SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 62, 15 March 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

[Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond]. This Day. Hitching s v. Monro Brothers (continued). W. H. Eyes, clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court, Blenheim, produced the original information and depositions taken in that Court. Depositions read. John Emerson deposed to" having arrested plaintiff upou an information laid against him by Alexander Monro. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Pitt then asked for a nonsuit as against the defendant George Monro, on the ground that proof had not been adduced of his having been cognizant of a prosecution having been instituted against the plaintiff. His Honor overruled the objection on the ground that he considered that there was prima facie proof of George Monro having concurred in the prosecution. Mr. Pitt having opened the case for the defendants, called PL Gully to prove having gone over the accounts connected with the butcher's shop at Blenheim, whereby a considerable deficiency was shown between the amount of meat admitted to have been received by plaintiff, and the quantity accounted for by him as sold. Alexander Monro : I engaged plaintiff as butcher, in May last. When he arrived at Blenheim, I arranged with him that I was to deliver the stock alive to him, he was to kill and weigh the carcases and make entries of the meat sold. The weights of the carcases were to be entered in the stock book. He neglected to do this. He ought to have entered in the day book all sales effected, whether for cash or otherwise. He was authorised to buy animals occasionally, for which he was to pay out of the till cash, and substitute for the money the receipts for the amounts paid. I received money from him at irregular periods. There was no arrangement made between us as to how he was to receive his wages. He was not authorised to retain money for his own use, but was. to pay over to me the receipts in full. He never told me that he had kept any money. I heard him state yesterday that he retained £3 in June, that was the first I had heard of it. Tn September last I had reason to believe that plaintiff had been embezzling sums of money belonging to me. I consulted a solicitor on the subject, aud acting on his advice, laid an information against the plaintiff. My reasons for believing that there had been unfair play were that I heard of certain accounts which had never been mentioned to me by plaintiff, and also that there was a deficiency in the till caah which was unaccounted for. Cross-examined : When I found that plaintiff was not weighing every carcase, I remonstrated with him. Plaintiff, when I first engaged him, said he was competent <o keep accounts. I can swear that I paid plaintiff his first week's wages in cash, and that he did not deduct them from the week's receipts when he handed them j over to me.' In the end of July I was ' aware there was a balance of till cash against the plaintiff. I did not ask him to explain this. I knew he had purchased a pig, but he had produced no receipt for it. By the Court : I struck the balance of meat delivered and cash received iv June, ! and found it satisfactory ; Grant did the same' in July, and it was found unsatisfactory. I demanded no explanation of this from plaintiff. I made no examination for August, until the. final examination. CroES-exaraination continued : I was not actually aware that plaintiff intended to take proceedings against me for wages before I went to Mr. Pitt ;. I had heard a street rumour to. that effect. I did hot i lay the information azainst him in expectation of getting off paying his wages.' I Before laying the information, I went through all the books. I did not consider it my duty, on discovering the deficiency, to ask plaintiff for an' explanation, i jam quite sure plaintiff never asked me for money. '•"''. Re-examined : I did not mentiou to the •plaintiff the deficiency I. discovered in July, because I thought it possible I might be mistaken in my calculations, ■ but on a more minute examination, at a later date, I found that they were perfectly correct. The examination of wilnesses for tlie defence was still being proceeded with when we went to press.