Supreme Court

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 1, 20 May 1914, Page 6

Supreme Court

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. The quarterly session of the Supreme Court fit New Plymouth was opened yesterday before His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. > GRAND JURY. The, following grand jury was empanelled:—Mcssi'h. Stanley;,- ,1. Smith, <>. M. Arrowsniith, Walter Ambury, Henry Black, E. ']•'. Blundell, Eiolia.nl Cock. Robert 0. Ellis. M. Frascr, R. 11. George. K. Griffiths, H. V. S. Griffiths, Michael Healv, T. G. Hirst. W. T. Jennings, 1-. ,\- Johns, J.. Little, ,i. T. Miiimix. 0. Rilling. George Ramson, P. J. TT. White. Frank V,. CH'bell, W. .1. Pcnn, aiwl Robert A. : Morton. Mr. M. Frascr was chosen forcman. JUDGE'S CHARGE. | The Judge, in his charge to the (.'rand Jurv, congratulated them on the small number of cases which they would have to deal witli. There were only two bills for them to consider. Neither would present much difficulty in point of law or fact. The first was a charge against ' a man employed in the oilfields near ' New Plymouth of theft in various forms of moneys from -the house where lie was temporarily received. There would be no difficulty in bringing in a true bill in this case. The second case was one of those 1111- ; pleasant cases in which a man 'holding 'a good position as clerk to tho Moa : Road Board and the Inglcwowl Borough Council, had given way to temptation and from time to time appropriated moneys entrusted to Wm. It presented even ' less difficulty than the first. It did not appear to him that the misappropriation had been at any time eontested, though the common jury might fail to find criminal intent. TRUE BILLS. True bills were returned.uy Hie Grand Jury in the cases of the Ring v. Arnold Victor Smith, breaking and entering and thoft of moneys, and the King v. William dc Grouchy Ogier, six sepwatc charges of embezzlement. ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. BY LVGLEWOOD TOWN CLERK.

William do Grouchy Ogicr was charged ' or. six different counts with having at ( a time, when he was clerk to the. Mou Rood Board and to the Inglewood Bor- _ ough Council, misappropriated moneys j paid to him on terms requiring him to ] account for them to these, bodies. The total amount of the alleged do ! fnlcations wa3 stated at £35 .'is Od. j Allegations were'made in evidence, covering deficiencies amounting to over £SOO. Mr. C. N. Weston, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown, and Mr. A. 11. JMmstono represented accused, who pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empannellodi Messrs. A. H. Steeds', 11. Sfocker, Albert V. Stohr. 1.-. Laurent, A. If. Palmer, Gustavus Sole. Ernest Johnston, George ■ 11. Harrison, W. C. Nixon, .Tames Mc- ' Leod, William P. A. McKoy, Thomas C. ''Wilson. Mr. Stacker was chosen forc- , man. j Mr. Weston, in opening the case for I the prosecution, said that accused was ; clerk to two local bodies whose offices ! were Close .together. The Government Auditor had audited the books of the | Moa Road Hoard about the end of 1013. After doing that he audited the books of the Inglewood Borough Council, and he found deficiencies of £378 15s 8d in the books of the Moa Road Hoard, and of £253 0s in the books of the. Borough Council. Accused was charged with the : theft of these, moneys, and liad then made certain admissions. With the assistance, of the accused, the methods 'which it was alleged he had used would be explained. It would be made clear in evidence that the receipt books of the Board were numbered from 1 to 100, and that duplicate receipts were kept bymeans of carbon papers. It would seem that accused had kept a private receipt book, from which he had issued receipts to persons paying him money, keeping the duplicate in his own book, and put- ; ting tiio money into his pocket. It ■ would at once, bo clear that in these circumstances a man could not be long wwVtceted, land it would appear in evidence that accused-had from time to », time, paid into the Board's account the , I money received from one man, using for this the money received from ani other at a more recent date, and bring-

ing the entries forward into the books of the Board from his own private receipt book. It would be apparent that this system would act like rolling a snowball, and at the end of December there was a deficit of £373 15s Bd. In the three instances wjliieh would be brought before the Court the money had been paid by cash. The cases in respect of the Borough Council were a little different, as the money had been paid by cheque, and it. would be shown that accused hud 'always paid the cheques into the Council's bunk acoount, but a defence ou that ground could not be, because it was his duty as clerk to account for the moneys to the Boroutrh Council and it would be shown that he did not do so. It would be fot the jury to decide whether this failure to account had been of fraudulent intent. They would bo asked to believe that in putting these cliequ.es to the Council's credit, he did so to replace money stolen from other people. Accused had repaid all the. money, but the jury would be asked to believe that he could not therefore say that he had Juid the money all the lime, because it would be shown he had told the auditor that he hoped to be able to get the money from his people. It was «i regrettable case, but he thought the jury would have little doubt on the matter of his guilt .John William Collbigwood, of Leppef road, deposed that on Nov. 30, 1913, he paid rates amounting to £9 7s !)d to accused at the oflieo of the Moa Road Board and received the receipt produced. Joseph Butler, of Norfolk road, deposed that on Nov. 30, 1913, he paid £l3 us Id to accused at the office of the Inglewood Borougih Council for rates due to the Moa Road Board, and received the receipt produced. 1 fans August l-kuvcrbicfl', of Dudley road, deposed to the pavment to Ogicr on Dec. 0. 1913, of £2 14s 8d in bank notes as rates due to the Moa Road Board, and recognised the receipt produced, as the. one Ogier gave him.

Harold Trimble, chairman of the Moa Road Hoard, deposed that nwusod was the clerk and treasurer to the Timrd for three or four years. In January last witness was at the Board's olfu-e with the Auditor and accused, when the Auditor told witness that there was n deficiency in the accounts of the Board amounting' to about £3OO. They talked the matter oyer, and accused admitted (ho deficiency, swing that he had got into difficulties and therefore used the money. Accused said he thought he eouM. arrange for it to be repaid, and asked if he would be prosecuted if (lie amount were paid. Witness -said tliat in this case the Board woidd take no further action, but tha-t lie could not

answer for the Auditor-Genera!. He produced (he cash book, rate book, and bank book of the Board. To Mr. Johnstone; As a mailer of tact, the Board did not prosecute accused. He woilM not swear a ecu od actually .said that he had used tint money, although he admitted having got into 'difficulties. Witness merely inferred that. Ho knew that Ogier' had been given to drink fin' the last two years, and 'hud once taken out n prohibition order against himself. He coukl not Hay that he was badly given to drink.

Joseph Little, of Sentry Hill, Flourmiller, deposed that his limn received two demands from the Inglcwood Borough Council laht year, one for rales and one for rent. The cottage for which lie was rated was insured in the Sun office, for whicili Ogier was ogent. and the premium was 17s Id. On August (i, 1!)!:). he paid accused the rent, rates anil insurance by post, Hie amount being ,CI Us 4(1. Rogi'iuM Pike, of Now Plymouth.-of the linn of Pike and Waters', depn-ed that in Nov., ]',!l2, lie paid. a. Cheque for C 7 to Ogier on account of the Inglewood Borough Council. Ilis hank book showed payment made on January 8, 1913. He produced receipts for the rates, bearing a signature which, he oelieveii to be accused's. In July, H)U, he paid a, further sum of ,U0 by cheque to accused by post, and received a receipt produced. The date wf the receipt was Dee. 1, I'JU. After sending this cheque, he saw Ozier and asked him to send a receipt, and lie thought accused said "All right." The receipt was not in accused's -handwriting, and was signed "Geo PullcJi."

George Yiwing, "MayoT o! l'ug.ewood, *- powed that accused was clerk to the Borough Council when lie look,office, and had held the position tor nine years. He was appointed clerk to the Road Board about five years ago. In Deo. last the Auditor audited the books of the borough at the, Moa Road Hoard office. Witness and accused saw the Auditor there and the Auditor said to accused: ••Have you sold any radiators, and did you get the money!" Accused said "Yes." The Auditor then said, "It's not in tho books," anil accused said, "Isn't it?" The Auditor pressed accused, who said that his books were not quite in order, but he would give all the assistance, he could'to put them .right. In conversation accused said that lie got into difficulties about four years ago and admitted that "this also applied to the Moa. Road Board." The amount of the deficiency in tho Borough books was mentioned at £'2oi) or £3OO.

To Mr. Johnstone: lie did not actually know then what till; amount was. but accused gave all assistance, and when the amount was known the money was paid. He knew of Ogier'* drinking habits, and that he had made a .strong effort at reform. Accused was not infrequently muddled. The Borough Council took no further steps in the matter. He pjod'nuwl the b'.ioks of the I Borough.

Joseph (Jibbs, ii iiifiiibcr of tlk' Inglewood Borough Council, <le]>o.-cd that in conversations with Mr. Young and accused at the Borough Council Office, accussed was asked why they. ■lnul not been taken into accused's confidence at an early stage to save, himself, and atcused J iep!kstl tliat the matter had been tioiiig on for about four years, and «he thought all through that be would be able to pay the money back. Early in January

witness luwl asked to bo taken into accused's confidence. At the. later interview be ■uhcJiight accused' Maid t;V.tit £2OO would cover the Borough Council's deficiency. To Mr. Johnstone: When be told accused that the matter could have been saved, be was sincere. lie and Mr. Young would have found tlie money in January, because they had known him for over -ten years, lie knew that sic-

euscd had been drinking, and that Ms affairs wore muddled. Accused had given every assistance, in clearing the matter up. Even after accused's suspension, witness still bad confidence in him. -Mr. Young had done all the bui-1-rtess with the Auditor, and witness .had always understood from him that no steps would bo taken if the money were paid. James Henry Fowler, Coventor auditor for Tar.auaki, deposed that in consequence of what he found in tho borough books, he, in the presence'of the .Mayor, asked Ogier if he had been strictly 'honest. ' Ogier -said, "Wiliat i\o yen mean?" WitiiDSi said ''Haven't you received money for which you have not■ accounted 1 Did not Pike and Wafers, pay that £77" After further conversation, accused arid, "Yes, I 'had tbe money," anil (to the Mayor) "I'm very sorry." lie then offered to give ail'l assistance die could. He said be had been in financial trouble. Accused asked tbe Mayor and witness tio keep the matter quiet for a day or two. to which witness agreed'. He then completed- the audit of both bedies' books, and in' a Fe'aroli of Hie Roiid Board office found -three receipt, 'books, two of which referred to the Road Board' and one to the. Borough Oouueil, The hooks were produced. When be asked accused for assistance: to sl.raigJiten up affairs .mccuacd went into the back r-ctan of tbe Read Board office, saying that be wanted to look for some receipt books. On being asked, accused said tint the bonks ■which witness ihad, were -those he was searching fi.:lr. Accused then explained ■his use of' the books as outlined by Mr Wcolon. The books formed no part of the Borough or Roa.d Board books. When aiwiuivd made repayment, be put the word ''entered" and sound ines the date, on the. receipts in tbe duplicate hooka. Tbe only date shown in the hooks rtf tbe local li.:dy was i.h-it on which be made repayment, net. that on which be received the money. His Honor pointed out (bat the receipt lsffiaka produced were sfairpi'd with tfhe naime of the lot'-al body and were therefore corporation book*. Witnes-1 rejoined that as far as the |

wt«pa.ve.r.s were concerned: thev v.v,m].d be, but tlii'.y ware not produced lo him when he invade diw audit. Tin l rcce-ipU uicntiionfil by witnesses in tin* case did i>"'6 be:i,v the word "entered." a ml no entry of (he receipt of those, manic in the cash baits by accused, nor in the rate honk \Mhen wil.nr.-is m-ad'c the -st.iul.it. Ho had: JiuKßolf entered them since. The total deficienc-v in tlhe Road Board's books wis £373 13s Sd. o<*ii\v had t.r,ld him -that lie Imped- to get Hie money fni.cn I'M >peoiil.\ In.a general conversation rt«"ißc.d ' c .n,:i! that to nuke repayments from tiime fo time, lie sometimes used hi" own mciioy. and <-.'.Ti>eti:iv.'» monev representor by f.repJi rH'i.ipt-i issued frciii the privttte voraiipt hnok. To Mr Johnstone: Tlio assistance which Ogio'r g'a.ve enabled liinv l» make an aeeiwaitu exaimc.n.u.ion ol the bonks c,f the bmrd. The n,coi:d v-hi-h fiaicr kept in tlhe books was' systematic. There was in some, cases a delay of si nic-iiUi iu mokin« repayment. He believed Ogiei'a statement that he had paid back Hi i mlo.neys with cevne. tit his own funds an/I some of -Uic monßys reccntl'v received Thorn -would be liothennf «ld in the fact that choi'iies were paid into one account as opposed to another, except in the case

of tihe *d™ctrb supplies niomy, whn-li could easily bo di.s-i.ing-iri-s.licd. Me (lis covered nolihing wrong when lie made hi? previous audit of the books. Accir.iul when taxed with mi appropriation was .u::J\ upset. After witncss'kul written up I'lic books they were perfectly in order except for the delkieiiey w'liie'ii was then shown.

Harold .T. M. Thomson, of luglewoc.l, so'icit'a' to the In&lewood R-eron«h Co.um.il avid the Moa Reac 1 IWard, deposed Unit about the end of- January, 15)14, he was instructed; by liola to collect moneys from Ogier. Accused told him that be would pay the moneys -when the amount was ascertained, and It? <ml so two days after the auditor's renoi't was received. *. To 'Mr Jdiostouo: He had to exert no inss'iire at all to get tbe nioiiev. That concluded the. case for the Crown. Mr Johnis'tone called no evidence, but briefly addressed the jury. He said that tlraigh .tihe evidence of the auditor had been somewhat complex, the .facta of the case were quite siinp'c. Each charge ( ag.ifnst .iccu.-ed was subdivided i:-:to ( three sections, thett, fraudulent conver-;' sicn, and omission, to account with intcnt th- drirauil. H was obvious that the cv-enco of tbe two latter cie r-es, was fraud, wbich was never presumed in lawhut must be proved, .and the definition of theft WW the act of friuii'.ilcnfly taking money or property and converting with the intention lei? per-manently -ib-priving ■the owner of it. It was therefor.i Uie duty of tbe jury to say whether they could, from the evidence, infer fraudulent intent. Ho admitted Unit accu-e.d bad committed grave irregularities, had been wretchedly weak, had failed to make entries, had mixed trust money with "his own, but the question was not whether he had; c.oir.lmilted.. a moral offence, but whether be had done sufficient to bring liim within the four earners of criminal law. He submitted that accused's actions hail been merely t'hnss of a weak and suluUtled man. ticking the intarai towage to (ace the sittM'Uou in lime. -He liail assisted in clearing up the matter, and had paid hick the nionev. Although repayment was no defence to a criminal charge, it at least might whow that at naval had no intention of permanently doprivJUf* the local bodies of their mloneys. As to the ailinisskins which Bccuße/l 11114.1 made, they were iivirdy thess of -a di.strissscd and over.wrcv.igbl, man, who might easily make statement i, tihe full im'po.i* of which he ba.velv realised). He submitted Mint acI cu-."d's failure to make entries in the I lior.ks win the fl.c.tion -at a -worried and muddled man., rather thin of a thief, and ■reminded the jury that be was entitled to the benefit of any doubt which Lnv.cbt anise in their minds-.

llir Ho-nnr.-. in Rii'mnhig up, agreed with Mr Johnstone, o-uly- on the pjiinftd nature of the ease. When Mr Johnstone si id. th-a.t there -was no intent to steal -pa-ove'l aiul th.it therefore tHemiscd should be committed, lie; wis invitim* the jury to disreftMr-d tlio hie and their o-M.liA ' All he could say was that if it were true that a. elevk who took the moneys of his eimiploycjH -nit intend-in" to steal them tat to borrow toem was innct-ant of bhoft, there wor.ild never be a co-iw'tt-.fci'on recornVd. The Uw wiled a dobt insuwed in Unit *vn ; y theft, otherwise n!a employer -would be safe- A per-

son who received money on tir;n« r>quiring him to acewmt for it or to pay it to some other person, and who la bed tea Jo fo' was. u thief. The facts were nit disputed, and if the jury acted, in accordance with the law they would find :ik:iim\:l guilty, if they departed from this, they must remember that there would be no safety tfur employers of ih-ik-i and* other scTrauts in Tairanaki.

Tlic jury, after a lv'.irmncnt cf o an -hour, returned, with a verdict of guilty on all counts,' with a stibng recommendation to mercy on the ground.; that be bad rr-]i:iid the money and r: ndciYil all possible assistance in clearing up the matter. His Honor intimated that he would consider the jury's- recommendation, and would pass sentence at the conclusion of tbe criminal cases to-day. AbbEGKD THEFT OF MOXKYS.

I Arnold Victor Smith a young Russian Pole, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaking and enlering a dwelling-house and theft, of ;C43 2s. and a further charge of theft of €4l from a dwellinghouse. Mr, V. 11. West on. Crown l'rosceulor, conducted the prosecution. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs Frank linker. R. A. (irimmer, Alfred S. I'rost. .lohn William Smith, Le.wih' (!. <!reenwav, I'erev I'. Kva, C K. Bedringer. Johi/Kempßiil!,. If. J.' Wanchctt. juiir.. (leorge K. libickbourii, 11. C. Bishop and Walter K. Baily. Mr. Jicllringer was elinseu foreuuin. The case against the accused. a s outlined by Mr. Weston, was that in the months of November and December, 1013, accused, who was then working on the b.s. llarawa, was in an impecunious position. About .lamiary lib ho came down in the Rarawa from Onehuuga and went to a house at Motnro'a, occupied by some Austrian Poles, wlio were working in that vicinity. As lie represented himself as destitute, and as he was a countryman of theirs, they took liian in and got work for him at the Blenheim oil bore. lie worked for some little time, but eventually became dissatisfied saying' tbe work was too dirty for him,' and he left. On .lanuary 31 one of the drillers, who wtis working at Tikonuigi at the time, fame to Motnroa, and as lie was afraid that he might during the. course of the evening' take too much liquor, gave to one of his countrymen £4l for safe keeping. This money was put info a chest, to wlrfch accused had access. In the evening, four of the Austrian* went for a walk, leaving in the house one of their friends, who was asleep, ami accused. Later in the evening it wa; found that the, £4l was missing. Next day accused was searched by the police, who found nothing to .incriminate him. Some days later, when he was about to leave for Auckland, he met Detective-Sergeant Boddam in New Plymouth, and "in an excess of bravado" offered to allow the detective to Search him again, but this the latter did not think necessary. He went to Auckland, and as soon as 'he got there lie hired a motor car and drove about, spending .Co in this way. Ho produced three £lO notes, and changed two into gold with the driver of the car. Then he went to a 'board-ing-house in Grey Lynn, gave his landlady .C2O to take cave of for him. and spent some days in driving ladies about

iii motor-cars and generally 'having a good time, On February 19 he asked ■ Captain Norbury for a free passnge on the lUrawa to iloturoa, but on this befuscd, he paid Ins fare. On the'follow-' in,;' Saturday morning, at 9 o'clock; he •hired a motor-car in Xew Plymouth and drove to Stratford. On that day, all the Austrian* living in the house at, Moturoa. left to go to their work at 7 a.r.i., and on returning at noon found that they -had been robbed of sums varying from 8s to £23, and had sum* pic-ions tha-t accused bad committed the thefts. __ lie was subsequently seen by one of tha Austriana on the Stratford railway station, and when arrested by Constable Boulton had a railway ticket for Auckland in his possession. . Mr. Weston admitted that the evidence against the accused vra* purely circumstantial, but claimed that it would be found conclusive. The examination of the Austrian witnesses through an interpreter was long and tedious. Their evidence was circumstantially in support of tin «af* as outlined by Mr. Weston.

Peter Ukteja, an oil-dril'.cr at the Blerhoim 'bore, deposed to the eirtutnstimces of accused's arrival as stated by counsel. France Roiek, a blacksmith, living at Moturoa, supported the previous evidence. Drewnowski gave him money for safe custody, in a leather pouch. There were three £1« notes, two £5 notes, and one £1 note. He put the money in bis pocket, and they ail went for a walk, including Smith. When they returned, bo put the money in a drawer of a small table near hi* bed. Early on Sunday morninfl actused went to his room and asked for writing paper, which- witness told him wag in the drawer. At midday witness counted the money in the presenee of Drewnowski and put it back ih the drawer. Tn the evening witness and several others went for a walk, leaving Smith in a field near the derrick. When they returned, Smith was at the door of the house. He found the money had none. lie t(Ad Drewnowski, who was talking to Smith, what iiad occurred. Smith had spoken to him several times about the loss, saying that some of the others miflht, Imvo taken the money, and »ugiresting that they should all combine to make it up. He also said that he h&d never kid £4O together. Referring to the second loss, he said that he left the house at 7 p.m. on February 21, awl on his return found that £6 in gold had locked away in a portmanteau and also some silver which he had left in a drawer were missing. Witness was cross-examined by accuse ed as to whether the latter hud sold •that lie had never owned £4O or that ho would not keep so huge a Mini on his person. Accused hail a dispute as to witness' reply with the. interpreter, I who persisted that the witness ha-d [ said that accused had told him that he I never owned £4O.

Mihael Kowalski told of aecused'a arrival at the house at HoluvoSa. On the occasion of the second load he bad had in a cigarette box, locked up in a cihest, oim new £lO note, two £3 notes, and £3 in gold. On the Monday after he lost the money he taw accused on the Stratford platform. Witness said in reply to a question by accused that be had conic after him. Accused replied, "Have you come niter the first money?" Witness said, "No, for Saturday's money."'

Joseph Fruzyniski said that Ukli'ja had lent accused 5s because ho said ho had no money. On the occasion of the second loss, witness left his purse fai a locked portmanteau. In the purse were one £lO note, two sovereigns and one half-sovereign. He corroborated - the previous evidence. T!iu Court adjourned until 10 a.iu, today. . - '