RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1148, 6 March 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gerald :ne—Monday, March 3, 1884. (Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M. and Dr Fish, J.P.) ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT BY JOSEPH MACKAY. The following is the continuation of our renortof Monday’s proceedings at the above Court, in the case against Joseph Alackay : There was very little of any interest in the evidence of George Thorne, Superintendent of Agents, beside what appeared in onr last issue. The examination of this witnessed commenced at 2 p.m, on Saturday, and lasted till 5.30 p.m., when the case adjourned, it was resumed at 10 a. m. on Monday, and was finished at 1 p.m. R. C. Niven, Resident Agent, Dunedin, was next examined, and gave evidence t» the effect that he had asked the accused to bank the money, as directed by the Commissioner, and that he refused, stating that he was hard up and he had already given the order. Mary Ann Wndlow and her husband, John Fifield and his son, John Cunningham, agent of the Bank of New Zealand, and Charles Philipson, clerk in the Bank of New Zealand, were examined, and their evidence showed that accused had received the moneys which he was charged with Laving embezzled. Mr Cunningam said that a cheque signed B. P. Bahrain had been returned to him from Wellington for payment. The obvious reason for eliciting this information was to show that the accused was in the habit of sending money to Wellington otherwise than through the bank, and the Department was in the habit of receiving it.

Detective Kirby gave evidence in reference lo having received the receipts from the accused, and admitted he arrested him without a warrant.

In reply to the Court the accused said —‘ I throw the accusation in the teeth of my accusers, and leave the matter in the hands of my counsel.’

Mr Perry in a very able and exhaustive speech addressed the Court on behalf of the accused, and asked that the case be dismissed. He very forcibly showed that the conduct of the accused from first to last showed no secrecy, and that he had sent to the Department of his own free will evidence of his guiit. The whole thing arose out of accused harina - made arrangements for a long trip to the Mackenzie Country, and as Ids money had not come to him from the Department when be expected it he used the money of the Department to carry him on, and sent an order to Mr Thorne to pay the amount and deduct it from his commission. He also laid great stress on the fact that as soon as accused found out money had been telegraphed to Geraldine and Pleasant Point for him he ordered Mr Thorne to recall it and pay the order. Accused, if he had wished to act dishonestly, could have stuck to this money. At the conclusion of the speech His Worship said he would commit the accused as he thought the case ought to be thoroughly investigated. The accused was then committed for trial, bail being allowed, himself in £IOO and two sureties of £SO. Tuesday, Maiigh 4. (Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M.) ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. Joseph Mackay was again charged with having on or about 14th January, 1884, whilst a servant of the Government, received at Woodbury the sum of

£1 6s 6d, the property of the Government Insurance Department ; also that he did, on the 17th January, receive the sum of £2 2s 4d at Woodbury, and on the 18th January last the sum of £1 12s at Geraldine, the property of Mr Luckic, Government Insurance Commissioner, his master. Mr White, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the Crown, and accused conducted his own case.

The accused remarked that the case might occupy the Court a fortnight, and owing to his position craved the indulgence of the Court in conducting his own case. He would spare no effort to have the matter thoroughly investigated. There were several telegrams which were not forthcoming and he had telegraphed to the Premier that the copies might be forwarded to him.

His Worship said he would allow accused every possible opportunity. Mr White, in opening the case for the prosecution, remarked that he did not know that he had a right to regret that tiie accused was not represented by counsel, but it certainly was not the fault of the prosecution. The facts of the cases now to be brought belore the Court were pretty well brought out in the previous charges, and the only additional evidence would he that of the parties who had paid moneys to the accused. It would probably be relied on by accused that he was so circumstanced when he received these moneys that he was at the time unable to back them and forward the bank receipts to the Commissioner in accordance with his instructions. He would have to reiterate part of the opening of the previous cases in order to sliovv that accused was not only in a position to do so, but that he was aware of it at the time he sent the order to Thorne. The case, although the amounts were not large, had already occupied a large portion of the time of the public and the Court. He had no intention of prolonging the proceedings more than was necessary. Mr White drew his Worship’s attention to the order sent to the Commissioner on Mr Thorne. (Order read.) Woodbury, where the accused received the three sums of money which were the subject of the three charges heard on Monday, is within six miles of Geraldine, where there is a Bank in which accused could have lodged the money’s. Accused was in Woodbury on the 14th January. He was in Geraldine on the 16th January. At Woodbury again on the 17th January, and in Geraldine, in immediate contiguity to the B ink of New Zealand, on the 18th. If he could not have banked all the sums cf money lie received he could certainly have banked part of them; but he could have banked all on the 18th January, He elected to return to Woodbury, and sent to the Commissioner an order on Mr Thorne for the amount of £l4 8s 2d. But although accused was in a position to bank the money, he telegraphed to the Commissioner on 28th January, or nine days after he had been in possession of the six sums. That telegram said that I he (accused) had sent all premiums received in the only manner within his power under the circumstances. Had there been a bank within reach would have banked, but there was.not and he therefore drew upon the Superintendent of Agents.’ That was an untruthful one, and if a person in the accused's position were found sending untruthful telegrams the inference would be that he wished to throw the department off its guard. There was only one other point to bring under his Worship’s notice. It was reiied on Monday by tbe defence that accused stated in his letter of Bth January, addressed to Mr Thorne, that “Dr Webb arrived here today and we leave on horseback tomorrow, and that our probable route would be the Mackenzie Country, etc., and that the trip would occupy some months, and in regard to forwarding cheques for deposits, etc., that he was beyond the? reach of any bank and was doing the only thing in his power by sending an order on Mr Thorne.” But it was not shown by the defence on Monday, nor could it be that day, that accused was in the Mackenzie Country from the time the letter was written up to the time he received the six sums, or was he in the Mackenzie Country at all. After leaving Woodbury accused went to Clayton, about 36 miles from Geraldine. The first work done by accused after leaving Geraldine on 18th January was on 2lst January, at Clayton, where he obtained three proposals. Accused therefore endeavored to hoodwink the Department by saying he was not within the reach of a bank when he sent the order, for he was at Woodbury on the 14th January when he received the three sums on which he was charged yesterday ; was in Geraldine on the 16th, at Woodbury again on the 17th, and on the 18th at Geraldine, when he received another sum of money. Surely, if he were too late on that day to act up to his instructions and desired to act honestly in the matter, he would, when in Geraldine on the 18th have banked the money. The first witness c died for the prosecution was Mr U. M. Luckie. The evidence was of a similar nature to that previously given in the other cases, but not lasting so long. The witness was cross-examined by the accused at considerable length, lasting four hours, during which he was repeatedly requested to confine his examination to the cases before the Court. The following is the principal part of the cross examination :

The whole of the business management of the Government Insurance Department is under my entire control. Mr George Thorne, junr., is under my entire control. Telegrams addressed to Superintendents of Agents sometimes come before me, but not in all cases. No head of a department could read all the correspondence addressed to him —not such a Department as mine. He would never get through the work if he did. In every case of importance the correspondence is shown to me ; but routine matters are not. A telegram sent from Woodbury on the 19th January, addressed to me, would most likely come into my hands first ; in fact, when I am in the office all letters addressed to me are delivered to me. If the Superintendent of Agents were absent I should open letters addressed to him. I can’t say when I first saw the telegram about the order, but it was shown me by Mr Thorne. I consider it an important telegram as far as accused is concerned. I should say it is of sufficient importance to be brought before me, because it notified working out notice. I do not consider you a successful agent, otherwise

you would not have bean here. I made the discovery that you were not a successful agent about 23rd or 24fh January when I discovered these defalcations. I don’t know whether or not you were a successful agent on the 7th January ; Mr Thorne would know that better than I. I think I recollect a message telling Dr Webb to join you, a successful agent. That would probably be about the beginning of January. It is to the interest of the Department to keep a successful agent. The telegram addressed to George Thorne is dated Geraldine, 19th January, 3.32 p.m. The office closes at one o'clock on Saturday. That telegram was probably delivered at Mr Thorne’s house. I cannot say that of my own knowledge, but my reason for believing that is that telegrams addressed to me as Commissioner arriving after office hours are delivered at my own house. I don’t think this telegram was of sufficient importance to open the office for nor do I think it of sufficient importance to bring it to my house. Mr Thorne’s house is only about a quarter of a mile from mine. The telegram produced was not of sufficient importance to cause Mr Thorne to search me out. I now re member that this telegram and the order were seen by me *bout the same time. The order was received in the office on 21st January, About 23rd or 24th January I first ascertained that Joseph Mackay, formedy a successful agent, had become an embezzler. There was no reference to your order in the telegram because I did not recognise such, an order. I did not inform you because I then learnt that this was your second offence and that Mr Thorne had previously warned you and had refused to honor a similar order for deposits which should have been banked when received and which deposits were afterwards banked by you on Mr Thorne’s instructions. The first offence was the £3 8s 6d. That order was I believe on Mr Thorne. I don’t know the date of it. 1 have a good memory but don’t remember seeing it, but I may have done so. It was only reported to me at the time this second occurrence took place. That defalcation of £3 8s 5d was wrong because it was directly against instructions and directly against the the terms of Mr Mackay’s agreement, and opposed to the regulations respecting the treatment of public moneys by those who receive them. I cannot tell without my books how much money you passed through the department. lean tell that you have passed nine orders for 25 premiums for £B3 18s Id through my hands as head of the Department without seeing my books. I cannot tell without reference to my books whether I received five cheques for seventeen premiums for £52 9s 9d or whether 1 received in all from you £4O 13s 8d making £l7O 17s Bd, or if any orders sent or bank cheques were not honored. Such orders and bank cheques being signed by proposers for assurance application would be made through the Bank for information, and if they were not ultimately paid no policies would be issued. As a rule such orders and cheques are only sent when no means of banking are available. A cheque for £2 by John Boss, sent by accused as part of a sum for £7 13s Id, the balance of which last sum (£5 13s Id) was made an order by accused on Thorne, which order was in addition to the order of which the present present prosecution is formed, and represents moneys received by accused as airent for the Department and not accounted for by him. I see that each of the three butts 17601,17602 and 14100 bear in the accused’s handwriting on the face.—“ Order on G. Thorne, 25/1/84.” R. C. Niven was next called, who in his evidence repeated that given on the previous day, and was cross-examined by the accused.

Pecer Georgeson deposed : I am a baker at Geraldine and know accused. On 16th January last I paid accused £1 Is 6d and produce receipt handed me by him. Cross-examined by accused : This receipt is for a proposal for a policy previously effected, but I paid him the money. You telegraphed to the Commissioner at once to issue the policy. You told me so.

George Wood deposed : I am a blacksmith living at Woodbury and know the accused. I paid him a cheque for £2 2s 4d for premium on life insurance, for which I got receipt. The cheque produced is the one I paid accused. Cross-examined by accused ; I gave you at the time the register of my birth, It is not returned to me.

George Bethune depesed : I am a saddler in Geraldine and know- accused. On IPth January J saw him in Geraldine when he gave me the receipt 'produced. It was paid in cash, £1 12s. John Cunningham deposed : I am agent for the Bank of New Zealand, Geraldine, in which bank the Government Insurance Department have an account. The cheque produced is not paid in to that account. It has been paid by two one pound notes, and the rest in small change. It was drawn on and cashed by the Bank of New South Wales.

The evidence for the prosecution hav* ing been concluded, the accused spoke at some length for his defence, in which he protested his innocence of the charges preferred against him, and said. “I have to thank your Worship for the consideration you have given me today in appearing here on a charge of fraudulent and felonious embezzlement. Of course I treat the charge lightly, knowing as I do in my heart, and as 1 state in the presence of my Maker and Judge of Judges, that 1 am as innocent as the child unborn. Conscience makes cowards of men guilty of such charges. I traded for 11 years in Edinburgh and London, and passed hundreds of thousands of pounds through my hands and those of ray employers, 1 have in my possession a book of accounts for that period, in which every halfpenny I received and paid was faithfully entered. During the 24 years 1 have been in Otago, I have passed through my hands as much money as anyone. My wages alone for that period have averaged over £IOO weekly. I have been the proprietor of eight newspapers ; have owned over 1000 acres freehold, land and large household properties in Dunedin and throughout most parts of Otago. I brought myself to ruin ten years ago by lighting a bank for three years. They broke faith with me. Since then and all along 1 have held a name for honor and probity unchallengable to the world. Is it at all likely that for a paltry sum or sums like these 1 would ruin the future prospects in life of myself and a large young family 1 The idea is preposterous, and I am very sorry

to think that the money of the taxpayers of an already overtaxed community should ever be devoted to such a thoroughly uncalled for prosecution. I telegraphed to the Colonial Treasurer from Albury on the 23rd January last that from ray experience of the working of the Department.— The Magistrate here interposed, and asked the accused what he had to say to the charge.

The accused said ho would stop as soon as Mr Thorne came in. The Crown Solicitor said that after that remark he would ask the Bench to interpose, and prevent further waste of time. The accused was uttering clap trap foi the purpose of meeting the public eye. The accused asked that he might have a subpoena to call Mr Thorne for examina tion.

This was granted, and whilst the service was being executed the accused called Thomas Finch, who deposed : I informed accused that Georgeson’s proposal was accepted, but not closed. Detective Kirby here entered the Court and staled he could not find Mr Thorne, wl o, he supposed, was in the outskirts of the town.

His Worship then committed the accused to stand his trial at the ensuing criminal session of the Supreme Court, to be held in June next. After this was done Mr Thorne came into Court, but the accused was not allowed to examine him, as the case was closed. Bail was accepted, accused in £IOO and two sureties for £SO each. The Court then rose, after sitting from 10 a.m, to 6 p.m,, without any adjournment.