The Globe. WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1875.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 339, 14 July 1875, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1875.

The writer of an article in a newspaper should invariably be sure of his premises before be draws bis conclusions and puts them before the public. We are led to make the above remark after reading an article which appeared in an evening contemporary on Saturday, having reference to the case of James, late treasurer to the Oddfellows’ Society, who was acquitted at the recent Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court, having been charged with larceny as a bailee. As the article in question is calculated to mislead the public upon a most important matter, we will take the trouble to point out to our readers what appears to us to be the true state of the case, and the law by which such cases are governed. It appears that James, in his capacity as Treasurer to the Oddfellows, received and took into his possession certain sums of money which it was his duty to pay into the bank. This in some instances he failed to do, and upon being brought before the Eesident Magistrate > at Christchurch, was committed for trial. At first sight the case would appear to be one of embezzlement, but in order to substantiate a charge of this nature, it is an essential ingredient in the case that the person charged with embezzlement should be a clerk or a servant within the meaning of the Act. It turned out that James was not in the receipt of any salary, nor did he receive any emolument for his Treasurership, so that he could neither be said to be the clerk or servant of the Oddfellows, therefore the charge of embezzlement fell to the ground. The consequence was that James was tried for converting to his own use a certain sum of money entrusted to him, or in other words, with larceny as a bailee. Now it appeared from the evidence that out of the particular sum entrusted to James he had paid a certain sum into the Bank so that he had, what in legal parlance is termed, 4 broken bulk,’ therefore the specific monies entrusted to him, and which he was charged with appropriating, could not be identified ; the indictment therefore could not be sustained. If James, however, had retained the whole sum entrusted to him and not 44 broken bulk,” or determined the bailment, the matter would have assumed a different aspect. The remedy for a case such as the one we have referred to appears to us to lay with the Friendly Societies themselves and not with the Legislature. If the Societies wish to render their servants who are entrusted with monies amenable to the law, they have only to make them clerks or servants within the meaning of the Act, and they can very easily do so by paying them a salary. The salary may be merely a nominal one of say Is a month, and so long as such is the case, any misappropriation of funds takes place, there will be no likelihood of a failure of justice when the offender is before the Court. It is surprising to think that matters such as these should escape the notice of the legal advisers of the several Friendly Societies in this city. They have now an opportunity of altering the rules so as to meet such cases, and this can be done in the manner we have pointed out, not by roundabout parliamentary enactment,

which in all probability would pi;ove to be utterly useless after they were passed, but by the simple process of expending a few pounds a year in paying their clerks, secretaries, or treasurers, as the case may be.