SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 154, 14 May 1862, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

FIFTH DAY.—Mat 13th, 1802. Before His Honor, Judge Gresson. EMBEZZLEMENT BY A POSTMASTER. George Hawkins, late Postmaster at Waitahuna, was indicted for embezzling certain moneys tho pro- . pcrty of Her Majesty.' t -'The prisoner pleaded not guilty. ' Mr. Howorth, with' Mr. Dauipier, prosecuted. Mr. South defended the prisoner. ' ■ '"" Archibald Barf, Chief Postmaster of Otago, deposed that the prisoner was appointed Postmaster at Waitahuna about the 25th December last. Prisoner was soon after his appointment entrusted with postage stamps value. £55, and on the litli March, with stamps to the value of £30. It was tlie duty of prisoner to receive the money paid for letters on-do? jiv'tjry, and "for reposted letters. Instriidtions were generally given to postmasters. In the present instance the prisoner had been acting as assistant at the Tuapeka postj office, and in witness's letter to him conveying his appointment to the Waitahuna office, he stated that, for the sake of convenience, he would receive his instructions from the Tuapekn postmaster. During the time prisoner was postmaster, he received, or ought to have received, as postage on posted letters and for letters delivered, L6O 4s. sd. Witness suspended the prisoner by letter on the 25th March. Prisoner was entitled to the following credits:—Salary to 31st December, L 4 6s. 3d.; salary for January, LlB 15s. ; salary for February, LlSlfis.; an account paid by him, L 3 7s. Sd. ; draft sent to Duucdin, L-26 ; salary, to 27th March, LlO 12s. lOd ; making in all LB7 10s. 7d. There was also money and stamps found in his "office amounting to Lll 14s. nd. ; and to additional pi-edit of LI ss. 6d., making a total of LIOO IBs. 6(1., leaving a balance of L3l 7s. lid. Prisoner was required to remit his palnnce at the end of each month, and a proper statement of account at the end of the qu rter. There was no money remitted to witness to the 14th February. Not having received any jnoney from the prisoner during January, he wrcte to him in February requesting him to remit the money as per a statement lie (witness) rendered him. Received an answer from the prisoner to the elTect that he had not sold half the stamps, but would send up the whole amount if«desired. Witness again wrote to him to send up the money he had received, deducting salary and unsold stamps. Witness received from the prisoner, on Bth March, a memorandum of accounts, showing a balance due postroffice of£3siis.3d. Andstatine there \vasadraftene!osed,but a dip of paper inside stated that as the Bank Manager was away at Wetherstone's, he could not get the draft signed. Three days after he received a draft for £26, without any explanation of the discrepancy between the amount ot the draft and the statement in

prisoner's previous- letter."l Oirthe 14th-March be receire.i fro:u the prisoneranother letter, inronmfcg nira that, the post ofliee • had ■ been - broken ope:i and the rash-box abstracted On the loth March he wrote to the prisoner, stating, as he had shown so much trifling in IL-furouce to the monthly balances, that he deuiaiuitd n: settlement at once, without wmeii coum. deuce could not be restored. Prisoner then wrote req'lestins; a tew days' indulgence, and stating that he 1 ad never knowingly abused confidence.; After waitii:"- a'fewdavs without effect,'witness then /yroje. suspending prisoner from office. The balance" due from the prisoner of £37 7a. 1 Id. had not beeni.aceomited for by the prisoner. Cross-examined by Mr. South—Officers of the post office were generally appointed temporarily by witness 1 by letter, until confirmed by the Posruiaster-Gener.il. When ; the warrant of appointment was received, he generally forwarded it, and written instructions, to theotlicer appointed. Could notswear whether the usual formnlinstruetions were sent or not in this instance. Prisoner was to receive his instructions .from .the Postmaster, Tuapeka. Could not say whether verbally or in writing. The mail-bills winch prisoner signed made him responsible for the sums stated. All particulars relating to money matters with the prisoner were treated as a debtor and creditor account. If witness had had any occasion to find fault with the prisoner's character while clerk, he would not have appointed him a postmaster. Sydney' Dick deposed that lie was Postmaster at Tuapeka. The prisoner had acted as assistant in the Tuapeka Post Oilice from the end of November to 2Ut December. While there he had means of becoming acquainted with the duties of the office. When prisoner was suspended from office at Waitahuna, witness accompanied Mr. Macanlay the newly-appointed officer to Waitahuna. When prisoner was clerk in the Tuapeka office, witness did not explain the duties to him. Prisoner had access to the written instructions when in the Tuapeka office. The witness here detailed the finding of the small sum of money and postage stamps in the office at Waitahuna. He informed the prisoner for what purpose he had come, and in his (witness's) presence the letter from the Chief Postmaster, suspending the prisoner, was handed to him. Prisoner said he had been playing cards, and had lost some money which he should have sent td Mr. Barr. Cross-examined by Mr. South: He called it Government money. Witness said to him, " Surely, j Hawkins, you have not been playing with the Government money V he replied that he had. Witness asked him if he had anything he could give to reduce the amount of the debt. He handed him a revolver j and a time-piece towards the reduction of the amount. Witness said to him that if he (prisoner) would go to Mr. Barr and confess everything, aud make some arrangement, ho had no doubt Mr. Barr would show biuf every indulgence, otherwise jt would be a very sarious matter. Prisoner had written to him about the Post Office having been broken into. Prisoner drew his attention one day, could not say exactly when, to the statin of the door being loose. (At this stage, tiie Court adjourned for half an hour.) ■ James Macaulay, Postmaster at Waitahuna, deposed to having accompanied the previous witness to Waitahuna on the occasion of the ■ suspension of the prisoner from office, and to having found the moneys previously referred to. There did not appear to have been any con ccalment. • William Frederick Hitches, detective officer, deposed to having arrested the prisoner. He was playing billiards at the time. Prisoner remarked, when he" was in custody, that it was all his own fault, he had. been very foolish and had lost money. He also stated that the "post office had been broken into aud robbed ; that ho went the following night to play, and that he had lost. While on the way to the watch-house, he (prisoner) said, " You can do nothing with me ; it's a debt."

Mr. South urged that the proof of embezzlement had not gone far enough, and that the prisoner had been allowed to draw his own salary. The learned gentleman entered into a definition of the term embezzlement, arguing' that the ciixumstances deposed to had not supported that charge. The prisoner had never attempted any concealment in respect to his statement of accounts. The learned counsel quoted authority to show that where a person had admitted, in the usual course of business, his liability to certain sums, the mere fact of not paying such sums over did not constitute a felony, but was a matter of account. The prisoner had never received aiiy direct instructions as to his duties in respect to the disposal of money r. Mr, Howorth replied that there was ample evidence to show that the prisoner was aware that he ought to have accounted for the moneys at particular times. The learned Crown prosecutor drew attention to the fact that by the prisoner's own admission, there had evidently been a misapplication of the, money to his own purposes, a_nd to an illegal purpose ; this alone would substantiate ono count of the indictment.

A lengthened legal argument respecting the technicalities of the indictment took place between the Court and ths learned counsel for the defence.

After Mr. South had addressed the Jury, Mr. Howorth replied. His Honor having summed up the evidence, the jury found the prisoner guilty on the first count.- His Honor then sentenced him to 12 mouth's imprisonment with.'hard labor, dating from 14th April. This case occupied the Court the whole day. The Court adjourned soon- after 4 o'clock, to 10 o'clock on Wednesday.