SUPREME COURT SITTINGS, HOKITIKA. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

Kumara Times, Issue 2059, 5 April 1883, Page 2

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS, HOKITIKA. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

(Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.) Wednesday, April 4. The indictment against James Wylde for having, on July 31, embezzled sums of £5, £2, and £5, the deposits of Murtha, Keenan,’and Whelan, contractors to the Borough of Kumara was continued to-day ; together with the other count for stealing a cheque of £5, Murtha’s deposit. After the witness O’Hagan had completed his evidence, Charles Murtha, Francis Keenan, Patrick Whelan, and James Woods gave evidence, which in no way differed with that tendered in the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Kumara.

Henry Johnsen, the next witness, deposed that Mr Wylde asked him to withdraw his name from the petition asking for a special audit, on the understanding that the local auditors would sift the matter. He withdrew his name.

T. E. Connell, James Pearson, and W. A. Spence, were then called, but their evidence in no particular differed from that given before the lower Court. William Nicholson, accountant, examined by the Crown Prosecutor, said : I remember a petition for a special audit being taken round Kuraara; after the first petition had been sent to Wellington, I heard the prisoner ask a man named M'Lennan, if he had any objection to withdraw his name from the petition \ M'Lennan said he had ; the prisoner said it would be injurious to him if it got into the papers that a special audit was required, and that he had friends in Wellington and Christchurch ; M'Lennan did not withdraw

his name. I did not notice the sheets missing when I made the audit.

To Mr Guinness : I cannot swear that the leaves were out of the ledger when we made our audit; the condition of the book now shows that some leaves have been torn out; the leaves of the cash book, numbered 56 to 68 are missing. The petition for a special audit was initiated by a man named Simmons ; I believe prisoner took proceedings against Simmons to oust him from his seat in the Kumara Borough Council.

William Barnett gave evidence as to what transpired at the Committee’s meeting when the accused was asked for an explanation ; also that O’Hagan had, in effect, told the Council that he had advised the accused to resign. . For the defence, R. J. Seddon deposed that the accused had distinct instruction from the Council not to pay deposit moneys into current account, and that he was to return the moneys to the contractors; and that the late Mayor O’Hagan had informed the Council, on the 6th November last, that he had advised Mr Wylde to resign. Also that on or about the 6th October, 1881, in the Buck’s Head Hotel, he had informed witness that he would either make witness toe the mark or put him out of his position ; also that the accused had not had an opportunity of explaining the deposit accounts. A. 0. Campbell stated that he was a member of the Borough Council of Kumara; that the late Mayor O’Hagan had stated to the Council on the 6th November that he had advised the accused to resign. Sergeant Emerson deposed that he heard the late Mayor state in the Council that he had advised the accused the resign.

This concluded the evidence for the defence.

Mr Harper said the Crown were bound to show that the facts amounted to larceny. One of the ingredients of larceny was feloniously taking at some time or another. The distinction between embezzlement and larceny was very slight. The Crown framed advisably an indictment for embezzlement. During the trial, it appeared that technically the prisoner had not been guilty of embezzlement, as the Council received the deposits first and handed them to the prisoner. After the date of the acceptance of Murtha’s tender the prisoner received £5 deposit from The tenderer. During the progress of the tender, moneys were paid out and a final payment made including the deposit. The Crown produced Murtha’s receipts, and Murtha himself swore that he got his deposit back. The counsel then proceeded to point out the strong evidence of larceny of the three deposits, and reviewed the circumstances under which the prisoner, as the Crown contended, had' fraudulently mis-appropriated these moneys. He concluded a remarkably clear and able speech by contending that the evidence of mis-appropriation by the prisoner was convincing of his guilt. He defended Mr O’Hagan from the attacks of the counsel’ for the defence, although Mr O’Hagan’s actions did not really matter one bit. He asked the jury to consider the reception of the deposits by the prisoner, his retention of them, and hia repaying them out of the Council’s money. His Honor summed up briefly.

The jury retired at half-past three and returned to Court at half-past four, with a verdict of not guilty of embezzlement ; guilty of larceny on three counts, as clerk of the Corporation, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the loose way in which the books of the Corporation were kept.