MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 347, 23 July 1875, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, July 23.

(Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.— Ellen Thompson for this offence was fined 10s, and received a caution from his Worship not to appear again. Wife Desertion. —John Banfill was brought up on warrant charged with this offence. Constable Hughes deposed to the arrest of the prisoner on the warrant produced. Prisoner admitted that he was the man named in the warrant, which had been issued at Ross. Prisoner said he was willing to support his three children, but not his wife. Ordered to pay 10s per week towards the support of his family to be paid into the Court at Christchurch. George Osbourne was summoned for this offence. Ann Osbourne, wife of defendant, was called, but failed to appear. The case was adjourned until Monday next at 11 a,m.

(Before C. E. Blakiston, Esq., and W. D, Carruthers, Esq., J.P.’s.) Embezzlement. —C. W, Worger, steward at the Canterbury Club, was brought up on remand charged with embezzling the sum of £27 Us, the property of the Canterbury Club Company. Mr Garrick appeared for the prosecution. Inspector Feast called, stated that he arrested the defendant yesterday. Prisoner said, “You don’t say so,” when he read the warrant to him. Mr G. Stead called, said—He was a director of the Canterbury Club Company (Limited). Produced the certificate of incorporation of the company, under the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1860. The prisoner was in the employ of the company as steward. It was his duty to keep the accounts, act as clerk, and pay money into the bank. Witness is a member of the finance committee. The account produced was passed by the committee for the purpose of payment, and finally directed to be paid on 17th June. The duty of the prisoner would be to obtain a cheque and pay the account. The cheque produced is in the handwriting of the prisoner, and bears his signature as steward ; it also bears the signatures of John Ollivier and Charles Clark, two of the directors. It is necessary that all cheques should be signed by two directors, and countersigned by the steward. The cheque is for the same amount as the account produced. It was the duty of the prisoner to pay White’s account with the cheque. In answer to prisoner, Mr Stead said he believed there were no written instructions given to prisoner when he took office as to his duties; but several verbal instructions were given both by witness and others. On 17th June a meeting of directors was held, and a resolution was passed which appears in the minute-book and sundry accounts passed for payment. Pri--1 soncr here applied for an adjournment of the j case to allow him to obtain advice. The

Bench said they must proceed with the case. Robert William Hughes called, stated that he was billiard marker at the club. Knew the accused, who was late steward to the Club Company. About two or three weeks ago accused gave him a cheque to get two of the directors to sign it. It was attached to an account of Mr A. J, White’s. The account produced is the one. The amount of the cheque was £27 11s. It was drawn in favour of Mr White. Believe the cheque produced to be the same, and was signed by the accused. Saw two of the directors sign it. Afterwards brought the cheque back, and returned it to the accused. Henry Jonas, waiter at the club, recognised the cheque produced Had it in his hand on the 28th June. Mr Worger handed it to him to get it cashed. Did so at the Bank of New South Wales, and handed the money to accused. By the accused—l do not remember paying any club accounts for you that day, nor on the next day so far as I can remember, but I will not swear that I did not. W. B. Mitchell was teller in the Bank of New South Wales on the 20th June. The cheque produced was cashed by him on that day on behalf of the Canterbury Club (Limited.) A. J. White, furniture broker, said he was the person named in the cheque produced, and the account produced was due to him by the Canterbury Club (Limited.) The account had never been paid to him. The amount was still owing to him. George Francis, accountant in the employ of last witness, stated that the account produced had never been paid to him, and was still due to Messrs A. J. White and Co. The evidence was read over to the prisoner, who in reply to the Bench, said he was not guilty, and had nothing further to say. Accused asked to be allowed bail, and said it was necessary that two auditors should be permitted to go through the books, as the Club and company’s accounts were so mixed that it would take qualified accountants to unravel them. The Bench decided to allow bail in two sureties of £SO each and accused in £IOO. A second charge of having embezzled £24 6s 3d from the funds of the Canterbury Club was then proceeded with against the same accused. Evidence was given showing that according to the prisoner’s own entries in the cash book this amount had been received by him on the 3rd July, but had not been accounted for by him. The witnesses were unable to state the amount of the whole deficiency, as the accounts were so mixed, but were certain it amounted to over £IOO. The prisoner was fully committed for tidal on this charge, same bail being allowed as in the other case.