MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2692, 23 November 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, November 23. [Before John Ollivier, Esq., R.M.] Embezzlement. —Thomas Beeson was charged with embezzling the sum of .£SO, the property ofjhis employers, A. Briscoe and Co., of Dunedin. Mr Joyce appeared for the prosecution, Mr Stringer for the defence. J. R. Scott, of the firm of Scott Bros., engineers, Manchester street, Christchurch, deposed that he had had business transactions with accused as representing Briscoe and Co. On October 21st accused came* to his place of business, and asked witness for a loan of .£3O. He said that he had some shipping charges to pay for Briscoe and Co., and had not sufficient cash for the purpose. Witness declined to lend the money, hut said that, as he intended ordering some iron plates, he would give him a cheque on that account, the value of the required iron being .£SO. Accused then said .£SO was really the amount he required, and suggested that the larger sum should he paid. Witness gave a cheque for £SO, and took a receipt (produced). It was then arranged that prisoner should return later in the day and take the .order, which was done. The goods were received in due course, and Messrs Briscoe and Co. drew on Scott Bros, for the amount of the invoice. Witness then called on prisoner on Thursday, November 16th, and asked for an explanation. Prisoner asked him to accept a bill, and give him time to pay the £SO. Witness declined to do so, and gave him till the following night to pay hack the money. The time elapsed and the money was not paid. Witness wrote a telegram on Saturday to Briscoe and Co., informing them that he had paid accused for the plates. The telegram was not despatched hy witness; he left it with an assistant of prisoner’s at their office. Cross-examined —lmmediately after leaving the open telegram, prisoner came to him and wanted to negotiate. Accused handed him £2O, and on Monday accused tendered him an approved hill for £3O, which witness accepted as cash. He now held £SO, without knowing in exactly what position he stood with regard to it. He understood that there was an agreement between him and Mr Mason, as agent for Briscoe and Co., that he (Scott) should receive back the £SO on account of Briscoe and Co. Ho was afterwards informed by Mason that there had not been any intention to finally settle the matter hy the payment made by accused, but on Monday he got a letter from Mason requesting him to hold for Briscoe and Co. the receipt given by accused, and also all moneys received from him on account of the transaction - Edward Phillip Truman, managing clerk for Briscoe and Co. at Dunedin, deposed that accused was resident agent for the firm in Christchurch. He had been twelve months in their employment. He produced the written engagement of accused hy the firm. He was paid by commission on sales effected, supplemented by payments if the commission did not amount to a certain sum, the payments being monthly. His duty was to remit direct all payments hy document, and to pay cash in to their account at their Bank in Christchurch. When it was necessary for him to pay Customs duties or the like,cheques were sent him for that purpose from the head office. There were no shipping charges due on October 21st. Prisoner’s September salary had not been paid, owing to certain discrepancies which had appeared in his accounts, and which were under investigation. The money due hy Scott Bros., or the money which was referred to in the present charge, was still unpaid and still unaccounted for. Chief Detective Thos. Neil deposed to having arrested the accused on the present charge. Accused, after being cautioned, told him that in October he had got a loan of £SO from Mr Scott, who asked him to sign a receipt for it in the name of the firm of Briscoe and Co. He did so. The £SO cheque which came up from Dunedin was to pay duty. Accused was due for Piper a £SO bill, and the money went to pay him. He had since paid hack the money, and held Mr Scott’* receipt for it, which he showed to witness, and was now produced. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Stringer, addressing the Bench, urged that whatever irregularity there might have been, there had been no money loss to any one, and consequently there had been no embezzlement. Mr Ollivier said, on the evidence produced he was bound to commit. Prisoner was then committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court to he held at Christchurch. Bail was allowed, the prisoner in £2OO, and two sureties in £IOO each. Prohibition Order. —Mary Ann Hahlet obtained an order prohibiting the hotelkeepers and others in Christchurch from supplying her husband with intoxicating liquors for the space of a year from date. Bail Granted. —On the application of Mr Joyce, E. Eigioni, in custody for assault, was allowed bail, himself in £SO, and two sureties in £25 each.