Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

POLICE COURT.
Tuesday, December 17.
• Berry James J^ipspn appeared again on remand. I
: Mr, Mann observed with regard to some mention
in one of the papers as to the Crown holding baek
the report of the Commissioners of Enquiry, that
the Crown had no wish to hold it back. The Go
vernor had given instructions, that the prisoner j
should see it, and have every facility granted him
with regard to any documents necessary for his
defence, which did not show any anxiety for con
cealment. He presumed that his friend, Mr Fisher,
would put the report in evidence, which would of
course give it every necessary degree of publicity.
F. C. Singleton, before being cross-examined by
Mr Fisher, wished to hear his previous depositions
read, that ha might correct some mistakes, which
occurred to him during the night.
Mr Fisher objected to such a course, as it would
nullify the object of taking depositions, if pursued
generally.
The witness explained, that, in arriving at the
claim of £09 10s 5d on the previous day, he had
subtracted one Mini from another, instead of adding
b >t!. together. The corrected balance would be
£117 6s 7d.
Hhs tVf.rsiup on,} the figures were so multifa
rious and intricate, that it would be but fair that
Mr Singleton mould have the opportunity of cor
recting such unintentional errors.
Mr Fisher withdrew his objections, and the de
positions were read over to the witness, and cor
rected. Tin: most material of these corrections was,
the withdrawal of XT 19s Od included in the claim.'
but which witness understood to have been paid in
! '•/ the prisoner.
Gross-examination continued—Arrived in the
Colony in May 1848, as Auditor-Genera!. The
duties of Auditors-General in regard to monev
offices were, to sec that the. officers debited themselves
I with a;; moneys received, and credited the public wi-it
. such moneys, k was their duty to examine sonic
I of the offices periodically, and audit the accounts.
Considered r.T:f. he hud sufficient check on the office
in quest;c.u without visiting n, mul if any irregulari
ties ..ccurred, lie sent for the prisoner. ' According
to J i is i let'.".let i - els, it was iefc to him to visit the
office for auditing the accounts, or nor, as he
thought proper.
Mr Mann objected to this course of examination,
as foreign to the i-sue.
Mr Fisher contended that it was very material to
show th.; negligent manner in which the books were
kept.
JIG Worship overruled Mr Mann's objection.
Cross-exauiniation continue,]—it was the duty of
witness t ) u-ccrtain the nature of any irregularities
in the j risoucr'i accounts, if he heard of such.
Never examined the prisoner's books until the 7th
instant, hut rested satisfied with the best check that
was ever devised, which was the returns of the
various officers oi the courts,showing what was done
in their respective courts, tiie receipts being on the
face of them. The fees for tfic naturalization of
aliens were checked by the Government Gazette.
ltie prisoner sent in his last weekly return on the.
30ch November. That return was reported to wit
ness by his cm."' clerk to he thus checked and cor
rect. They were correct up to that date, with the
exception of two sums, 10/. and ill. 10s 6d. The
prisoner charged himself with those two sums. The
error of the 10/ was in the monthly return from
March 26. to April 25. Witness discovered it first on
the 12th instant. The following monthly account was
audited, but the mistake was not, discovered. Witness
did not see the account, but it was reported to him
as correct. The error was in not bringing the item
of £10 forward to the next account. The error of
21. 10s. 6d. took -.place in the account from Mac
25, to June 26, ami was not discovered until ttie
I2tli instant. The aecount was audited, but ap
peared incomplete. Witness never made anv ofc
jections to the prisoner's mode of keeping his book ;,
for he (witness) never saw them. Sent his chief
clerk several times to remonstrate with the pi isoger
on the state of the accounts."* i';;: only books kept
in the office were a ledger, day-book! and a book
for the registration of births, deaths, and mai riaees.
The Treasury required no vouchers to aceommmv
the monies paid in, but simply a-paymg in ticket.
It was mentioned on tne ticket on what accuuiu
the money was paid. The money in the receivers
hand went all into the Treasury under the head of
"Fines and Fees," except the Suitors' Balances! i
The weekly returns checked the monthlv returns,
and if any errors occurred, they ought "to be de
tected. There were no directions rendering it im
perative on the receivers of revenue to pay into the
Treasury on Saturday, but it was customary, and
the standing^ instructions directed them to " do so.
Witness had ittli right at any moment he pleased to 1
go into the prisoner's office, and require hitn with
out any previous notice to produce all the cash he
had in hand. Examined the cash-box first on Sa
turday week. Found the prisoner sitting at his desk
wiiting. Hid not think there was an aecount open
in the Treasury for the Suitors' Balances. The
prisoner sai.l on Monday, "If the 146/. does not
cover hot it accounts, I will make the balance good."
Was not aware of the Treasurer refusing to accept
money on the Suitors' Balances. No balance was
ever mentioned to the prisoner as due, until he was
arrested. Made the balance against the prisoner
after deducting 1/. 19s. 6d. paid into tiie Treasury,
to be 114/. 19s. Id. Heard that a stun had been'
paid into the Treasury a day or two ago, but did
not credit the prisoner with it". The report produced
was that of the Commissioners of Enquiry. Did
not know if any books were kept in the office when
tiie prisoner went there first. The prisoner was
requested to attend before the Commissioners at a
quarter past three o'clock on the second day, but he
id not do so. Heard he had becu there at a
quartet to three.
By Mr Mann—The balance due on the Suitors'
account was 10/. 6s. Ild. The money found in the
cash-box was as applicable to the payment ffi' the
Suitors' Account n.-tothatof FiuesantiFees. The de
duction of that balance in the report from the balance
claimed was an error. In the crediting of the 146/.
to one account, there was an err r of 52/. 15s, there
being only 95/. 5s applicable to that account.' The
date of the Government Guz-H.e referred to was
August 23rd, 1849.
Here Mr Maim put in the Gazette, and read the
order as to the payments of money weekly into the
Treasury.
Examination continued—It was the prisoner's
duty to make up the hooks properly, without being
directed by wituc.-s to tio so.
By Mr Fisher—The sum omitted in the return
taken from the prisoner's mouth, on the receipts oi
the 25tli, was 9/. 6s 6d. Witness was not following
the prisoner aiong the book, as they were seated at
opposite sides of the desk.
By his Worship—The whole amount of defalca
tion was 114/. 19s Id. The prisoner had an oppor
tunity to send in an account up to the 7th December,
but he made 110 payment since the 25th November.
He was suspended on the 9th, and had no means
of making up the accounts without the hooks, hut
he might have ascertained the balance short in ten
mi antes. The hooks hud been found very incorrect
in set era! places.
By Mr Fisher—Did not care to examine them,
because he had checks which ho deemed sufficient.
Had never received intimation from his clerk that
such inaccuracies existed.
Mr Fisher said he was instructed that the clerk
had. never looked at the books.
Mr Singleton—He told -me he had. However, that j
is not evidence. I merely mentioned it to clear 1
myself of some of Mr Fisher's inuendocs. |
Mr Fisher disclaimed any intention of throwing j
out inuendocs : he had carefully avoided doing
so. lie wished to know the nature of those inac- j
curacies.
Mr Singleton said they were stated in the report.
George Hutton Barnard, Deputy Registrar, said
the prisoner's duty in regard to money m hand
was to keep it in safe custody. Considered the
iron chest to be a safe and secure place. The wit
ness also proved the appointment of the prisoner to I
the offices of Deputy Registrar and Receiver of
Fines and Fees.
By Mr Fisher—The duties of the Registry Office
had greatly increased. Saw the prisoner often in
terrupted by applicants for registration whilst in
tho act of receiving monies. Would not leave1
money in the iron safe. Witness brought home i
money on one occasion, having been too late for
depositing it in the Bank. There was no order in I
the office,as to where the money should be kept. i
■ Alfred Reynell, Chief Clerk of tho Treasury, j
proved the following payments made by the pri- j
soner :—
: Oct. 25 . .£150, for Fines and Fees. I
' Mr Mann—Surely there-must be some mistake. |
1 must recall Mr Singleton, who said there was-no!
jjaymeut on the 25th. !
Mr Fisher-—Oh ! it is only a tiifle—the mart
trifling sum of 150/. (Laughter.,'
Mr Reynell'a evidence continued—There ws*
also paid—■
1st November 4:137 5 8
9th November 140 6 4
16th November 120 0 3
23rd November .. 114 17- ti
30tb November 128 7 6
6th December 57 J 5
9th December 146 0 0
Of the last sum. 95/ 5s was paid for lines and fee*,
and 50/ 15s for Suitors' accounts.
By Mr Fisher—There was no account in the
Treasury under the uams of " Suitors' Fund." The
Ireasurer had demurred to taking money oil
Suitors Account, am; it was mr.v taken in merely
as deposit.-, liici'e whs no order tor riic pavincuj
. ot monies mto the Treasury 011 Saturdays", brvoiui
what was puhhsued in the Croucrnment Gazette.
• Tiio Receiver bad to accoiupany tiie tnouuv with
j two teachers. 'Die sum of 58/ was paid into the
, Treasury em ilia i4tli instant on behalf of the pri
i sonor.
I _ 1') -Mi' Matin—The prisoner's hr ther brought the
; 53/, and the accompanying voiuher merely specified
1 on account of air Lipson." Received the money
| as a Ucp-isit, to be ultimately appropriated accord-"
; mg to imy instruction- that miulit be received.
■ ,, *.'harlt-s^Algerm>11 Wil-on, Llerk of the Supremo
| f-ourf, saiu be was Receiver of Fines and Fees till
! Apm, I848, when ho was succeeded by the pri
: St.iier. The instructions tuen were to deliver daily
; into the 1 rer.sury the amount receive,; 110111 tho
j four Courts, and to ivnuce out weekly and monthly
i accounts.
in Mr i isher—Did nut band any written iii
j strueriuiis to the prisoner, and the verbal ipttruc
, ?''o:.s were merely tnose received bv ui tacts iroiu
j Mr Barnard.
This closed the case for the prosecution,
i Mr Issuer C';.,vv j t ed that ho could not perceive
(anytiling in the evidence adduced that supported
i the charge, of embezzlement. The information
I enlarged the 'prisoner with applying the nionev
j fraudulently to bis own use ami benefit, and othcr
j wise tnau for the public .service. According to the
I ev idence, the accounts were perfectly correct up to
j day08tii November, even to a fraction over £57,
which traction bad been pain in by the prisoner.
; Ihere was 110 misappropriation shown on the part
I ot tlie prisoner, and the Crown endeavoured 10
j l>roVc embezzlement from the mere fact that
, lie paid balances into the Treasury from
j nine to tune, and kept ethers until more
convenient seasons. If there was no embezzlement
up to tiie SOfj'i November, surely there was none
since, us the same course of action was proved to
havey been pursued after that period as had nm
h riii'iy been pursued previously. The fi-jurcs of
10/. on one return, and of 2/. 10s. on another weiw
allowed by the prisoner and debited to himself,
ami tlie Audit-Oblee was poriiecps ermines in rim
maiter, as much as the prisoner. Where 110 false
entry v.as made, the mere non-forwarding of the
money was held n >t to b.- cmi.vz-.lement. tis was ,
P'a'a aT reference to t!w case of Hi dm 5, 3 Car
rington and Fay,,..." I„ this 1-ase) t!lcre was ,,G Ut,
j nic.i of the money, no raise cntrv, ami 1,0 proof of
1 the application (f tj;e ln e_.- t,*> in;, ,nv» u.-e. It'
j was held, that tlicrc was no refusal to uecount for
1 mouej v,hen required so to do by the proper mulio- '
i t'p'-'s, atid no denial or the receipt of such monev.
j tie grand crime agkm.-c the pi Isotier was, the irrl
JFulav which he K j-t ids b<>nk>; um( if
I '.net was a;i h,,w much more so was tlie
lobenccoi nis superior who acknowledged inmseif,
j tua, c.e mid never inspected the books until last
I .Uumliiv week, tiiibuugb he. inid bee: now two
I rears to om'ce. h was iuf shown, that the prisoner
had in t acted according t» Ids in-iructi.. ns, but ou
^ the contrary, tb.at he bad never received any ill*
i •-li'HfrioiiA from the Amiitur-Gei.'eralur anv one else,
I i.e .. ci iied gentleman here ex| mil ed the'various
iiiv .sa to, sithaivi-iot.s, ami entries, under different.
Heads that the prisoner had to do 01; Saturdays be
fore paying money into the Treasury, and showed
the impossibility of doing so be.'ore the offices closed.
It was 11101 e to be wondered at that there were no
more e-rors and omisiuns in the bo, kg kept m such
c nfusiun, and it reflected great c:edit on the pri
soner that the accounts so Weil stood the severe test
of tne Auduor-Geiicrai's ordeal, backed bv what he
so graphically termed '"tlie very best possible test."
i he information bad the claim at " £is and up
turns, and the ligtires were afterwards changed to
toe various sums of 99/. 10s 5d, 106/, lis 81!,'.and
ultimately 114/. Kts Id, ami if the'Auditor-General
inaue so many mistakes an the one simple question
during two days, was it to be wondered at tbut'.Mr
Lipson v< uld make in two years the trifling mis
lakes proved in evidence ? In regard to tho
."suitors Fund, Mr Lip-on was not engaged by tho
Government to have anything to do with it, and Jto
meiely received it to accommodate Mr i'hipsdn.,
I11 slioit, the utmost extent that could be made out
"t tue charge, would he tlie civil one of accounting;
for tlie money derieient, and there was nothing
whatever to support the information.
Mr Mann replied at great length, denying til®
application of Mr Fisher's references, and arguing
that the evidence adduced fully established, thfa
charge against the prisoner, according to the word
ing ot Act 2 \\ ill. 4, under which the information
had been laul. 1 be learned gentleman went seriatim
tnrough the several items adduced in evidence,
showing that the prisoner had made a practice of
ho)..ing a balance in hand " /'or other purposes than
that of the public sen ice.' The address occupied ,
more than an hour, but the pith of it can be obtained
fiom tlie evidence, which it would be unnecessary
to repeat, for .Mr Maun merely referred to the fact®
in detail, and argued as to their legal bearing on
the prisoner's culpability.
His Wor.-hip said the question en his mind was,
wnat was embezzlement ? Ii appeared to him ali
thiongTi that there had been a remissness, thai tho
accounts of Mr Lipsi n bad been irregularly kept'; •
but it appeared to mui that tlie information wan
not borne out with regard to the auditing ofait-;
counts. It appeared that incorrect accounts bad
been passed, but not that there had been any falsi
fication. He admitted at once that there might b®
some errors, but said that ii there were so he would
make the deficiency good. It appeared to him that.,
there was no evidence to show that the prisoner had'
intended to misapply the money. Ihe only neglect
lie seemed to have been guilty of was in not having
paid the money into the Tieasury, in accordance
with the instructions lie had received. The case
was a didicult and intricate one, and lie should not
instantly decide either on cuniniittinjjr or discharging
the prisoner. lie should take some time in looking
over the depositions, and would adjourn the case
until Monday next, taking the same bail for
pearance of the prisoner at that period.
William Charles IJarujlei/ Brasteti was charged
with forging an endorsement to :t letter of credit
for £50, with intent to defraud diaries Brasteti, on
ihe 13th of August last.
Mr Wigley appeared for the prosecution.
Charles Brasted, tailor, deposed that he. left Eng.-.
land on the 20th September 18 48, and arrived iii
Adelaide in January 1849, and left tor Sydney on
the 3oth of September following. Received a letter
from his, brother William Frederick Brasted in Engr
land, accompanied by a letter of credit for 5t>/.
Received the letter in Sydney, via Adelaide. Came
to Adelaide in the Wild Irish (Hrl last Monday
week, and presented the letter of credit produced at
the Bank of Austraiusia, where he wia shown an
other similar letter, which they hud paid. It wa#
a duplicate of his own, and they refused to pay hia
letter. The prisoner was his cousin.
By the Court—The pnsonerwas his schoolfellow,
and was always called William Bangley Brasted.
Never heard him called Charles, but he might Jiayo•
been so without witness's knowledge. The prisoner
acknowledged to him candidly what ho hid done,
and wished to compromise matters. The prisoner
seemingly brought the letter from England for wit
ness, and represented himself afterwards as the per
son to whom the letter was payable, and whoso-wfe
naturc he forged in the endorsement. The endorse
ment on the letter of credit produced us$ not in
witness's handwriting, but it was his namo. - Newer
authorised any person to sign for hint. The, writing
was something similar to that of witiiesgv The dup
licate was only enclosed in'an envelope without any
accompanying letter of advice. ' '
Kemanded imtil next (this) day..
$