MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 802, 17 January 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, January IT. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M, G. L. Lee Esq., J. Olliver, Esqs, and Dr Deamer, J.P’s.] Drunk and Disorderly,— Ted Jones and Wm Jarvis were each fined 10s. An inebriate, who appeared for the first time, was fined ss. Committing an Act of Indecency.— Robert Newton and Elizabeth Howell, charged with committing an act of indecency in the enclosure of St Michael’s Church, at one o’clock in the morning, were each fined £5. Disobeying an Order. —Henry Sherwill, arrested at Governor’s Bay, was charged on warrant with disobeying an order of the Court to contribute towards the support of his wife and family at Dunedin. Accused said his wife was leading a very disreputable life at Dunedin, and he thought it was very hard that he should support her and a man with whom she was living. His Worship told him that his best course would be to apply to have the order cancelled if he could prove his statement, but he would be responsible for the arrears until the course was taken. He did not wish, however, to deal harshly with him, and would adjourn the case until Friday to allow accused to make arrangements for paying the arrears, £6 10s. Embezzlement. Edwin Wadman answered to his bail on three charges of having embezzed sums of money amounting to £B9 17s belonging to the Heathcote Road Board, in whose employ he had been as clerk. Mr Garrick appeared to prosecute, and Mr Joynt for the defence. The first case heard was for having embezzled £49 I4s 4d on 21st December, 1876. J. T. Fisher called, stated he was chairman of the Heathcote Road Board for some years up to the beginning of May, 1876. During the whole of 1875 accused was in the employ of the Board as clerk. The duties of accused were to receive and. collect rates, pay the money into the Board’s account at the Union Bank of Australia, and pay away money by cheque signed by the chairman and a member of the Board, and countersigned by accused. Samuel Manning called, stated that he was at present chairman of

the Board, and succeeded Mr Fisher in May last. Accused continued as clerk to the Board up to December last. His duties were to collect and receive rates, pay the money into the Board’s account at the Union Bank of Australia, and pay away cheques signed by witness and another member of tne Board, and countersigned by accused. The book A produced was a small cash book kept by accused, and laid before the Board at each meeting. The book professes to show moneys received on account of rates from one meeting to the other. On page commencing 21st December, 1876, observed entries of moneys received in accused’s handwriting, terminating on the next page, and showing a total of £49 14s 4s. The whole of these entries are in accused’s handwriting. His duties would have been to pay this money into the bank. The book B handed to witness is the bank book purporting to be the amounts paid into the Bank up to 31st December, 1876. There are two amounts, one of £750, and another £lB 19s4d. The first amount is a grant received from the Government, and has nothing to do with rates collected. Accused accounted to the Board for £8 Oj 4d received by him for rates since 21st December. That amount does not appear in the Bank book. The Board gave accused instructions lately from time to time to sue for rates, and witness knew that accused had received £ls from the Board to pay summons fees. A cheque was given him for this amount, and cashed by the Bank on December Bth. Accused had not accounted for this money, nor paid any monies in on account of rates received on account of this expenditure. Accused arranged with witness that he should go into the accounts on the 9th of January with him, when he would have them prepared to lay them before the Provincial Auditor. Accused did not keep his appointment, and witness went on two occasions down to accused’s place at Sumner, but could not see him. Accused had not seen witness at the Board office up to the time that his sue oessor, Mr Davis, took office, Witness had analysed the accounts, and, though not speaking positively, would think the deficiency in rates amounted to about £SOO. Witness had not been able so far to exhaust the line of inquiry. As before stated, no return had been received by the Board on account of the £ls paid to accused, Had tested the list, marked C, of monies paid to accused out of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, which amounted to £32 2a 4d, and had not been accounted for to the Board, That amount included £4 2e, fees returned on account of monies paid in. Walter George Walker, dork to the Resident Magistrate’s Court Christchurch, stated that the document produced, marked C, was in his handwriting. It was a list of amounts paid out to accused for rates due to the Heathcote Road Board, with costs, which had been recovered in that Court. The list also showed fees returned on account of amounts paid in to the Court [items read by witness.] The total amounted to £32 2s 4d, and that sum had been paid over to accused. Knew accused had been in the habit of receiving moneys from that Court on account of the Heathcote Road Board. John Ollivier, Provincial Auditor, called, stated that under his appointment as auditor under the Road Board Act, it was his duty to audit the accounts of the Heathcote Road Board, At the request of accused witness attended at the Road Board office on 2nd January last to audit the accounts previous to the general meeting being held. Witness went to the office but accused 1 ailed to meet him. Witness went to the office again at four o’clock at the same afternoon and made arrangements to investigate the books next day. The following morning witness proceeded to go through the books and found them in a very unsatisfactory state. In book A witness saw an amount in accused’s handwriting of £49 14s 4d, no part of this amount having been paid into the bank. On 30th December saw that £l3 19s 4d had been paid in, but was nearly prepared to say that amount formed no part of of the £49 14s 4d. In hoik A £23 4s Id had been received for rates on sth December, no portion of which had been paid into the Bank, and on same dale from various sources £8 Is, and the only money paid into the Bank against the amounts of £3l 5s Id, £49 14s 4d, the monies received from Resident Magistrate’s Court, and £8 Os 4d, is the amount of £l3 19s 4d, which was paid in on 30bh December, J. S D’Emden, clerk in the Union Bank of Australia, called stated that the Heathcote Road Board had an account at the Bank. The only amounts paid in to the Bank to the credit of the Board were £750, paid in by Provincial Government, and £l3 19s 4d made up as follows Cheque from R. Davis on Bank of New Zealand for £2 15s 4d ; cheque from G. L. Lee on Union Bank for £2 18s 6d; cheque from W. J. Williams on Bank New South Wales for £L 12s 6d, and cheque from W. Stock on same Bank for £6 10s. On January 10th an amount of £55 17s 4d had been paid in to the credit of the Board by accused. Include! in this amount was a cheque for £32 14s sd, drawn by the Heathcote Road Board in favor of Frederic Jenkins, The charge of having embezzled £32 14s 5d was then gone into. It was shown by the evidence of Messrs 8. Manning and Jones that above amount had been owing by the Board to Mr F. Jenkins, timber merchant. Two cheques for same amount had been obtained by accused, one of which had been paid to Jenkins on 6th November, and the other paid into the Bank by accused to the credit of the Board on the 10th January, 1876. In reply to the Bench, Mr Garrick said these were the only charges he intended to proceed with, After the evidence had been read over, accused by advice of his counsel reserved his defence, and was fully committed to take bis trial on each of the charges at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court. In reply to Mr Joynt, his Worship ■ said he would grant bail, accused in £SOO, and two sureties in £250 each.