MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 131, 31 October 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, October 31. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Wm. Duncan, arrested for drunkenness, was fined ss. Charles Hill, who had been convicted previously for a similar offence, was fined 20s. or forty-eight hours; G. M. Smith, his first offence, was fined ss. LYTTELTON. Friday, October 30. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M., and Dr Rouse, J.P.] DRUNKENNESS. Phillip Green, arrested by Constable Emson, was charged with this offence, and fined 20s, or 48 hours’ imprisonment, John Foster, also arrested by Constable Emson, for the same offence, was fined 10s, or 24 hours’ imprisonment. EMBEZZLEMENT. T. V. Whitmore was charged with this offence, Serjeant-Major O’Grady conducted the case. Mr O’Neill appeared for the defendant. Mr O’Neill asked whether the police proceeded on the former information for larceny, upon both, or only upon the new charge of embezzlement. Sergeant-Major O’Grady said they were proceeding for the latter charge—embezzlement. J. M. Walker sworn, said—l am a detective in the Canterbury Police Force. I arrested prisoner at Lyttelton Police Station. I read to him the warrant charging him with larceny—he made no reply. I brought him to the station, he did not come voluntarily ; he was in my company. By Mr O’Neill—He did not come voluntarily—l told him he would have to come. By the Bench—l told him at Savage’s Hotel. By Mr.O’Neill —He did not object to come. I mean by voluntarily that he did not come to give himself up without being obliged. T. Barton called and sworn, said—l am a stevedore living in Lyttelton. I remember the 6th of last March present year. I know a man named Wetherall, and one named Ockford. I and Wetherall and Ockford met at that date at the Foresters’ Hall, Lyttelton, for the purpose of forming a society. We spoke of a set of rules. The prisoner was present at that meeting. The rules were adopted at another meeting on the 9th of March. The prisoner was present then. At that meeting there was a rule adopted relative to the appointment of the prisoner. We appointed him secretary for the society. The conditions on which a member entered the society were—he paid 10s entry, and 3s per month afterwards for a sick fund. The names of Ockford, Wetherall, myself, and others were enrolled as members on the last occasion. There was some money paid to the secretary, Whitmore, at that meeting on the 9th March. This is the minute book of the society I see before me. I believe the entries to be in prisoner’s writing. It is here stated that he received £2l 10s on March 9th. There was a management committee appointed that night. I recollect a meeting in the beginning of April. Some of those mentioned in the information, and the prisoner, were present at that meeting. The entry before me relates to that meeting. £4 of entrance fees were paid that day ; subscriptions made it up to £ll 12s paid on April Ist to the prisoner. I see account of meeting held on 13th April ; the prisoner was not present. I see account of meeting held on May 6th ; the prisoner was also present. He received £!7 14s lOd on that evening, but part waa for a burial fund. Another meeting was held on May 20th, £2 5s 6d as subscription, was received by prisoner at that date. The meetings were then carried on regularly to the sth August, but before that date we altered them from fortnightly to monthly meetings. The meeting on the sth of August was held in the Foresters’ Hall. I was present. I see account before me. I swear more than £lB was paid to prisoner that night by members. The entry is £2O 4s. It is in the handwriting of the prisoner. He received that sum that night, but some of it was for another purpose. I saw most of it paid mys< lf. Prisoner entered amount in book that evening. I see prisoner’s entry in the book. I myself paid some of the money on that occasion. Prisoner was secretary at that meeting, he was not appointed as treasurer at that me'ting. By Bench—lt was his duty to receive and account for the money. By Police—He received the money that evening as a servant of the society ; he should have deposited it in the Bank of New Zealand. There was nothing said as to how lie was to lolgo the money that evening. We understood it was to be lodged in the society’s name at that meeting. I don’t recollect a resolution being passed on that subject. There was no res lution passed at that meeting relative to drawing the money

out of the Bank. There were no trustees appointed at that meeting or before, but a chairman and vice-chairman were. Ido not recollect if anything was said about trustees at that meeting. I was present at a meeting on 2nd September, with Ockford, Wethcrall, and others. The entry in the day book states that £3 16s 6d was received by prisoner from members on that evening. I did not pay that night but afterwards. This book is the ledger of the company. Prisoner kept this book. At that meeting a resolution was passed that the prisoner should have £lO a year for his services, at that meeting £5 was paid as a half-yearly salary to the prisoner. I see in this book prisoner’s receipt for that amount. (Receipt read.) He should have put the £3 15s 6d received that night in the bank to the credit of the society. On October 7th, there was another meeting; prisoner was present; £ll 14s were paid over by members of the society as subscription and proposal fees at that meeting. That money should have been placed in the Bank of New Zealand to the credit of the Lumper’s Society. At that meeting, one of the members asked in whose name the money was placed in the bank. He asked the prisoner;, he said in his own name. He was asked “ What business had you to put it in the bank in your own name,” by several members. He said the society had no account at the bank, and he therefore placed it with his own money. I asked when the society could have the money turned over into the names of the trustees. I and two others were trustees. Prisoner said it could be done at any time the members wished. Prisoner had been instructed at previous meeting to lodge £SO in the Savings Bank to the credit of the Lumper’s Society. I asked a few days after the 7th October if he had done so, and he said no, he could not yet till he got an answer from the postmaster. I asked him how long it would be before he did so, and he said we should know in a week. About a week after I went to him again, and asked him had he placed that money in the bank, and he said no ; he had had no answer from the postmaster. I told him it was of no use humbugging any longer, but to come at once and turn the money over. He said he would meet me in au hour and do so. He did not come. About two hours after I met him. He then said to me, “ I suppose you have heard of the difficulties I have got into,” I said I had not heard. I asked him where the money was. He said he had turned it all over to Mr Nalder. I asked him what business he had to do so, and he said it was to protect himself. lat once went to Mr Nalder and took prisoner with me. When I got in with prisoner. Mr Nalder said, “ How dare you tell these men that I have got any money belonging either to you or them.” Prisoner made some mumbling answer, but I do not know what he said. Mr Nalder did not pay us any money. 1 was president for the first six months, and was chairman during that time, I was present at all those meetings. At all those meetings prisoner acted as secretary, taking minutes of meetings, See, taking the chairman’s orders, &c. We paid him as the servant of the society, and I considered him as such. He acted as treasurer for the first six months to the 7th October. At that meeting Wetherall was appointed treasurer ; he had been nominated the month before. I am quite sure that the members understood the money was to be lodged in the Bank of New Zealand, and in the name of the Lumpers’ Society. The prisoner has not accounted to me for the sums received by him at the meetings of the society. Cross-examined by Mr. O’Neill—l will swear that there was a rule made instructing prisoner to pay money Into the bank to the credit of the Lumpers’ Society. The societyhad no account at any bank. We told prisoner to open an account at the bank ; we did not go ourselves ; we were working at the ships ; we trusted to prisoner. The first time we asked him he said we could have the money whenever we liked. There were some proposals between the prisoner and the company for the payment of the money a week ago yesterday. I thought he was humbugging me. He offered me a promissory note for £66 to be paid in a twelvemonth. It was not drawn up right. If it had been drawn up for one month we could have called a meeting and considered. We offered to give him a clear receipt if he paid us half the money, £33. I will not swear whether he said he could not get the money or not. By police —Prisoner never came voluntarily to tender the money or any part. Bobert Wetherall, stevedore’s laborer, was next examined, the facts elicited being similar to those given by previous witness. He produced a balance sheet furnished by accused showing that he was in debt to the society £6O 9s 6d, and did not include the £ll 14s last collected.

H. N. Nalder, duly sworn, stated—l am barrister of the Supreme Court. I know the the prisoner. I know Barton and Ockford. Barton and Sullivan came into my office to see me, and subsequently brought in the prisoner. Sullivan asked me if I had any money belonging to the lumpers in my hands. Sullivan informed me in prisoner’s presence that he (the prisoner) had told him that he (prisoner) had drawn a cheque for the amount of money in the bank to the credit of the society, and had handed it to me. I replied that I was much surprised to hear it, as he knew very well that he had never given me any money or cheque. He denied ever having told them so. .He never had given me any money of the Lumpers’ Society, He had told them that I had business matters of*his in mj hands, I had had business of his, but not of the Lumpers’ Society. C oss examined by Mr O’Neill—T had done business on one instance for Whitmore. There is a balance of about £6 between myself and the prisoner. It was some old book debts belonging to the old firm of Whitmore and Wales. 1 had nothing to do with the Lumpers’ Society, W H. Lance, bookkeeper and accountant, living in Lyttelton, stated—l have examined the books of the society and compared them with the balance-sheet. I find them correct with the exception of the day book. The totals of receipts in that book show £IOO Is 6d I have the dates of all with the exception of one account. £ll 12s, which .hows no date. In the ledger and balance-sheet £B2 3s 6d is the total receipts given credit for. A sura of £l7 18s lOd is not shown in the balance sheet. The ledger and balancesheet are correct, with the exception of one account of 10s Gd. According to the bo; ks, the prisoner would be indebted to the some y £(!1 Taking all accounts info consideration.’ with receipts at last meeting, he owed £75 7s 6d. Cross-examined by Mr U Neill I had some difficulty in making out the accounts. The books appear to have been fairly kept; but not as if by an expert.

Herbert Woodward, duly sworn, said —I am a clerk in the Bank of New Zealand. I have examined the books of the Bank of Zealand through enquiries made by you. There is no account with the Lyttelton Lumpers’ Society at the bank, and no sum to their credit. There has not been any account in that name during the past twelvemonth. The prisoner has an account at the bank.

Mr O’Neill seated that the prisoner, acting under advice, reserved his defence. The Bench stated that there was a sufficient vrima facie case to send to trial. Mr O’Neill asked if the Bench would accept the same bail. The Bench said it must be doubled, as follows; —Himself in £3OO and two sureties in £l5O each. The Court then adjourned.