HE CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST THE LATE DISPENSER OF THE HOKITIKA HOSPITAL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1045, 1 December 1871, Page 2

HE CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST THE LATE DISPENSER OF THE HOKITIKA HOSPITAL.

David Ogilvie Pre'shaw, on remand, •was charged, at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Hokitika, on Wednesday, before G. G. Fitz.Gerald, Esq., R.M., with having feloniously embezzled the sum of L 3 103. Margaret Griffiths deposed that she was the wife of W. G. Griffiths, and resided at the Big Paddock. On the 4th of April last, witness went to the Hokitika Hospital as an in-door patient and saw the prisoner on that day, and she saw her husband pay the sum of 30s in advance for treatment in the Hospital. Witness was there about e.leve.n weeks. Witness afterwards paid the dispenser L 8 10s, and received a receipt for it. Her husband, in her presence, gave the dispenser L 5 for witness's private use, should it be required. When she lelt the Hospital' her husband paid the dispenser 30s, and received a receipt fqr it. Was not aware that any portion of the L 5 was used on her account, and did not authorise the prisoner to use any part of it. W. G. Griffiths deposed that he was the husband of the last witness. On the 4th of April last he went his wife to the Hospital. She was admitted as an in-door patient. Witness saw the prisoner in the dispensary, and paid him 30s as mainten-ance-money for his wife for the first week. The prisoner said that payment of 30s per week should be paid. Witness gave the prisoner Lj? for the private use of his wife, but did not know what became of it. His wife left the Hospital on June 20th. He went for her, and paid another sum of 30s to the dispenser, and received a receipt for it. Nothing was said about the L 5, H. W. Maunsel deposed that he wq,s the Surgeon-Superintenderifc of the Hospital, and knew Margaret Griffiths, who was an in-door patient. She was admitted on the 4th of April, and, according to witness's book, she remained until 20th June. The prisoner was dispenser and house-3teward, and it was a portion of his duty to receive the maintenance-money from the patieritsj and should give it to the secretary the after receiving it. The dispenser should also have made the entries of the dates of the admission and discharge' of eaoh patient, and furnish monthly statements io the committee of these particulars, and of moneys received: The return produced was in the handwriting of the prisoner. Margaret Griffiths name appeared in it, and she was represented as having been in the Hospital for eight weeks and four days. Witness's book Bhowed that she had been there sixteen days longer. The dispenser's book showed that Ll3 had been paid in full for the maintenance-money, Witness pointed out the discrepancy to the prisoner about three weeks since, and the prisoner said; that he did not know how it had occurred. On the following day, the committee held ., an inquiry. The prisoner said, in the J presence of witness, that Margaret Griffiths had paid in full for eleven weeks; but he did not account for the balance. : W. Wilkinson deposed that he was secretary to the Hokitika Hospital. It was a portion of the prisoner's duty to ! receive maintenance money from patients, and to account for the same to witness. He received from the prisoner different Bums of money on behalf of Margaret Griffiths. The first payment was on the 17th of April, and was 30s ; the next was on June 29, LlO ; the third and last was 30s on June 29. The prisoner received a salary at the rate of Ll5O per annum. Charles Townley Brown deposed that he arrested the prisoner on the 15th inst., on a warrant charging him with having embezzled money. He cautioned him in the usual raanne.r f The prisoner saidj " It is a bad job ; but it oannot be helped now." That was all he said. The Resident Magistrate said that the evidence did not tend to^prove a charge of embezzlement. ' " W. G. Griffiths was recalled, and replied to several questions from his Worship sw to the sum of L 5 lodged iir the hands of the dispenser for the private use of Mrs Griffiths. His Worship said that it would be utterly useless to commit for trial; as the L 5 had been given in a separate account, atVd it appeared: that the prisoner owed Mi: Griffiths that amount, The prisoner was diaoharged,