SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1679, 8 July 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CBIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday, July 7. The following were the cases disponed of yesterday after we had gone to press : STEALING a watoh. James Harding was arraigned on a charge of stealing a watch valued at £lO, t&e property of Edward Hioms. Prisone? pleaded " Not Guilty," and soil?, he had found tho watoh.

Tho evidence in this caaa hiejilreadj been published.

The jury, after hearing the evidence, returned a verdict of " Guilty." - In reply to the judge, The Inspector of Police stated that there were no previous conviction!" against the prisoner. Sentence —Imprisonment with hard labor for six calendar months. HOUSBBBKAKIN& AND BOBBBBY. Louis Schmid was charged with breaking into the house of Edward Troacy, and stt aling therefrom a watch, chain, and money to the value of SA. The prisoner was undefended. The Crown Solicitor state- the facts which have been already publish 3 < w»d called Edward Treacy, who dapj *?.}.. ■•'&s circumstances under which he 11 ! „'*..9s' v r?ni property. The other witnesses weraO^deorgo Rymer, barman at the British Hotti, who saw the prisoner on the premises of the prosecutor, and Samuel Stewart, the pawnbroker, with whom he had-pawned the watch. Detective Walker proved the 'arrest of the prisoner on Saturday, May 3rd, and charged him with breaking into Treacy's house. The prisoner said, " You're making a mistake ; I know nothing about it." This waajthe case of the Crown, and in defence the prisoner called John Barrett, licensee of the Borough Hotel, for the purpose of proving that at the time he was charged with breaking into the prosecutor's house he was in the hotel of the witness. Nothing material was elicited. On being asked if he wished to address the jury, the prisoner handed up a statement for his Honor to read, which the latter having read to the jury, said did not contain a tittle of evidence in the prisoner's favor. After a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor said he looked on the prisoner more as a foolish fellow who had given way to drink than as a hardened' offender.

The prosecutor, on being asked by his Honor how. he felt disposed towards the prisoner, said he did not wish to press the charge heavily against him. His Honor passed the light sentence on the prisoner of six months' imprisonment with hard labor.

POBOBBT. David Stanley Wright pleaded " Guilty" to forging the name of Bobert Johnson to a cheque for £8 10s 6d, with intent to defraud. The Inspector of Police said there had been two previous convictions against the prisoner for passing spurious cheques,* for which he had been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor.

He was now sentenced to nsnal servitude for four years.

70B8BBT AND UTTEBINQ. William Johnston was charged with f orgißg a receipt for £6 in the name of "William Sloan. „ The prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty." Henry William Felton, sergeant of police at Ashbnrton, deposed to arresting the prisoner en the Ist of July on a charge of uttering a forged receipt ;,for produced). John Edward Jacomhs, olerk and storekeeper to Mr Grigg, of Longbeach, said that the prisoner left the employ of Mr John Grigg a fortnight before the Ist July. On the 12th of May witness gave prisoner an order on Mr G-rigg's agent in Ohristchurch for £6. He wanted the £6 to pay .for his board at William Sloan's. Wit-ess told him he must get a receipt for it, and he said he thought Sloan could not write. Wrote out a receipt (produced). Put on it a stamp and obliterated it. It was all filled up with the exception of Sloan's mark. Nine or ten days after the prisoner gave witness the order back again, with the cross now added on to it.

By the Prisoner—Therelwasimoney due for work done.

To His Honor—The prisoner was employed at a pound a week, and could board where he liked. Mr Grigg did not contract with Sloan for the prisoner's board. Mr Grigg did not allow any specified sum for board. To Prisoner—The contract price at the station for meals during harvest time was 10s per week. Your wages at one time were 25s per week, but were subsequently reduced to 20s, because you left off ploughing and came into the station.

William Sloan, sworn, deposed—l am a laborer, living at the Hinds. - The prisoner boarded with Charles Harding, in the same house with me. The prisoner never owed me a shilling, and I never marked the receipt produced. No man ever paid'board money to me on the prisoner's behalf. Harding's wife arranged that the prisoner could board in her huefcand's house. i

To prisoner—Harding is my son-in-law. I live with him, and the house is his.

Charles Harding, sworn, deposed—l live at the Hinds. The last witness is my fcther-in-law The prisoner arranged with my " missus " for his board. I consented to the arrangement. The prisoner was to pay eight shillings per week. Nothing was said about Mr Grigg. I don't know when prisoner left my house. He owed me £2 Bs, which Mr Grigg has since paid. They told me to send my bill in. Altogether- prisoner paid me £3 10s. He was in my house eleven weeks: His Honor here said it was clear there was a fraud somewhere, but the difficulty was, who was defrauded ? Mr G-rigg had paid I money, but he was not responsible. The prisoner's action did not defraud Grigg, or Harding, or Sloan, or Jacombs. There might have bean an intention to mislead, but there was no satisfactory legal proof of the intention to defraud. His Honor then directed the jury that, as the cae« for the Crown could not be sustained, the prisoner would have to be discharged. His Honor, in diseharging the prinoner, cautioned him that he had had a narrow escape of a very serious crime. The Court adjourned at five minutes to six, until 10 a.m. this day. Tuesday, July 8. [Before His Honor Judge Johnston.] The Court resumed this morning at ten o'clock. EMBEZZLEMENT BY A CLEBK. Charles Wm. Greenwood was arraigned upon an int'ictrrent charging him with stealing £5 ss, the property of Mr C. F. Barker, by whom he was employed as clerk. The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Duncan conducted the prosecution; Mr Garrick for the defence. Charles Frederick Barker, estate agent and auctioneer, stated that prisoner had been employed by him as chief clerk, his business being to receive all money, enter it immeeiately after receipt, and deposit it in the bank. Remembered Mr Morshead coming to him, and saying that he had paid "a cheque of five guineas to the prisoner, and witness subsequently ascertained that the five guineas had passed through his acoount. In consequence of that conversation he and the prisoner went through the whole, of the accounts. The sum of five guineas was not entered in the cash book. Morshead cheque was dated 21th of August. There was no credit for the amount of-five 'guineas on or after the 19th of August. (The witness read from the cash book kept by prisoner the entries made by him from the 19th to the 26th of August, amounting to £25 225. These accounts should have been paid in on the 25 th of August. His Honor—Do you, Mr Duncan, rely upon these payments alone to prove your case. Mr Duncan—Yes, your honor. The Witness —The prisoner really had five guineas over the £25, being the five guineas which he paid in. A night was arranged to look through the accounts, but they were not proceeded with that night, and the next night was appointed, but the prisoner did not attend; he left a msescge to say h? had gone out of town. Prisoner was not in witness's employ at this time ; he had left some time previously. His leaving had nothing to do with Morahead's business. If prisoner received money from another clerk on account of his master, it was his business to enter it as though it had been paid direct to him. His Honor pointed out,, as to the question of law raised by the last piece of evidence, that if it was competent for one of the clerks to receive money for his master to. pay over to another clerk for the purpose of accounting for it, he should say tike appropriation by the latter would not be embezzlement, but larceny because the payment to the first, clerk might be taken as having the same legafc effect as if the money had arrived in the master's hands.. However, it was a technical poiait, and might receive corsideraiion thereaftej.

Cross-examined by Mr Garrjfck—Greenwood was partly relieved by another clerh at the the end of Juno. Greenwocd- was head- clerk.. Witness carried on a land broker's business under tho land Transfer Act. Prisoner used to assist in making out documents, and attended generally to th» conduct of the land agency business. Besides duties enumerated, prisoner had a general supurvisioa of the whole office. Witness's attention was first drawn to Morshea«*s account by a complaint from the latter, that the account had been sent out a second time, and he paid it on the first occasion, some time since. Witness looked at the CMh book, and could not find the account, He expressed surprise that it was not

entered. Prisoner at first doubted that the money had been paid, but when', ho saw the bank book, and found it had been paid in, he said the . non-entry must be a mistake. Prisoner offered to pay the five, guineas. Ho explained that he nruet have mixed his own cash with that of the office. Mr Morshead said if he (witness) did not take the matter up, he (Morshead) should do so. Witness said he should look through the books, and it he* f ousd no other discrepancies he should give prisoner the benefit of the doubt. Two chargej of embezzlement laid by witness had broken down. Prisoner had no right to pay anything but the merest petty cash out of -money received. Prisoner had given a receipt to Mrs Blaokburn for money for some land transfer business, but the prisoner had not accounted for it. Mrs Blackburn said in the Eesident Magistrate's Court that she had been ?U, and could not recollect whether she had paid the money or not. Prisoner did not explain to witness that he had returned the money to Mrs Blackburn, as the account web disputed by her. Mr G-arrick —Did you not tell Mr W. A. Brown that, had prisoner not treated you bo cavalierly, you would not have prosecuted brm. ;■ ' . "" -'• "'" H L :

Witness —Mo, I did not say that. Mr Q-arrick —Did you not say that through indignation at prisoner not keeping hiß appointment on April 22nd, you had placed the matter in the hands of the police. Either that or any words to that effect ? ■ Witness—That:was part of thej'converßation with Mr Brown. But having found out other discrepancies made witness more determined to act.

Orotß-examination continued—Prisoner had been J »i his (witness's) employ for some three years. ' !Large sums of money had passed through his hands—something like £IOO,CDO perhaps, during bis term of service. The money was represented by numerous small amounts. Witness believed that prisoner had been in the employ of another firm; was also aware that prisoner had once been engaged in the police force. Witness had on several occasions looked through the books with the view of seeing if there were any discoveries. There was another clerk in the office at the time, who was in .charge of the Bakaia and Aehburton Porks Railway. .He was always under the supervision of the prisoner.

John Thomas Peaoa Morshead gave evidence as to paving the account of £5 5s by cheque. He received the account a seoona time after it was paid. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—l "went with Barker to the Sank te see the Bank book. I was .present at the interview' with Barker and prisoner. The latter said there had been a mistake somewhere, and tendered £5 ss, whieh Barker refused to take. Beecbam John Patrick, clerk, in the employ of Mr Barker, deposed that on the 23rd of August he paid prisoner the sums—one £ls 6s, and the other £1 17s 6i. BTe paid the money on the same day he reoeived it. Prisoner initialled the book on which witness entered the receipt. By Mr Garrick—The word " Barker" written across the cheque produced, is in the handwriting of Grfenwood, the prisoner. William Warren, teller in the Colonial Bank, deposed the cheque produced was presented by the. prisoner, and placed to Mr Barker's account. The slip produced shows £25 12s paid in on the same date, made-up as follows :—Notes, £9 ; gold, £2 ; silver, 14s 3s j and cheques, £l3 17b 9d. The amount of actual cash was £ll 143 3d. Prisoner presented the private book produced for witness to initial when the money was paid. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Garrick said there was no case to go to the jury. His Honor said the question was whether the prisoner had received five guineas more than he accounted for. Marshall's charge nas nothing more to the present case than as showing the gross amount the prisoner had received since it bad been shown that the account had been paid into the Bank. Not accounting was not the offence; it was only evidence tending to establish. Mr Garrick said the whole matter was the result of a mistake.

His Honor said there might be some evidence that prisoner received five guineas more than he accounted for, but there was none whatever of bis having embezzled five guineas. Mr Garrick called—

James Hill Sharp, surveyor in Mr Barker's office, who being sworn, said he had no knowledge as to whether the business of Mr Barker's office was conducted in such a way as to give trouble to or confuse a man.

This was the only witness proposed to be called by counsel for the defence. His Honor said he could direct the jury that they might interpret the evidence to suggest that the whole matter had been the result of a mistake, in which case they would gire prisoner the benefit of the doubt. Counsel then addressed the jury. His Honor then summed up, directing the jury as to the exact meaning of the term embezzlement, and charged them to weigh ths case fairly, at the same time to direst themselves of any fantastic doubts in the matter. The jury, without retiring*, returned a verdict of " Not guilty." ABSON. Emma Ash win and Martin Ed war 2 A hivin were charged with having net fire to a sawmill at Decanter Bay on the 19th day of February laßt. The prisoners pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. This case was proceeding when we went to presß.