ALLEGED THEFT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7954, 1 February 1906, Page 5

ALLEGED THEFT.

HECKSHER, V. MILLAR,

THE INFORMATION DISMISSED

At the Maslorton Magistrate's Court, yesterday, before His Worship, Mr W. P. Jarrius, James Mackoiiize Millar was charged, on the information of Carl Piter Edmund Hecksber, with theft of the sum of £2 15s 3d, on orabout December 11th. 1005. Mr 13. J. Dolan, who appeared for rhe informant, said he wished to amend the charge bv altering the amount alleged to have been stolan from £2 15s 3d to £1 15s 3d, but Mr Powuall, counsel for accused, strongly objected to the amendment as it was reducing tbe charge from oue of au indictable nature aud substituting oau that could be dealt with by the Magistrate. Mr Dolan stated tuat he simply wished to ameud tho information. '"bo Magistrate amended the charge aud the case was uroceoded with.

I Mr Dolan, in opening the case, I said that the history of the fcase started in the beginning of Novemner. One, Mr Scarfe, put into Hecksher aud Co.'s hands a quantity of Ashing tackle to sell. The goods were disposed of about the end of November and the sum of £2 15s 3d was realised. Scarfe asked for payment of tbe amount on December Gth, and received £1 from acoused; who stated he was short of cash in the cash box. Scarfe gave a reueipt on December 11th, and the accused presented a cheque to Mr Heclishtsr for his signature. The cheque, which was to balance amounts paid for sales, included £2 15s 3d on account of Scarfe. Thin accused said had been phid, and on December 15th the cheque for £ll 6a 2d was lodged to the credit of Hecksher and Co, Ltd, in the Union Bank of Australia. On December 6tb accused was dismissed from tbe company's employ on account of unsatisfactory couduot. and he was told to come back to the office on the Monday following and "bquare up" tbe books and cash with Mr Wright, the auditor. If these were found to be all right, then accused would be paid his wages The books were gone through by Mr Wright and tbe accused on the Monday, and Mr Wright "faced"' accused with a deficiency of £5 12s sd. Acoused then stated that be had taken his wages, <£2 t on tbe Saturday night, but be stated that he could nut account for the balance, £3 12s sd, and admitted the deficiency. Mr Hecksher informed accused i that he would hear more of the occurrence, and it was not until January ISth.that a portion (£1 5s 3d) of tbe whole amount was accounted for, when Scarfe informed Mr Heo&sber that he bad not been paid. Carl Piter Edmund Hecksher, managing director of the firm of Heoksher and Co., Ltd., stated that accused was engaged by the company in October, 1905, and he was in the oompany's employment until December 16tb. He remembered Mr Scarfe putting goods into his bands for sale. The goods were sold, and the net prooeeds of tbe sale amounted to £2 15s 3d. It was tbe company's custom to pay small amounts out of tbe cash till, of which accused was in sole charge, add then witness would draw a cheque to cover the amounts paid. On December 11th, witness asked accused if he bad paid tbe smouut owing to Mr Scarfe, £2 15s 3d, and accused said that be had. Witness then drewa cheque for tbe amount (cheque produced). After aocused had been dismissed ou Deoember 16th, Mr S. E. Wright made an audit of the books and cash with the accused, and after the audit Mr Wright called witness and informed him that there was a shortage in the cash of £5 12s sd. ,Aocused did not give fany explanation of how the shortage occurred. Witness mad e enquiries if all his customers had been paid, and found that Mr Scarfe had only been paid £l. On January 15th it was discovered that the sum of £2 15s 3d had been paid twice. Acoused had no permission to take his own salary from the oash box on December 16tb.

By MrPownall: There was a memo in the cash box stating that Scarfe had been paid £1 and the receipt was in the cheque block. The witness knew on December 18th that he had to pay Scarfe £1 15s 3d, che balance of his amount, but witness did not know until January 15th that the books showed that he had been paid twice. He did not know whea Scarfe was paid £1 and be was not aware that accused paid Scarfe £1 during tbe course of the sale, and in any oase, witness was too busy to attend to any such matter at the time, i Witness had a key of both Mia cash box and strong room. On Saturday evening, December lGth, witness took accused's keys of the cash box and strong room, and had them until the following Monday. Witness denied making use of bad language towards accused or calling him a thief. Witness received a letter from accused three days after his dismissal, claiming damages for slander. He did not deny telling people that witness had robbed bim before he had really made the discovery.

Mr Pownall here attempted to ask witness questions relative to his having accused other persons of theft and dishonest}, but the Magistrate refused to allow the questions, as ho hold they were entirely irrelevant to the present charge. Sidney Edward Wright, accountant of about twenty years' standing, and auditor to Heokshor and Co., Ltd., stated that he was called in on December 18th for tho purpose of making a scrutiny of the firm's books and cash. After a careful scrutiny a deficiency of £5 12s 5d was discovered. Accused accounted for £2 of that amount by saying that he bad taken his salary on the previous Saturday. Accused oould give no reason for the £3 12s 5d deficiency, and admitted that there was a shortage of that amount. George Reginald Soarfe, an employee of J. D. Oruickshank and Co., Ltd., gave evidence as to asking accused for the money owing him by the Arm. Accused only gave him £l, for whiob a receipt was given. He never received the balance, £1 15s 3d, from accused. Thomas Walter Croft, accountant in the Union Bank of Australasia,

Kavo evidence as to the cheque for £ll 6a 2d being pnid into thß bank to Hecksher and Co.'a credit. Mr Powuall for the defence, said that the onus to prove the offence was on the prosecution, aud they must go furthor and prove that aeI cused had been eui.lty of a feiouy , within tho moaning of the Act. The mere fact of a shortage in the cash did not puiut to felony ou the part of accused. Flu outlined tho case for the defence, and called evidence. Accused, un oath, stated that he was in the employ of Hecksher and Go from October licb to December lGth. On December Gth accused paid Scarfe £1 on uccouufc. He could not pay the full amount as ho had not his account sales made up aud Scarfe was satisfied. Mr Hecksher wag angry at his paying Scarfe £1 without his permission. Oa December 12Lh accused was going to pay Scarfe the balance of the account, hut Mr" Hecksher said, "Let him come for it." Accused had no opportunity of making up his books after the sale on December 1 Gth as Mr Hecksher had thorn. Accused gave Hecksher the keys of the strong room aud cash box aud left, Hecksher informing him to como back ou the Monday morning. Accused and Mr Wright examined the books ou the Monday, and he (accused) admitted the deficiency. The deficiency must have oc- . curred between Monday, December 11th, and Saturday. December 18th. Between those dates he was in the offioe very little, and Hecksher did a great amount of oayiug out. He swore that ho had not taken a penny of the deficient amount, and denied being drunk on December 16tb. It was his custom to take his uwd wage 9 from tho till. ByMrDulan: Mr Hecksher had aa free access of the cash box as accused. There were sums for six separate persons in tho cheque I'or £ll Gs 2d, which accused -put before Hecksher on December 11th. Five of these accounts had been mid, aud of the other £2 15s 3d to Scirfe £1 Lad been paid, and, the balance, £1 15s 3d, remainod in the ca?h box. He denied that there wag a shortage in his cash at his rreviuu* place ,of employment, He denied Mr Wright facing him with a deficiency of £5 Vli s'\ Accuse i was the j first to inform Hecksher of the deficiency, which he stated amounted to £2' 15s 3d. Percy Kirkby, late storeraan at Heokauer and Co.'s, stated that he heard a conversation between Mr Hecksher and accused on December Ilth,. when be heard the former say that he would give accused £2 aa wages for that week. Shortly after accused bad left, Mr Hecksher paid witness 30s, or 353 for which witness gave a memo. Accused wnnted to go and" settle the balance of Soarfe's account, out Hecksher woild not allow him. Oa two rocasons witness received money from !; aokaher. who took it from the cash Vnx in accused's absence. The Magistrate, in summ'ng up, stated that in bis present position be was acting as judge and i iry, and before he could convict he nust be certain bayoud doubt tba< icoused appropriated the money. ltbougb Mr Heckabor might hav takea money from the cash box id forgotten to enter it in the «?< h book, it was a strange coincideno hat the amount should oorrespon to the amount that accused wa-> oharged with appropriating. The -cidenoe did not show eonolusivellv ! nt accused had taken the money, . jd there was nothing else for him to lo but to dismiss tbe information