ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1905, 18 June 1889, Page 3

ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT.

At the R.M. Court, Timaru, yesterday, before C. A. Wray, Esq., E.M., Peter Birrell was charged on the inf ormationof A. W. Eames, District Audit Inspector, with (1) that on the sth September, 1888, he did feloniously forge an acquittance and receipt for the sum of £l2 13s 3d with intent thereby to defraud, and (2) with that on the 7th June, 1888, he did feloniously forge an aquittance and' rceipt for the sum of £385, with intent to defraud. Mr White appeared for the prosecution, Mr C. Perry for accused. Mr White said he would take the Eriedlander case first. He explained that in the “ dividend sheet ” relating to the bankrupt estate of Julius Siegert a lino was shown; —“ Eriedlander Bros —claim, £sl 2s 7d—dividend, £l9 8s sd—date of payment June 7th—amount paid, £l9 3s 6d—■ (signature) Hugo Eriedlander, for Eriedlander Bros.” Beneath that line was interlined under the same heads £looo— £3Bs—ticks for date—£3Bs—and ticks for signature; the two lines were also joined by brackets, as if to indicate that the two were to be considered as one. It would be shown that the sum of £385 was never due to Eriedlander Bros, and was never paid te them; the line referring to the sums just mentioned, with the ticks for date and name, was inserted after Mr Hugo Eriedlander bad signed for the firm for the receipt of £l9 3s sd. It would also be shown that the funds in the estate of Julius Siegert were short by exactly £385, That sum, by the way, would not be the dividend on £IOOO, the proper amount would be £376. W. C. Beswick and H. Eriedlander gave evidence to the effect that the line “ £1000,” etc., was not in when Eriedlander signed the sheet. A, W. Eames, Audit Inspector for South Canterbury, also gave, evidence, and defendant was committed for trial at the August sitting of the Supreme Court in Timaru. The second ease was adjourned till to-day. ■ .