SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 869, 7 April 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Friday, April 6. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnson.] UNMENTIONABLE OFFENCE. George Heudley was indicted for an offence of this nature. The prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty,” and was defended by Mr Izard. Mr Wm. Brice was chosen foreman of the j ur JThe jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty,” and the prisoners was discharged. Saturday, April 7. The Court resumed at 10 a-m. EMBEZZLEMENT. Robert A. Buchanan, lately acting as clerk to the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Akaroa, was indicted [for embezzling certain sums of money the property of the Government, received by him as fines. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown, and called the following evidence : Justin Aylmer, Resident Magistrate at Akaroa, deposed that prisoner was appointed in 1873, and remained as clerk until suspended in 1877. During that time, it was ins duty to receive fees and pay them daily into the Bank of New Zealand, and account to the Treasury weekly for them. On several occasions, witness spoke to prisoner about not forwarding his returns. The sum of 5s was received by prisoner as fees in the civil ease Aylmer v. McGregor, lie had not accounted for that amount. Mr Joynt here applied that Mr Aylmer, who had been giving his evidence ou the floor of the Court close to the Crown Prosecutor, should go into the witness box. His Honor granted the request. Examination continued—Prisoner kept a cash book in which he should enter all fees received. The book produced was the one. There was no entry of any fees between the 14th and 24th November. The instructions to officers in the Government service as to paying money received by them appears in the (jazette produced, dated June, 1872. The instructions are to the effect that all receipts should be paid in each day. The Bank slips were given in duplicate, one of which was retained in the office, and the other sent to Wellington. Witness could not say whether there were any Bank receipts for the moneys mentioned in the indictment. There was no entry in the cash book of 5s fee being received on the Ist December. There was an entry of 8s on the 22nd January, fees in Aylmer v McGregor. Witness paid prisoner 5s more on the ease at the same time. That 5s was not accounted for.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt-—The prisoner must have issued the plaint and summons on credit. The prisoner paid over the whole amount of the money paid in without deducting the costs. The whole of the business was done on credit; and witness was now aware that in many eases prisoner was in the habit of giving credit for fees to many persons. The prisoner’s accounts should have been cheeked every week. They were not so cheeked about this time. The salary of the prisoner from all sources was £l2O per annum. The Government complained from t hue to time of the prisoner not sending in returns. The Government had stopped the prisoners salary since May last. The prisoner sent up his accounts weekly in some shape or other underpressure. It had never occurred to him that prisoner was dishonest. He had made no complaint to the Government as to the prisoner not at tending to his accounts. Henry Green Watkins, deposed to paying prisoner 8s as fees on November 15th in a case in which witness was plaintiff, and ou December 2nd, 5s in the same case. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—The ease was heard on the 17th, two days’ after witness paid the fees. The Court fees were frequently paid to prisoner in the street. Frederick de Carteret Mulct deposed to having examined the books of the prisoner, at request of the General Government. A fee of Ss Mould be payable in the ease of Watkins v. MeGrier, but there was no entry in the cash-book of the amount having been accounted for. Witness made a list of the fees which had not been accounted for, and asked the prisoner if he could explain where witness would he able to find entries of the fees. Prisoner admitted to witness that he hud received money from Mr Aylmer, the Resident Magistrate, as fees on account of his father, and had not accounted for it . B. M. Missen, bailiff of the Akaroa Resident Magistrate’s Court, deposed, in answer to Mr Joynt, that prisoner had several times asked him to go through his books with him, to help him to cheek them. He said he believed there were some slight deserepaneies in his accounts, and ho woidd like to go through the accounts with witness to find them out . Mr Joynt addressed the jury for the prisoner, commenting on the fact that for the three olliees of Sub-collector of Customs, Postmaster, and Clerk to the Resident Magistrate, the prisoner received only £l2O per annum. He also commented on the fact of the careless and lax manner business was conducted in Akaroa. His Honor summed up, The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after being absent some time returned into Court with a verdict of “Not Guilty,” adding as a rider to their verdict the follow.

ng—“ We find great blame is to be imputed for the manner in which magisterial business is conducted in Akaroa.” On the other indictments the Crown Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi , and the jury under direction of his Honor returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The prisoner was then discharged. HOUSE-STEALING-. Nathan Powell was indicted for having on 10th February, stolen one gelding, the property of John Deipenhiem. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “Not Guilty. The case for the Crown was, that on the date mentioned the prisoner put a gelding in the Central Sale Yards for sale, and after leaving it for a time discovered that it had been stolen. The prisoner was seen riding the gelding, and information being given to the police he was arrested at Raupiki pa. For the Crown, Mr Duncan called Detective Smith, the prosecutor Deipenhiem, and James Gatherer. Mr Joynt called evidence for the defence, William Paton deposed to being clerk to Clifford and Co, auctioneers and salesmen, and to the prisoner coming to their yards to enter a horse for sale. After some time the prisoner came to look for his horse, and could not find it. Mr Joynt contended to the jury that the prisoner finding his own horse gone and another in its place, took the latter because he thought the owner had taken his horse. His Honor summed up the case, and the jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict of “Guilty.,’ His Honor sentenced the prisoner to three years penal servitude. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, when the case of Regina v George Mussen, larceny will bo taken.