R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2359, 29 July 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

M A STE RTO N~TH IS D A Y". : ' Before H. ,A. Smiypitp,.R,l|L . ALLEGED KMBEZZLEMENX, 6. 8. W. Selr oder was charged with fraudulently embezzling a quantity ef drapery, and boots and: shoes to .the slue of £7 13s 9d, the proporty of' Frank McDowell, draper, of Masterton.. ■. Mr Skipper,, assisted by Mr Beard, were the solicitors for the prosecution, aud Mr Bunny for defendant, ■ Frank McDowell! prosecutor, deposed that whon he arrived in Mastertbn on or about May 14, the defendant camo to him and asked to bo employed as salesman iu his buqinesß m Masterton* His duties would be to sell goods ,to customors coming to the shop, aind also to onter'un pieces of paper all goods sent' out mapprobation. The cash received pofled to be put iu the cash box. Defendant Was kept employed in the buiinfess. up to : Monday last, July 26th, on .which dita he was discharged. The Informatiou was laid in consequence of some entries appearing on the approbation' book. There was one on: July 20th under the name of Schroder per Hoffeiits, amounting to £4 2s 3d, consisting of calico, dross material, Blurting,' and a coat, which was settled for by a enntra account with defendant. This entry was first discovered yesterday, the .difference in the entry and contra account 4s Sd had not been accounted for. JAnothe.i': eatry Schroder por E, Johnson, July 26thi*ftr £3_4s 6d, for clothing, bootg, Shbqj/ iiiid calico was also settled by contra- account with defendant This entry -had.uiado in the book'by defendant sinco-ho was discharged, and the amount had' not been accounted for to him. " The,-,eWry was first seen by him (prosecutorj.yostoiv day. On Tuesday last he asked wSsuied to return what he had stolen >jitho • equivalent in cash. This wm»tor witness found the entrios were mrtlie book. Accused ausiverod that ho ought to be in gaol long ago (laughter). Cross-examined by Mr Bunny: Dtfring the time accused had beon- in his employment witness had been absent frequently and accused had been in full chaise. Accused had never, been in ..witness', employ before. Wiiness explained jthatJfc Ae terms upon which detoridaiit came™ into his services were that , ,:i ho was to pay him wages when he oonld, no time or amount being fixed, and''at different times he liad paid! him cheque? and cash as wages. He could not frjjm memory state the amount so paid. ', :He had boarded at the house of 'accused, at different times while he was in his israploynient, about a fortnight altogether. There had been no arrangement ■ wliat witness was to pay for board. He had had a room in defendant's houEe for uW weeks past. Some of his goods 'wio're there yet. After ha laid the criminal information against Mr Schroder'he received a summons for an alleged debt from Mr Schroder. He had no other book for keeping his shop accounts but the one produced except his bank &01. The entries were ohiefly jn writing. The entries referred to ■ in v«he deposition are in the writing of' accused. The entty he referred to as tho one 'on the 26th was that of "Johnston" .Sales •made by Accused in the absence bf witness were to bo ontered on a slip ot papor'iiiid placed on a file for his approval. she' ehtry to Hoffeinß had never-been shJwd® to him, (A dofl'imenfc was handed in the counsel for accused, which witnosi denied having seen before). It was a hill similar to what witness used in his business when goods were seut out on approbation. ' Witness said he got the particulars on which he laid his.information from tho day book produced.H# had other means of detecting defalcations, He knew pretty well his stock, and lad frequently pointed out tlut the stock wag getting smaller without tho equivalent. He know Mr Schroder had been tiijoyiiig himself in his absence. Mr Bunny: You have a very' 'bad memory have you not? ,■ • v Witness; No.

Mr Bunny: Are you not jfivon. to. intemperance? Witiiosß: To the Court: Am I bound to'answor impertinent questions 1 " 'Mr - Beard objected to the qtflfcon bomgput. It was an attempt to "row dirty water on the witness.' Mr Bunny pressed the matter, ancUhe witness objected tu answer. ' - No aooonnt was given to liini of the cash placed in hia box from day to dajr. Accused had never applied to hini for wages, nor (or, money fur board and Jodffin«B. Witness, told him that .Hr Perry threatened to step his meaty an&lii said he would ?ive him a few pound? when he had it. Subsequently He.,.gave him»cheque for £6. He new gave accused permission to supply hisgooaa to people who owid accused. He owed no money to Schroder. The money he had given to him from time-.to,wine covered the Mr Bynny: As a matter of ''fast did not Mr Schroder l&ve your employ on his own account. "" - ; v Witness: Ho did not, I put hint and his dogs outside as quiok as lightpinsf, and if you had been there you wouldihave seen some fun. Witness said ho had given goods to Hood and Shawona goqtra account. Mr. stiroder mest ikqdedly had mi authority to sdnd out any.gojxls on credit. j • y Reexamined by Mr Beard : HeMd hot received any; slips of the aceounte m:irkud " B"" 0" from By the Bench: All the time that; witness had the day book he had never see!} the accused's handwriting in it, up Who 26th. : His instructions to: defendant wero "distinctly not to give credit'wien •firstho came into his employment. had. made no claim against Johnson for the goods they had piiyJf chased in his shop. He was not awsw tilt they hid bought £|fpjt»