RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1147, 4 March 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Temuka—Monday, March 3, 1884. [Before!. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and D. Inwood, Esq., J.P.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. John Neilor was fined 20s' for being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night. CIVIL CASES. Blyth v. Fowler—Claim 12s. Judgment by default. Ackroyd v. W. Allister—Claim L 3 6s 6d. The case was adjourned for a week. Binskin and Gimpsonv. John Kennedy —Claim L 6 Gs Bd. Judgment summons. The defendant did not appear. Jugdment was given that the amount be

paid within 14 days, or th.e defendant go to gaol for one month. Costs were allowed. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff. Uprichard v, James Hay—Claim L 4 7s lOd, Mrs Hay appeared on behalf of her husband, and disputed receiving some i of the items mentioned in the account sued for. The items disputed were allowed, and judgment was given for L 4 Is lOd, without costs. To be paid at the rate of LI per month. Jackson v. Jas, Hay—Claim 9s 6d. Judgment for 4s 6d, without costs. Milligan v. Lee Claim L 3, for wages. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant. After hearing plaintiff’s evidence, the Court gave judgment for defendant, with Court costs. The Court then rose. GERALDINE. Saturday, March 1, 1884. [Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., E.M., and L Dr Fish, J.P.) alleged embezzlement. Joseph Mackay surrendered to his bail, on remand, from Thursday last, on the charges of having, whilst in the employ of Mr D. M. Luckie, Commissioner of the Government Insurance Department, as agent, received the following sums, viz., from Mrs Wadlow, Woodbury, £G 9s 6d on the 14th January last; on the same date, from Joseph Fifield, Woodbury, £1 6s 6d, and from John Fifield, Woodbury, £1 16s 4d ; on 16th January, £1 Is 6d from P. Geergeson, Geraldine ; on 17th January, from George Wood, Woodbury, £2 2s 4d ; and on 18th January £1 12s from George Bethuue, Geraldine, and did feloniously aad fraudulently embezzle the same. Mr White, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr 0. Perry, (instructed by Dr Foster), in the absence of Mr Stout, for the defence.

Prior to the commencement of the case it was decided to adhere to the arrangement made on che previeus Thursday, that the charges be divided into two sets of three each.

Mr Luokie, Government Insurance Commissioner, and Mr Thorne, Superintendent of Agents, were present to give evidence on behalf of the Crown.

Mr While, in opening the case for the prosecution, remarked that it was instituted by the General Government against the accused under the following circumstances :—On 29th October last he entered into the employment of the Government Insurance Department as an agent, under a written agreement, the contents of which made him fully acqainted with the duties which he was required to perform, One of the clauses specified that he was to act under the control of the Commissioner of the Department, acting under Her Majesty the Queen. Another stipulated that he was to pay into the Bank of New Zealand to the credit of the insurance account each day all monies he had collected on behalf of the Department. Another clause bound him to devote his whole time to the service of the Department, and not to transact other business. Another was to the effect that he should act up to the instructions issued from the Department, and attached to the cover of the deposit receipt book issued to the accused. The 9th clause instructed him that every deposit on account of the Department received by him must be paid into the Bank of New Zealand to the credit of the Insurance account, on the date of the receipt thereof, but if there be no Bank at the place where he received any money, on his arrival at a place where there was a branch of the Bank of New Zealand he was to pay the deposits received into such Bank. The accused had instructions not to retain any moneys. [The special instruction referred to as contained in the receipt-book, runs— ‘ Every deposit must bo paid into the bank to the credit of the insurance account on the day of its receipt (or if there is no agency of the bank near the place where a deposit is received, then immediately upon arrival at a place where there is an agency of the bank), and the particulars of deposit endorsed on the bank receipt. When there is delay in banking the agent must explain the cause of such delay when forwarding bank receipts.’] It would be shown in evidence that notwithstanding the terms of the agreement and the instructions, the accused had received on the 14th January last £C 9s fid from Mrs Wadlow, and £1 6s fid from Joseph Fifield, and £1 16s 4d from John Fifield, all of Woodbury, the amounts mentioned in the three charges now before the Court, and had not paid the same into the Bank of New Zealand to the credit of the Government insurance Department. At the request of Mr Perry, all the witnesses were ordered to leave the Court. Mr White continued : The accused received the amounts he had just mentioned whilst at Woodbury, where there was no branch of the Bank of New Zealand, on 14th January, but on the 16th of that m«nth he was in Geraldine where there is a branch. He went to Woodbury on the 17th, and was again in Geraldine on the 18th but be did not pay the moneys received by him into the bank at Geraldine, and in fact had never done so, either there or at any other branch of the bank. On the 29th accused wrote to Mr George Thorne, Superintendent of Agents, in Welling!on, as follows:—‘Please pay to’ Commissioner £l4 8s 2d, being the amount of enclosed first premiums received, there being no means of sending the money, and oblige.’ Enclosed with this order were six receipt-butts, three of which referred to the three sums mentioned in the informations now being dealt with. The memo, or order, however, though addressed to Mr Thorne, was not sent to him; it was sent direct to the Commissioner. The same day, the 19th, accused telegraphed to Mr Thorne in these words ; —‘ Thoroughly disgusted with your treatment of me in finances from first to last, and object to continue under your leading strings financially. Therefore consider working out notice [referring to month’s notice required before leaving the service]. As usual, money telegraphed for not to hand when left Geraldine last night. Wes in saddle to midnight, and am on way to Mackenzie Country. Recall money telegraphed, and honor order on Commissioner for premiums received. Reply Albury.” The order was received, as stated, by the Commissioner, who showed it to Mr Thome, and

Mr Thorne at once repudiated it, — not supposing 1 , never having supposed, that accused had any right to draw upon him in such a way. It would be shown that accused had drawn on Mr Thome occasionally, who had honored the orders, as ha was advised that they were for purchase of horses or for moneys to be sent to his wife. Mr Thorne therefore forwarded moneys to accused from time to time for commission on account of money earned, but on no occasion had any orders been paid or accepted of the kind previously mentioned —to pay the Commissioner moneys on account of proposals received by accused On sth January, fourteen days before this, he wrote to the Commissioner that he had drawn on Mr Thorne for the sum of £3 8s 5d to be paid to him (the Commissioner) on account of proposals received by him on account of the Insurance Department. Mr Thorne declined to honor the order, and wrote to the accused that he had no right to draw orders, that it could not be allowed to treat Government deposit moneys in that manner, and advising him to bank the money. The accused forwarded the money to the Commissioner. That having occurred, the accused must clearly have known that in keeping the three sums which he was charged with doing, and not paying them into the Bank of New Zealand to the credit of the Insurance Department, he was going against the terms of his agreement and his instructions, and also against the warning he bad received from Mr Thome. The moneys referred to net being paid into the Bank, and not accounted for on 26th January, the Commissioner telegraphed to the accused at Dunedin :— 1 Please inform me whether you have paid in £l4 8s 2d, deposits collected by you at Woodbury and Geraldine; If not, bank money at once and hand receipts to resident agent, otherwise audit will interpose,’ (‘lnterpose,’ it was shown, was substituted in transmission for ‘ intervene.’) To that telegram accused replied on the 26tb, by telegraph, ‘Posted order for amount, Woodbury 16th. See Superintendent, Threat audit quite uncalled for. Result serving two masters.’ This message was received by the Commissioner after hours on the 26th, a Saturday, and on the 28th (Monday) Mr Luckie telegraphed again, ‘ Your order cannot be recognised ; it is against law. Deposits public money. Already previously warned. Must again request immediate payment into bank.’ Accused replied on the same day% ‘ Have sent amount premiums received only manner within power under circumstances. Had there been bank within reach should have banked, There was not, therefore drew upon Superintendent as with other moneys have requested him to pay. Does he refuse honor my order \ I instructed him to recall all moneys sent Geraldine and Pleasant Point.’ He (Mr White) took it that he meant that as he was not near a bank there was no other way of sending the money except in the manner he had done. He also stated that hud there been a bank within his reach he should have banked it, but as there was not he had drawn on the Superintendent of Agents, and asked why did he not honor his order. That was an untruthful telegram, because ha had been in Geraldine, where he could have banked the money. The Commissioner, in consequence of this, telegraphed to the resident agent in Dunedin, Mr Niven, who saw accused on the subject of these moneys, and requested him then and there to pay the money into the bank. Accused replied that he was impecunious and hard up, and therefore could not do it; and further that he had given an order on Mr Thorne. If he (Mr White) were successful in supporting these facts by the evidence he would produce, he would subwit to the Bench that it was their duty ft) commit the accused for trial, unless the other side could bring evidence that would overweigh the prosecution. Mr Perr here intimated to the Bench that Mr Stout was to have appeared for. the accused hut ho had suddenly been recalled back to Dunedin, and had left the charge of the case in his (Mr Perry’s) hands. He was thus rather at a disadvantage, and craved the indulgence of the Bench.

His Worship said that they saw the position Mr Perry was placed in. Mr White then called David Mitchell Lnckie who deposed : I am Commissioner of the Government Insurance Department. The accused was appointed hy me to travel as agent for the department. At this stage the accused, through his solicitor, informed the Court that when he was arrested he had two deposit receipt books, but that when he was released on bail in Timaru only one was forthcoming, and that was taken charge of by the authorities. He particularly wished to have the other one. After some conversation on the matter between the Bench and the accused’s solicitor, Detective Kerby, who arrested accused, stated that there were amongst his property in a black bag, two deposit receipt books. He took charge of his property and left it afterwards at the police office in Timaru. One of the books was given to the watch-house keeper and he kept one himself. All the property in prisoner’s possession at the time' of his arrest was entered on the prisoner’s property sheet (produced) which was not signed by accused. When accused was admitted to bail he (witness) did not see whether the book was returned him or not.

Mr White stated that two receipts only were in the block of the book, and they were both taken out as they referred to the cases now before the Court. He could say that he had spoken to the arresting officer as to where the book was, and he replied that as he saw there was nothing in it bearing on the charges before the Court it was returned to accused.

Mr Perry said that there was an evident mistake somewhere. Mr White said that as the book had nothing to do with the charges the accused was to blame, as he should have seen, when his other property was returned him, that the book was included in it.

Mr Perry remarked that that was hardly fair. The inference was that the other side kept the book for their own purposes in connection with the case. He did not, however, impute motives. Mr White said that the difficulty was the accused not signing the property sheet, and not ascertaining what was detained.

pr- Mr Perry : The accused did not know what the charges were against him. He had never even been shown the warrant for his arrest. Mr White : The book has never been seen by anyone connected with the charges. Mr Perry ; I feel in a difficulty. The case must go on without it. If you have the book, let us have it to go on with our defence. .Mr White said the prosecution had not got it, neither had he. The evidence of D. M. Luckie was then continued : I know the handwriting of the accused. The signature agrees with his letter in which he asked to be employed as ageat. 1 produce the agreement, now marked A. By Mr Perry : I am an expert in writing. I never saw accused sign his name. I have seen his other letters and from them I believe that the signature to the agreement is in his handwriting. Mr Perry : I wish to have better evidence as to the signature of the accused. Could the witness swear the signature was that of Mackay 1 i His Worship intimated that the Bench Aras satisfied it was his signature. Mr White : Does the other side say it is not sufficient 1 Mr Perry : Yes. I taj it is not sufficient. An expert should swear positively on the matter. Mr Luckie : 1 again say that I believe it to be his signature. In the ordinary course of my business duties I received this communication by post (the order on George Thorne to pay the Commissioner £l4 8s 2d). It was not addressed to me only the outward cover. (Letter put in and marked B), The six butts and an order on George Thorne (marked C) I - now produce were enclosed in that letter. It' was signed by accused and written in exactly the same style as the agreement. I saw George Thorne, Superintendent of Agents, and showed him the order. Thorne refused to pay it. When I took it to him I said. it was an irregularity of Mackay’s. Thorne said ‘ I can’t pay it.’ Thorne endorsed a memo, on the back of the order. (This memo., dated 25th Jan,, ran— 1 To Commissioner,—On the 19th Jan. Mackay telegraphed to me to honor this order and charge it against his commission. On the slh January I had telegraphed to him that it was utterly impossible to treat Government deposits as matters of account, ana he must pay the amount in himself, as I did not wish to report it officially to you. The order was sent to you to present to me, which seems extraordinary in the face of my telegram to Mackay of the stb January. ) The witness then gave evidence as to the sending or receiving the telegrams quoted by Mr White —‘ Please inform me whether you have paid in, etc, * Posted order for amount Woodbury, etc. ; ‘Your order cannot be recognised, etc. ‘Have pent amount premiums received, etc. and proceeded : I sent a copy of the last telegram to Mr Niven, and from him I received a telegram on 28th, — £ Mackay states hard up. Kefuses bank money, as order given on Superintendent. Best plan, I think, telegraph here money lying Geraldine enable him bank deposits. Lyall and Parkes angling for him, but r seems disinclined leave department.’ The three sums—£6 9s 6d, £1 6s 6d, and £4 16s 4d have never been paid into my office by accused. Cross-examined by Mr Perry ,* From my own recollection I cannot exactly give the exact date as to how long accused was in the employment of Government. He was employed at the date of the agreeMr Perry here showed Ihe Court one of the butts by which he said accused’s services must have commenced on 15th October. Mr White remarked that accused’s services commenced on the 29th October, but before that time he was learning the business from Mr Deverell. That would explain the earlier date of the receipts. Mr Thorne could give evidence in regard to this.

t Cross-examination continued : The accused made the overtures in regard to his being employed. A party named , Deverell was in the employ of Government some time in October. I cannot say if the accused was on half commission with Deverell. The accused has not made a claim against the Department for what he might call ‘ the Deverell trip.’ I never heard of any arrangement amongst the agents in regard to effing with older and more experienced agents on half commission. I cannot tell the gross amount of insurances the accused may have canvassed for. I have no books .here that would show the; total of work done by accused. The accused has received payments from Mr Thorne from time to time. Canvassing agents are under the control of Mr Thorne primarily under my direction. 1 appoint or remove the agents from the service as I see fit from time to time, under Clause 3 of the Regulations. Ke-examined by Mr White : 1 produce the Gazette under which I have power to appoint or remove agents. Cross-examined by Mr Perry : The accused never previously forwarded me orders except the one I have produced. The original order was not sent to me hut to Mr Thorne. After I got the order addressed to Mr Thorne and sent through ii e I heard of the other order. Until I sent the telegram of 28th January I had never warned accused in regard to bis irregularity, but Thorne had. All premium deposits received by accused should come to me as Commissioner, having been paid first into the Bank of r New 'Zealand to the Government insurance account. The accused was not in the habit of sending cheques direct to the Department. ft would have been an irregularity. I have not received numbers of cheques from the accused that never went through a Bank at all. I can’t recall one to mj r mind. 1 have no recollection of receiving a cheque for £2O 7s lOd drawn by one Jeremiah Been, for proposal for life insurance. lam prepared to say that I never received cheques from the accused, as I should be certain v io remember if 1 had. The transactions of the office are so voluminous that I can’t r particularise them. Mr Perry; X can show that you re ceived many cheques. Mr Luckie continued : 1 remember gome time receiving a cheque for £2 from a person whom we don’t know. It was not drawn on the Bank we have dealings with, and I asked our banker to ascertain if it were good—l think it was from a Mr Anderson and not accused—before we f gave credit for it, If these cheques came as stated I should h® 9! Jre rememoer,

and I have given this instance as a reason. I don’t open all letters addressed to the Commissioner unless they are addressed to me personally. A correspondence clerk named Dean, or in his absence Ladbrooke, open such communications. Registered letters would be opened by me. Neither Dean or Ladbrooke are in attendance at the Court to-day. I deny having received a cheque from Jeremiah Leen for £8 7s lOd for proposal on £2OO in Table 3 ; neither have I received an order on the National Mortgage and Agency Company, Timaru, signed by Thomas Pringle for £l9 Is 3d on a proposal for £SOO in Table 38. As a rule the agents generally bank them, and in some cases when agents are in outlying districts and there would be no opportunity of banking when away three or four months at a time an agent would be justified in sending cheques direct to the office together with an explanation as to why he did so. Ido not recollect receiving a letter from accused some time in November last in regard to sending money directto the Department. Mr Perry here asked Mr White to produce copies of telegrams and letters. One was from accused addressed to Mr Thorne, dated 7th January, 1884. (Marked J.) (One passage ran ‘ The trip shall occupy two or three months, and it will be six weeks or so ere we reach a bank, probably at Cromwell. I will therefore forward cheques for deposits.') The witness continued ; I never received a cheque for £2 2s 6d on 15th December, 1883, drawn by H, O’Neill, nor about the 16th January, 1884, one for £lO 2s 6d signed by B. Bartrura on a deposit fc» £IOO, or a cheque from another person for £2 2s 3d for a proposal for £250. I have no knowledge of their ever being in the Department, neither have 1 the slightest recollection of seeing them. Tf accused says that he sent them I believe such statement to be incorrect. It is not very common for cheques to be received. If there was anything unsatisfactory in accused's letter of 7th January it was Thorne’s duty to point it out to him. It is not satisfactory for an agent to send orders in payment of proposals. The agent is responsible to see if it were valid. I would take an order on a Mortgage Company. We don’t issue policies unless we get the cash first. If the agent got the money the Government would be liable. For the butts of the receipts numbered from 14062 to 14083 I have not received any cheques from accused. Nor hare I any knowledge of their being received by the Department. I have noo seen all the telegrams from Thorne to the accused. I saw some but can’t recollect what they were about.

By Mr White: I never heard from Mackay prior to-day the story he has set up in regard to forwarding cheques. This is the first time I have heard that he alleges he sent up cheques or orders to the Department, with the exception of the orders on Mr Thorne.

George Thorne depose;! : I am Superintendent of Agents in the Government Insurance Department, Wellington. The accused entered into the service of the Department. (The agreement marked A was produced.) The signature is in his handwriting. He has acted as agent since he signed it. I first savv the butts and the orders (marked B and C) on 25th January. They were shown to me by the Commissioner, who at the time remarked ‘ this is very irregular.’ The latter part of the writing on the back of exhibit B is my own. That at the top is written at my dictation and initialled by me, and is my reply to the document. The accused never accounted to me for the three sums mentioned on the three butts marked C. Previously to my receiving the memo, which I endorsed I received a telegram from accused (telegram marked L, ‘ Thoroughly disgusted, etc., put in), I received a letter (marked J). The accused sent the butts for two amounts to me. and asked me to pay the money in and to pin the bank receipt to the butts and debit him with the amount, I replied that this was very irregular, and that he must bank the money himself. I received the letter produced (marked M), ‘ I have to request you to hand over amount of enclosed receipts (£3 8s sd) to the Commissioner, and debit me with the same in account; and as horse hire is an expensive item, I expect to pass an order upon you to-day for the cost of a horse which I purchase by auction.’ That letter referred to the two butts. I sent a reply by telegram (marked N), ‘ Will honor your draft for horse, and have remitted bank £lO. Utterly impossible make Government deposits matter of account. Pay in the £3 8s 5d yourself, as I do not wish to report the matter officially to the Commissioner.’ In reply to that telegram 1 received letter marked J. In reply to the telegram marked N he banked the money himself, and sent the bank receipt to the Commissioner. It was for the £3 8s sd. That put that matter straight. On the 17th I received a telegram from him (marked O), ‘Have done proposals for £I4OO since last night with Dr Nicholls. Will have to return here to-morrow to complete four other cases, as parties picnicing to-day. Please remit me £l2 to-day.’ I sent the reply (marked P), ‘Have wired you £l2 at bank. Since starting you have now bad £lO more than £5 per week.’ I received three orders on myself for amounts to purchase horses, etc. 1 was advised by special letter in each case, asking me to pay them. 1 produce a letter, dated Ist January, 1884, asking me to meet an order for purchase of a horse (marked Q). In the letter lie writes I shall be very glad when I am in funds, so that a draft may be honored in my favor for anv available balance to my credit, as my wife gets very vervous and put about when she gets short of money. I have to buy a horse for the journey, as horse hire is very expensive, and shall have to give an order upon you for the amount should I purchase, which kind'y honor, and oblige.’ I received an order afterwards (marked R) in favor of Maclean and Stewart for the price of a horse, £5. I honored it, and paid it by my own private cheque. Another order was jn favor of Mr Clegg for a horse (marked S) ior £7, which I also paid by private cheque. I afterwards got an order for £5 in favor of William Scott, dated 14th January, at Woodbury (marked T). This was for the purchase of another horse. They were the>pnly three orders 1 paid of the accused’*, and which I was fully apprised of. Two orders were paid by private cheque and one by an imprest cheque. I debited the amounts to accused’s commission account. I also sent his wife sums from time to time. He received altogether, including the orders, £B2 in cash. This does not include the sum of

£lO sent to the Point and £l3 to Geraldine for him. That would have made £lO4 altogether, but he did not draw these amounts, and they were afterwards recalled by me. I advanced him money on my own risk. The £l2 remained in the Bank of New Zealand, Geraldine, to his credit till a week ago. The amount of commission the accused earned from 29th October till 19th January was about £67. I shall therefore lose £lO in addition to that by the Department. When I paid him these moneys he had only £45 to his credit so that I stood to lose heavily; but as he did not draw the £lO nor the £l2 his overdraft was reduced.

Cross-examined by Mr Perry : i have not the books of the Department noth me. The accused never claimed half commission (£3O) with one Deverell, one of our travelling agents. He wrote a letter, dated 18th October last— 1 Mr Deverell has done seven lives in my company for £1250 since you left. Dr Gaze leaves for Christchurch to-day, and I start to-day and hope to be able to prove what I am capable of doing.’ I think that some arrangement as to division of commission was entered into between Deverell and accused. I suggested that as he was inexperienced, and Deverell was an experienced agent, he should get him to show him his work. 1 did not give them a district to work together to share Commission between them. I am aware they worked together. I don’t recollect having a conversation with the accused in presence of Dr Gaze on the railway platform at Mataura. I recognised no partnership, and I did not lead him to understand he was to have half commission to be paid by the Department. I did not engage accused in any way except under his agreement. The accused knew what I recognised as cases were paid in accordance with his credit notes. He was paid a commission of 15s per cent for work done on 15th October. I produce credit note (Marked U.) He has been paid the L 3 mentioned in his credit note. That was for the first two cases the accused got. The premiuns were banked in my presence at Mataura. Deverell arrived there about that time. I can’t tell what work was put in by the accused up to the finish. I have paid Deverell for work done from 15th to 29th October. One telegram I received from Mackay estimated his commission at L9O up to 18th January. I have not the telegram. This is the first time I have heard of accused claiming L3O as half commission with Deverell. I received a telegram from accused dated 29th October, in which lie states —‘ In Mr Deverell's company I have taken two dozen lives for LBOOO. Kindly remit here (Mataura) payable to Elizabeth Mackay in my absence. Returned here Saturday night and commenced work above here this morning near Tapanui and strain every nerve to effect business. Written fully.’ I took that telegram as my authority to remit LlO to Mrs Mackay as an advance against his commission. I had sent L 5 to Mrs Mackay on 15th October. These were the only payments made between the 15th and 29th October. At the first I told him I would advance him L 5 per week as he had no money to go on with, and that was the reason why i sent the telegram (marked P,) re his having received LlO over his amount. The commission on the LBOOO wouid depend on what policies were issued included in that amount. Accused was not entitled to receive commission except in the amounts for which policies were issued. The commission on the LBOOO would have been L3O. Altogether he sent m ninety proposals. Thirty-eight were closed, forty-one were either unexamined or not closed and eleven were rejected. 1 sent a credit note to him every week. He was canvassing in the Mackenzie Country and also in Geraldine, We send all agents a summary of w hat had been sent them every week. The account only shows actual policies passed by the Department. He would know every week what was passed to his credit, and it would be sent from the office every week to his last known address. To his knowledge the accused’s home was at Mataura. From the begining of this year he has been canvassing for the Department about Geraldine and Albury. Credit note No. 96 was issued on Ist February last. The Department sent credit notes to the accused every week up to that date, showing the amount of commission due by the Department and placed to his credit. The Department has not given him any intimation of policies rejected, £ think they do give them to the agents. If an agent sends a large number of rejected lives he is censured. He was ho have been censured for two rejections, but as he was a new agent we did not wish to be hard on him. The proposal branch should have given him notice in regard to rejections, but I can’t say from my own knowledge that he had such notice given him. The policy branch prepares the credit notes, which then come under my supervision for payment. I have passed these credit notes (marked Y). They go to 25th January. I saw no irregularity in them. I sent telegram dated October 25th (marked W), ‘ Wire Wellington weekly your proposals, and where remittance is to be sent.’ The remittance alluded to there is L 5 a week in advance. J could have stopped this advance at any time, as it was an advance against his commission. I agreed verbally to do so. The order marked B was for Ll4aud drawn on me, and received by Mr Luckie on the 21st January with the butts also produced. The accused had tc keep a deposit receipt book numbered consecutively, and registered at the head office, Wellington. After a person had agreed to a proposal and the agent had received the money for the same he would issue a deposit receipt from the book, and pay the money into the bank according to his instructions on the cover. He would fill up the butt and counterpart attached to it, pin the butt to the Bank receipt and forward it to the Commissioner, Wellington, In the three instances before the Court, the Department held the butts for the names sent up by accused, showing that the money was received by him. The butts show the deposits on the proposals. They were posted at Geraldine on the 19t,h, and reached Wellington on the 21st. The only irregularity was that he drew out an order on me instead of hanking the money. If the moneys had been paid into the Bank in the usual manner it would have been all right, but he had been warned not to send orders. The butts were received in Wellington in not less than a week after their date. I 1 made no application to the accused for

the butts. They were sent according to his duty. They was no concealment as far as the butts were concerned. I consider it to be a serious irregularity to send an order upon me instead of sending the money through the bank. My office ia close to that of the Commissioners. 4 make it a practice to warn every agent that enters the service of the grave risk they run in not banking immediately. If an agent dors so after being warned he is dismissed. One was so dismissed. Phe accused was not dismissed on sth January because I bad advised him privately _to bank the money. He did so within a day or two and I did not report the matter to the Commissioner. I shielded him. 1 did not know till the 25th January in regard to the receipt of the butts and the order. 1 cannot swear that I did not know before the 25th that the butts were in the Department. I cannot say when 1 first saw them. I think it was on the 24th. I can’t say whether Mr Luckie or myself were in Wellington from the 21st to 25th January, but 1 think we were. I was not requested to communicate with accused till the 24th in regard to his irregularity. The telegram (marked X), * Money at Pleasant Point, was duplicated tp Geraldine (marked Y.) I wired Ll2 to Geraldine on the 18th, and wired the LlO to the Point. Ihe accused wired to me on the 19th re money at the Point, and I telegraphed to the Post Office there to post the order to Albury. The Postmaster then telegraphed me that the order (marked Z) was refused. I remember receiving another telegram from the accused, io which he stated that I ‘ was mightily mistaken if I thought he was going to do the work for L 5 per week,’ but I have not got it here with me, I sent a telegram to the accused on the 19th (marked X 1.) All telegrams are not here, some being being left behind in Wellington, I wrote accused that I had sent LlO to his wife so that he could be easy minded and work out his month’s notice (Marked X 2.) It was a private cheque and not debited to his account at all. I put in another telegram (Marked X 3.) The Court here adjourned at half past five p.m. till ten a.m. on Monday, March 3rd. Monday— March 3. The Court resumed its sitting at ten a.m. H. 0. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., presiding. The case against Joseph Mackay was continued.

Mr C. Perry asked that the book previously mentioned in the Court be handed over. It had been traced into the hands of the police. Mr White said that he had the book handed over to him by the police. It had not been traced, for the police came forward and gave it up. Detective Kirby on returning to Timaru searched everywhere, and found it in a cupboard in the pohce office there. It belonged to the Department and would not be handed over to accused as if it belonged to him.

At the request of Mr Perry, Detective Kirby stated that on the return to Timaru the accused had stated so positively that the book was in the hands of the police, that he immediately searched the office and found it in a cupboard in his office. On making this discovery he reported it to his superior officer, Mr Broham. The accused came to the office about 1 p.m. on Sunday, aud he had every facility to see the book.

Inspector Broham said that accused came to the office at 11 a.m. on Sunday, and was told to come again at 1 p.m. He told Detective Kirby of the appointment made, and instructed him to let accused see the book if he wished.

The book was then laid on the table. George Thorne’s cross-examination was then resumed : 1 first saw Mr Mackay in reference to his employment at Mataura. I then decided to recommend him to the Commissioner. I was then on the way to Invercargill. From Invercargill I sent up documents to Mataura for him to commence his work. I sent him up the first deposit receipt book through the post about the 15th October. I am certain I saw him on the 16th. The Commissioner telegraphed to me that accused had applied for the appointmenl. I had no power to employ him till the Commissioner approved of him. 1 think I telegraphed to the Commissioner at Invercargill as to the accused’s fitness. As a fact he was canvassing for the Department on the 15th. He was not formally ,-appointed till he signed the agreement. Mr Perry : I think you are fencing the question. Mr White objected, and asked the Court if such was the case. His Worship : I don’t think so. •

Witness: The Commissioner telegraphed to me, staling he thought the accused would be a good man. He was with Mr Deverell from .the 15th to the 29th of October on insurance work. He was not an employee of the Government as a matter of fact till the 29th. He has bad commission paid him for his first two cases mentioned in the deposit receipt book, When I returned from Invercargill, I went to accused’s house with Dr Gaze. I suggested that accused should accompany Deverell to get experience on half commission. Accused objected, and said he would work by himself. Deverell also objected. We met again in the evening at Humphrey’s Hotel. If Deverell owes accused anything, he is well able to pay him as he is in receipt of L6OO or L7OO a year. (Mr Perry : We say the Government Ought to pay). If accused had sent up a list of the cases obtained jointly, or marked them in his own name, be would have got credit for them. While at the hotel th.e half commission was talked over regain, and Deverell suggested that accused should accompany him, as ho knew the Mataura district so well I thought it amicably arranged. I can’t recollect any definite arrangement had been made at the time I was going away by train, but 1 understood they wore going away together, I don’t recollect Dr Gaze calling me on one side just before 1 left. I did not tell accused as the train was going away to accompany Deverell on half commission as a definite instruction. I suggested it. I swear positively, even if Dr Gaze says so, that I did not te'l him officially. 1 have credited him with all the work sent in in his name. There was no work between IGth and 29th October that 1 am aware of. I got several telegrams from accused as to the amount of work done I crot one or two telegrams before the one from accused re ' taken lives for LBOOO. ’ I have copy of telegram from accused to mo in reply to mine stating I had sent him S Ll2, but not the origiua dated, 18th

January 18 -A. .The following teiogr . n was put in : —‘ T' e L 5 a. w.vk ref wed to was guaranteed for the first mont.li. You said whatever I made would be credited to me each week on hearing from me by telegraph, 1 have done so each week since entering service. If you expect me to work for as I have done for L 5 weekly yo n are mightily mistaken. Reply Albury, stating amount to my credit. You have in me your best agent in New Zealand, if you treat me fairly, If not I must devote my energies elsewhere to better advantage. My personal expenses last week were over £5. What is to become of my family 1 This I will not submit to. Understand this clearly once and for all. My commission on business done fortnight before Christmas alone was L9O on L 12,000. —J oseph Mackay .’ In a subsequent telegram accused said, ‘ Money at Pleasant Point no use to me. It can be recalled. If I remain in the service I must have my remittances telegraphed to Mataura, to that 1 can arrange my own financing. lam waiting reply from Commissioner before continuing my journey or transferring ray services to other companies, who are anxious to secure them. If I had money of my own to spend it might be otherwise. I have not, and my family have been starving since my wife sent for £lO on the 3rd insi. You knew my movements, my wife did not, and I have been working night and day for the Department. I should now be in bed, having been thrown from horse yesterday. I sustained serious i ternal injuries ; still I kept on working. It is very hard my family should be neglected. I feel more than tongue can tell. I cannot longer submit to such treatment,’ Mr Thorne replied, ‘ I have asked Postmaster Pleasant Point to forward money order. Was no possible means of sending money. Trust you will soon recover from effect of severe fall. Have sent LlO to your wife on the 10th. Do not be afraid ; your ability is appreciated. Will reply by letter. L 46 gone to your credit, but proposals take a long time to become policies. 1 On January 24th, accused telegraphed to the Commissioner as follows : —‘ As you have treated my last telegram with silent contempt, I have communicated with the Colonial Treasurer this morning, and will take means of exposing my experience of the maladministration of the Department through next Parliament, unless satisfactory arrangements are completed by two o’clock to day. I will then transfer my services to the Australian Provident Society. —Joseph Mackay.’

On the same day he telegraphed to Mr Thorne ;—‘ Your last telegram adds insult to injury. As the Commissioner has paid no attention to my late telegram, I have applied to the Colonial Treasurer, and will take means to expose your treatment of me through next Parliament, unless satisfactory anangeare made by two o’clock to-day. I will then transfer my services to the Australian Provident Society. My Deverill trip three months ago seems still unsettled by you, as no credit seems to be made thereupon.’ In another telegram of the same date, he says: —‘l can personally stand anything from anybody, but when anybody spoils the comfort and happiness of my house as you did 1 cannot forgive.’ We are compelled to hold over the balance of our report. At about a quarter to four o’clock the hearing of evidence was completed. Mr Perry spoke for about three quarters of an hour in a very telling speech. Plis Worship decided to commit the accused for trial, bail being allowed, himself in LIOO and two sureties of LSO each. The C#nrt adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning, when the three remaining charges will he heard.