SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5079, 4 July 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, July 3. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice). The Court sat at 10 o’clock. SENTENCES.

Edward Ruxton Walter, convicted the previous day of stealing from the dwelling-house of Edward Thomas Bould a cash-box containing valuables, was brought up for sentence. The Chief Justice enquired if anything was known of the prisoner by the police or Governor of the Gaol ?

Mr. Read said he was unacquainted with the prisoner. The Court sentenced prisoner to twelve months’ hard laber.

Joseph Sturgess, convicted of stealing a gold watch, the property of Mr. Henry Mace, was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labor.

Frederick Lyness, who pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a pair of boots, on the 26th May, from the house of Enoch Walter, was sentenced to two years’ hard labor. In reply to the Court, the Inspector of Police stated that there was a previous conviction against the prisoner, who bore a bad character.

James Kerr, convicted of unlawfully wounding Mary Kerr, his wife, was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labor. His Honor said he regretted to see a man who was said to be a good tradesman, and able to earn high wages, in such a position. Matthew Keane, convicted of stealing £l4, the property of Phillip Rees, from a boardinghouse in Molesworth-street, at which he and prosecutor lived, was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labor. George Morris, who pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing money, the property of a Chinaman named Wang Yung, was sentenced to 13 months’ hard labor. EIIBEZZLFMENT. Frank Broughton pleaded not guilty to a charge of embezzling the moneys of his employers, Messrs. Donald and Pasooe. There were three separate sums alleged to have been fraudulently appropriated, amounting in theaggregate to £43. Mr. Izard conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Travers defended the accused, Henry George Nichols, landlord of the Caledonian Hotel, Adelaide-road, deposed to being a customer of Messrs. Donald and Pascoe, brewers, Wellington, and also to his being their tenant. The prisoner was employed by them as clerk, and acted in that capacity in January, 1876. Witness used to pay him the accounts due to the firm for beer, &c., supplied to the hotel, and also for rent of the premises. On the 10th January witness paid him £73 7s. Sd., of which £8 was for rent. The amount was paid in cash. On the 10th May, 1876, witness also paid to Broughton £B4 Bs. Bd. in cash, and he signed the receipt. On the 9th June, witness paid him £Bl 16s. lid., and received a receipt.

By Mr. Travers? Sometimes a brewer’s collector “shouts” on these occasions. Broughton sometimes shouted for "me and my wife, and spent a couple of shillings or thereabouts. Mr. Pascoe, brewer, of the firm of Donald and Pascoe, deposed to Broughton being employed as their clerk and collector. There was also a carter in their employ called Erskine. A carter’s receipt-book was kept in which were entered the goods "to be delivered to the customers, and Erskine copied these entries into the day-book. This was properly Broughton’s work, but Erskine did it to assist him. It was then Broughton’s duty to post these entries from the day-book into the ledger, and to index the day-book. There was also a cash-book kept. It was Broughton’s place to make out the accounts. It was his duty to pay over immediately all moneys received, and to enter them in the cash-book. The book produced is the cash-book from January to June, 1876. Amongst the entries for the month of January are, one for £8 16s. Bd., and another for £45 10s., purporting to be Mr. Nicholls’ account for rent and beer. These amounts were paid to witness by the prisoner, and witness initialed-the items in his presence. Witness has not received any farther sums as being due from Mr. Nicholls on these accounts. Prisoner has not accounted to Mr. Donald. It was his duty to account to witness only. On the 10th May prisoner paid over £72 13s. 6d. in respect of an item against Nicholls. Witness gave further evidence regarding entries in his books, and the manner in which his business was conducted, showing that certain entries were not made in the ledger of money received by Broughton from M f. Nicholls on account of the firm, as they ought to have been, and that there was a deficiency in the aggregate of £43. In reply to Mr. Travers, witness said when prisoner handed over these moneys he did not say that was all. .Prisoner was authorised to “shout” with discretion. He usually spent about £4 a week in this way, sometimes more, sometimes less. Witness was not aware that he was in the habit of spending money very freely. It did not appear so from his accounts. The amounts for “ shouting” were regularly paid by witness from time to time as they were rendered by prisoner. William Donald, partner of the last witness, gave corrobati/e testimony. David Erskine, carter in the employ of the firm, proposed to keeping the receipt-book and and day-book produced, and that they were correctly kept. William Robert" Overton, accountant deposed to having examined the books, and gone over the several accounts. On comparing the ledger account and the day-book witness found discrepancies. On the Ist May there is an entry in the carter’s receipt-book which is not in the day-book or ledger. On looking at Nicholls’ account the item appears —May Ist, £3 Is. 3d. and £2 16s. Mr. Travers, for tho defence, admitted that prisoner had expended money for which he did not account to his employers ; but it was spent in connection with the business of the firm in “ shouting” and so forth, and that Messrs. Pascoe were quite aware of the fact," and that it was part-of the business. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and after a short absence returned into court with a verdict of guilty. Prisoner was remanded until next morning for sentence. EMBEZZLEMENT. George Bentham Ward stood charged for that he at divers times stated in the information had embezzled certain moneys of his employers, Messrs. Barber Bros. Mr. Izard conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Gordon Allan defended the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. From the statement of counsel for the prosecution, it appeared that prisoner was employed by Messrs. Barber, the well-known butchers, to deliver meat to their customers, and to keep accounts, and to take payment for goods. Acting in this capacity, ho had supplied meat to a Mrs. Wills, and received payment from her, for which he had not accounted to his employers. Mrs. Wilis deposed to an account being rendered to her by prisoner, for meat supplied, which account sho had previously paid, and told him so, and ho then said he must hear tho loss. She had always paid regularly for the meat supplied to her from Messrs.

Barber, and had been a customer of theirs for sofflbtime.' She paid prisoner twd’amduhts of £?, odd and £2 odd.

John Anderson, bookkeeper to Messrs. J. and H. Barber, deposed that it was his duty to make out the accounts against the customers. The prisoner’s duty was to take out meat, deliver it, and make daily returns of it. Prisoner did not account to witness for any money received from Mrs. Wills. Witness spoke to him more than once about this account running on, and he said it was “ all right,” and that something would be paid off in June. Prisoner was not entitled to make out accounts.

James Barber, partner in the firm of Barber Bros., deposed to prisoner being authorised to receive jiayment from customers for meat supplied, to give receipts, and account to the book-keeper of the firm. Witness spoke to the book-keeper about Mrs. Wills’ account running on. Henry Barber gave similar evidence. . Mr. Gordon Allan addressed the Court and jury for the defence, submitting that no intention to defraud had been made out against the prisoner, who had simply forgotten to account for this amount paid to him by Mrs. Wills. The learned counsel called no witnesses.

The Chief Justice summed up, and the jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, who was remanded for sentence. CATTLE STEALING. Alexander Gillies pleaded not guilty to the charge of stealing a cow or heifer, the property of John Martin, on the 30th November last. Mr. Izard appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Travers for the defence. Mr. Izard explained that only one animal was alleged to have been stolen, but in consequence of the strictness of the Act it had been deemed necessary to indict prisoner for stealing a cow, and in another count with stealing a heifer.

John Martin deposed that he resided in Wellington, and had a run at Otaraia. Prisoner was employed there as overseer in November last, and said to witness he would like to take some of the pure-bred stock on the run to the Wairarapa cattle show, and witness consented. Some ten head were exhibited under prisoner’s charge. At the show a cow and a bull were sold; but witness gave no authority to prisoner to sell any other cattle, but on the contrary told him distinctly he was not to sell any others. One of the heifers sent to the show did not come back. She was an animal three years old, but had not had a calf. She was worth from £SO to £IOO. £7 10s, would be an altogether inadequate price for her. Prisoner left the service of witness in December. The receipt produced is in prisoner's handwriting. (This was a receipt for £7 15s. for a heifer- sold by prisoner to Mr. Cundy; a letter from prisoner to Mr. Cundy was also put in as evidence, dated January 25th). The ordinary station cattle are branded, but not the pure-bred stock. The animal in question was not branded. John Cundy deposed to purchasing after the cattle show a heifer from prisoner for £7 15s, Witness believes the beast was branded. It was not pure-bred. The price was a fair and reasonable one.

James Sutherland, shepherd on Mr. Martin’s run, deposed that ten head of cattle went to the show, and seven came back—three cows and a calf, a bull and two heifers. Prisoner pointed out one particular red and white heifer, which witness was to leat-o in the paddock, and she was left there accordingly. Cannot say whether she was branded or not. : The defence was that Mr. Martin was mistaken as to the identity of the beast in question, which was not a pure-bred animal, but one of an ordinary character, and was sold in the ordinary course of business by Mr."Gillies at a fair and reasonable price. Evidence was called in support of this line of defence, and Mr. Izard replied on the whole case. - . .

The Chief Justice summed up, and the jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of not guilty, on the announcement of which there was some manifestation of applause. Prisoner was then discharged. PERJURY.

Mr. Travers intimated that in the perjury case against Alexander Colman and William Morrison, it was his intention to demur to the indictment.

The Court adjourned until ten o’clock this morning. ' '