that day. It looked as though £4 was paid and not entered in the cash hook. Thought that was the only case at the shop where the entry had been overlooked. On Alay Bth a credit was given to Airs. Pearce. His Honor said the suggestion was that the present witness took the money. AA 7 itness, continuing, said that probably the money was paid and 'the account brought in later. Gardner’s son supplied her with a basket from the shop aud would not havo the account.

Detective Maddorn, gave evidence I to seeing accused on 30th August at tlie Official Assignee’s Office. Asked ; him to whom lie paid an account for ' £8 10s sd. Accused indicated Bcavis and said he paid all monies colle to Idlin' ' Witness then showed Jiiiu Mrs. Driscoll’s account (receipted) and ho said he paid that to Mrs.. Bcavis, and lie hail to spell the name for her. Witness pointed out a discrepancy in tho dates and then explained that after signing the receipts, sho did not pay as she did not liavo the money. Witness said tho hook showed that she paid £3 twice and no two accounts would tally with £3. He replied that lie could not be expected to remember everything. Accused was arrested on find September. Mr. Stock, addressing the jury, said it was necessary. for them to believe that he failed to account for the monies received, before convicting. The books had been kept in a very unreliable planner. He contend’

od that Beavis’ evidence was unsatisfactory.' He said customer’s monies were entered in another book, whereas he was contradicted by his wife and Bartlett. He thought it was reasonable to suppose that Beavis had been drinking heavily before the bankruptcy and could not attend to business "properly. Probably the monies were paid by accused and Beavis did not enter them owing to his having been drinking. His Honor said it was clear that accused received the monies and there was no record in the books and the suggestion was that someone had committed theft. It was not in evidence that Beavis had been drunk, hut a statement of counsel’s left as an explanation of the absence of the entries. But this did not apply to Airs. Beavis. Embezzlement would bo a very easy process is an accused person had merely to get his counsel to .vaguely suggest that someono else was guilty of the offence. AA’ithout retiring tho jury announced a verdict of “Guilty.”

His Honor in passing sentence, said it was not a case for probation. The Act was intended for young men with a clianco of reform. Tho money had been stolon systematically. Drunkenness was no excuse. He would he sentenced to nine months imprisonment in Auckland prison.

CIVIL SITTINGS. ALLEGED LIBEL. Tho civil sitting commenced yesterday afternoon when Cecil Francis Lewis (Alessrs. Stock and Do Lautour), proceeded against AVilliam Atwill Spurrell (Air. H. D. Bell, instructed by Air. AA’. D. Lysnar) to recover £5lO damages for libel. The following jury was empaimelled: Alessrs. C. Blackburn (foreman), \Y. H. Craig, T. AlcConnoll, Ed AA’illiams, K. Campbell, G. T. Ball, J. J. Brosnahan, A. Alcßeath, James Blance, T. D. Baker, A. Kirk, J. E. AlcKinley and J. R. C. Parker.

Air. Stock in opening said that defendant was a member of tho AVaimata Road Board. Plaintiff valued a property at AVaimata. At a meeting of the Board defendant said, “Spurrell is an honest man. He didn’t cart the Government valuer round and tickle his palm to get his value lowered.” This could only mean that Air. Lends had accepted a bribe. He denies that he used and published the words and if they were used he denied that they referred to plaintiff. His Honor would decide whether there was any privilege at such a meeting. It is stated that Air. Strachan asked. defendant why he did not get a lower valuation and defendant replied with the words in question. Slander consisted of defamatory words and was actionable when a refutation was thereby injured. If it were shown that they were spoken in his office it would he presumed that damage had resulted and it wouldl not be necessary to prove this. He called Plaintiff, who deposed that lie was Government valuer for the Cook, AVaiapu and AA'airoa Counties. His duties commenced on Ist Alay. 1904. Since thou had continuously acted as ' Government valuer. On 21st , January received letter (produced) from defendant, saying that lie could not fill ill a land tax form, awaiting information. AVitness furnished the required information. When defendant received notice of the assessment of his property he lodged a notice of objection and interviewed witness. Also valued Air. Strachan’s property Called at Spun-ell's place in company with Strachan during December, 1905 or the January following. He was not at home, and a few flays lateir lie saw Spurrell who regretted his absence on that occasion. Reduced Spurrrell’s valuation by £l4O. By Air. Bell: Had no other occupa- ! tion outside valuing. Air. Coutts was ; also <.Fsmg some valuing in Waiapu County. Perry’s property was valued ‘ by Coutts the previous year. Heard from several sources about the discussion of the AVaimata .Road Board. Strachan was the first man who said he was accused of accepting a bribe. ' AA’as not certain when that was. Strachan rang witness tip, saying that there was some uncalled for words in ■ the AVaimata, but lie would not mention it on the telephone, but said lie would be in town in a day or two, and would then toll him. That would be. between 6 and 7 p.m. Strachan said it referred to witness and mentioned a libellous statement having ; been made, ljijfc was not clear that it referred to him. ' ' Strachan did not say that ho would come to his office. \ Did not say lie was coming into town for that especial reason. Knew nothing of the gates oil the road loading to defendant’s property. When Straclian came into town ho told witness that Spurrell made a statement at a meeting of the Road Board accusing him of having tickled witness’ palm to value his place, and carting him round. AA’itness said it was a most scandalous thing for anyone to say. Me. had been 27 or 28 years in the district, and his character had never been impugned in that way. He would sec his solicitor at once and give him instructions. Strachan did not say that lie must clear his character; "lie said it was a scandalous statement. AVitness wont to his solicitor the same day Strachan saw him. Before Strachan came to town lie had been asked if his hand tickled. This person was only “chaffing” so far as lie knew. Did not think anyone spoke to him of the affair before he consulted his solicitor. Advised the head of his Department of what lie was doing, after going to the solicitor. Prior to that demanded an apology. , Howard Kemvay, sheeplnrnier, said he was chairman of the AVaimata Road Board. Knew that Lewis was Government valuer; lie valued AVaimata district. Spurrell was also a member of the Board. AVitness was at a meeting of the Board at which Strachan, AiePliail, Spurrell, and Martin were present. There was a discussion about placing, gates on certain roads. They were talking about whether they should grant leave to a sheep farmer to place gates on a certain road. It resulted in a notice of motion being given by Air. Strachan to give Air. Monk permission to erect tho gates, and when that notice of motion was given, Spurrell lost his temper, insulted the members collectively and individually and said, “Air. Spurrell is an honest man. He does not cart the Government valuer round and tickle his palm to get his values lowered like Air. Strachan.” AA’as certain Spurrell used those words. The discussion became , heated, but Strachan had given no cause for such a remark. Air. Stock asked who witness thought the words referred to, and Mr. Bell objected, saying it was a question for the jury to decide. This was a recent decision. His Honor said the jury should decide whether the words “Government valuer” referred to Air. Lewis. Continuing, witness said ho understood Spurrell referred to plaintiff. Air. Stock proceeded to ask what the witness understood by the words “tickling his palm”—Air. Bell objected. ■ : His Honor said the words “tickling his palm” meant bribery. ' Bv All'. Bell: Know that there wore I lour gates .within a mile across the public l foad, fencing the road into' a paddock. The gates would cause inconvenience, especially to ladies. Knew that Spurrcll’s wife drove a ] OU o. To the best oi his recollection the Board permitted the moving of two of the gates. Strachan’s motion means to restore the two gates which • the Board had removed as being an - obstruction. Personally did not dis- ■ like Air. Spurrell. Thought ho was ; unreasonable and insulting at tho : time. Spurrell stood alone in the Board in that matter. AA’ould not , sav that he was regarded as an uu- ■ reasonable inembe}- always, hut he • was on some matters. Only Spurrell • voted against the notice of motion i for next meeting. To the best of his ■ belief did not say that it was uo use

for Spurrell to talk as he had made up his mind. AA’itness was chairman, and as Spurrell exceeded tho limits of decency and order he had to he remonstrated with. At the close Siiurrell said he was a large ratepayer and therefore his convenience ought to ho considered. He also said his property was valued at £3831. Strachan may possibly have said “AA’hy don’t , you got it valued lower.” Strachan said something then ; witness thought he used the words quoted. Tho words “I don’t take the valuer round and tickle his palm” were used previously. It was possible that tho words were used alter the remark that ,Spurrcll’s property was valued at £3831. That was the place for such a 'reply, but ho was not certain. Alay have been mistaken about the time they, were used. The words used wore “tickled his palm,” not “tickled his fancy.” AA’itness had added tho words “like Air. Strachan” to the sentence, but Mr. Bell objected to the evidence.

His Honor ruled against him, say-, in gthat the witness was there to tell what happened, and it must be admitted.

AVitness, continuing, said he did not know that Strachan himself denied that the extra words were added. \A 7 as quite certain that he said “like Mr. Strachan,” or as speaking to Air. Strachan, “like you.” Thought it was “like Air. Strachan.” Had no-

thing to do with the writing of the minutes. Had never seen such a minute before or since quoting the words of a speaker, because he had never heard such words before. His

recollection was not refreshed by seeing the minutes. Had read the minutes once to verify a date. Saw them yesterday at Air. Do Lautour’s office. When the minutes wore read Spurrell objected to them, hut he did not object specially to tho word “palm.”

Alalcoim Hobil Strachan, sheeprarmor of AVaimata, said Air. Lewis, Government valuer, valued his property about March, 1906. Accompanied him to Air. Spurrell’s at that time. AVas present at the meeting ot tth Alareli. Spurrell made a very personal speech. The subject under iiscussiou was the granting of leave co erect gates on the roads in the district. Mr. Spurrell objected to the gates in question, and spoke very hotly about thorn, speaking for about 20 minutes. After addressing the chairman, ho turned to witness, and mid “Air. Spurrell is an honest man. He docs not cart or lug the Government Valuator round and tickle his palm to get his valuation kept down.” He was theatrical about it, tickling his own palm, showing how die operation was performed. AA’as certain the words were used. Ad-

dressed witness personally with the words. By the term “Government Valuator” understood he referred to Air. Lewis. By Mr. Bell: Had nothing against defendant at all. Did not sympathise with plaintiff except inasmuch as he was accused of bribery. Didn’t remember ringing Lewis up, but personally interviewed him. Alay have rung him up, but would not be certain. Saw Lewis about a week or so after the affair happened. There were two gates on the road to Spurroll’s. The gates removed were on another road. The others removed

were five miles away. AA’itness was moving to restore the gates temporarily. Did not expect Spurrell to be annoyed. Did not think it was unreasonable for Spurrell to object or speak against the motion. It was the motion of restoring tho gates that ho was vigorously opposing Remembered defendant’s saying lie was x largo ratepayer. Spuirell said his property was valued at its full value or nearly so. Did not. think he asked why he did not get it lowered. -It ivas after he had spoken about the valuation of his property the statement was made. Spurrell kept on talking “in short spasms.” Referring to -carting tho valuer round, he spoke to witness. He reiterated the phrase “tickling his palm” a number of times.

Herbert Alexander AlcPhail, said lie was present at the meeting of the 1-th Alareli last, at which a discussion irosc over the gates. Spurrell objected to the stand the Board took and said ho was an honest man, etc. to Air. Strachan. Understood Air. Lewis to ho meant when he used the term Government A’aluer. By Air. Bell: AA’itness and others intended restoring two gates. They were against defendant in that matter. Remembered that defendant was a large ratepayer. Thought it was after that that the alleged libellous words were used. Did not remember defendant saying he was'valued at £3831, and did not remember Strachan intercepting and inquiring why lie did not get the valuation reduced. Edward Burbury Afartin said lie was clerk of the AVaimata Road Board and was present on 4tli Alareli. Defendant said he was valued more than anybody there, being valued to tho full amount. He was an honest-.man, lie said, and was not like Air. Strachan. lie did not tickle tlic palm of tlic valuer. He understood tho reference to he to Air. Lewis.

By Mr. Bell: Four gates had been removed. There were not four gates within a mile, hut there were within two miles. The motion was. to restore twer of tho removed gates. Notice of motion to rescind was given. Before that a motion hail been withdrawn as notice was necessary. Had kept tlic minute hooks ten or twelve years. Some words used by a member were entered in tho book ; did not know exactly when, probably about ten or -fourteen days afterwards. Could not say if the words' of a member had over been previously written down. AA’ould swear that he did not know positively. Did not hear Spurrell say that his property was valued at £3831. Would not swear tho contrary. Did not hear Strachan ask Spurrell why lie did not, get it lowered. AA’itness was a little hard of hearing, hut heard what was said at the meeting. AA’rote up tlic minute books from his notes and from his memory. -Did not. note every* thing that occurred. Had not “a ticket” on Mr. Spurrell. Had also used that expression before, hut not previous to Alareli 4th. AA’as a sympathiser with plaintiff in the matter; certainly not with Mr. Spurrell. By Air. Stock: Prepared a rough draft of the minutes the same evening and that was transcribed into the minute hole. Alt'. Bell, speaking to tlic jury, said it was impossible that defendant could have had any feeling towards Mr. Lewis. Defendant had been a schoolmaster and lie might naturally be expected to be somewhat impatient at the treatment he had received in respect of the gates. He contended that Spurrell’s reply was a perfectly logical answer to Strachan’s rain ark. The sequence was clear, and previous events, led up to it. He really defended his character. The Board misunderstood him. They were angry with him, and intended to rescind the removal motion then and there, but they discovered that notice was necessary. It was clear that strachan was hurt, and really put Lewis forward to answer this’. The juries would have a lot to do if Government officers took lip all that was said at such meetings. He was annoyed with the Board l'or the action in "trying to re-erect the gates. To His Honor, he submitted that it was a privileged occasion and asked for a non-suit.

His Honor said it was questionable and lie would not decide definitely. It was a subject for the jury. Ho would reserve his ruling as to whether the words “tickling his palm” meant the acceptance of a bribe. If the meeting was not privileged it would have to he shown that the words were used as a matter of duty. At 4.55 p.m. the Court adjourned until this morning.

Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, yesterday. 11l the Supreme Court Ernest Albert Stevens, for assault with intent to rob, was sentenced to three years' hard labor.' Edith AJalheson Alalzard, for neglecting a child, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, (lie Grand Jury having reduced the charge from causing death to neglecting. Isaac Ellison, charged with an indecent act to insult a woman, was acquitted. In closing tho sessions, Air. Justice Chapman said the crimes investigated in this and the previous session were of an ordinary character, and not numerous, notwithstanding that the Exhibition had been in full swing during the period covered by both sessions, and the Exhibition was a kind of occasion when members of the criminal class gather together. It spoke well for the police management during the trying time when many extra duties were laid upon them that there was so little crime, and it was creditable to the admin-

istration of the city that there had been a practical freedom from crime. AVELLINGTON, last night. ■At tho Supremo Court to-day Thomas AVallace, alias AVilliams, alias KMjcGoivan, was found guilty of defrauding James Chapman and Arthur Chapman of £9O. The Chapmans are recent arrivals from England, and wore duped by a confidence trick. AVallace was sent to gaol for three years. In the Supreme Court Elizabeth Buckmaster, alias Sylvester, charged with theft, was found guilty of receiving stolen property. She was committed to the Salvation Army Home and ordered to appear lor sentence when called upon.