The Malcolm Case.

Manawatu Standard, Volume 4, Issue 152, 5 June 1883, Page 2

The Malcolm Case.

Prisoner surrendered to bis bail on the opening of the Ooar this (Saturday) morning. Alexander Mackenzie, recalled, deposed that he wished to correct a statement he had made yesterday. The bill was not discounted with others, but was discounted separately, on, the 19th-of February, the proceeds going tc the credit of Qfltet Bros, and Co., of which firm accused^ was a member. , By Mr Gully-^Tne"'' document produced was the discount slip. ' The firm would only have notice that the bill had been discounted by looking at their bankbook or by the slips. For some reason the bill was not, discounted because the signature was bad, "Trickbank" being signed. The bank made enquiries into the matter,/ and, finding that Tricklebank was a respectable man the bill was discounted. It was not a fact that the amount was debited to the firm. The back had ample secarity for the amount of the bill, but had not yet realisod upon it. When that was done he would debit the firm with the sum. If m the meantime, however, he recovered the amount from Tricklebank, he would not trouble the firm. By Mr Hardcastle— . It was optional for a bank to discount bills of this sort. The bill m question was received with others from Gillett. The latter was then inforaiei that the bills, the signatures to which were known, would be discounted at once, but that enquiries would have to be made regarding the bona fides of the others. If the bill had nob been discounted it would not have been returned, but would have been held for collection. W; H. R. Flyger, recalled, gave evidence that he could not recollect the entire contents of the letter which he forwarded to Malcolm m February, but would, give a resumb. Thafe^ letter, which enclosed the bill sighed by Tricklebarik, st ited : that that person wished to obtain £30 or £35. By Mr. Gully^The letter might have been addressed to Gillett .Brothers, but the heading ,. contained. Malcolm's name* Witness posted ;the teeter himsef shortly after Tricklebank drew the bill, so that no.tima was lost m transmitting the document. The transaction took place m February. . „ ;i John Swift, also recalled, gave further evidence relative to the posting of a letter to the Wellington branch about Tricklebank's matter. This closed the case for the prosecution. „-,, - ... :. : , ... For the defence, Mr Gully addressed the Court contending that the case had not. been proved.. Counsel pointed out that there was no evidence to connect his client with the. charge of larceny as bailee, and contended that the prosecution bad failed, to prove that the accused had converted the' proceeds of the bill to his own use. This was a most important feature m the case, and should be well considered. I|Mr- Gully quoted from a legal authority to show how necessary it was, m order to secure a conviction, to proves that the holder of money or docuraents. t had converted the same to his own use;: and contended that this the prosecutionjbad failed to prove ,itt the case now before the Court, He ■thought this was the < , first time a bill discounting transaction had been considered a . criminal matter. After a moment' 8 consideration, his Worship dismissed the case, making no comments whatever on the matter, and ; without calling on the defence for any : (ayidence.;; 7; ..,, n ., 0; . . a ... . : Cecil Gillett was,then placed m the dock on asimilar charge., „ Mr Ei Shaw appeared for the i aCCUSed. -„:■; ~a.;> t -''.;;:-v : Sergeant Anderson, said he wonld not offer any .evidence, ijiihia^case, and the accused dis barged.