four-separate charges against the prisoner.
Mr. Francis argued that all four rested on the same consideration. On the other hand the Attorney-General drew a distinction and he (his lordship) must say as regards the evidence the circumstances which applied to these cases were entirely different with regard to the fourth charge and the other three. For some reason or other the Government had failed to show what the state of accounts was with regard to the prisoner. Although the accounts were not shown he was not of opinion that would preclude the larceny of a specific amount being conclusively proved, but at the same time, if the evidence was weak, and it was chiefly a matter of inferences that they were asked to draw from certain facts, this omission had a considerable amount of weight.
With respect to the first three charges, three sums of money were entered on the credit side of the book put in on the 14th August, the 10th September, and the 8th October. These sums were placed to the prisoner's credit in his own handwriting with the statement that they were received on account of postal notes: It was suggested by the prosecution that the statements implied that these were paid into the Bank, but Mr. Francis stated that they meant nothing of the sort. The statement by the prosecution that these were sums paid into the bank was not in his opinion proved by the evidence. The defence suggested that it could not be assumed that these sums were paid into the Bank, because the evidence showed that the prisoner was authorised to apply the cash he received for the general purposes of the Money Order Office.
It was proved by the prosecution further that there were some additions in red ink in the handwriting of the prisoner on the receipt after it left the Treasury. It might have been an improper thing to add these figures but it did not appear from the evidence that it was done for an improper purpose.
With regard to the fourth charge the evidence of Mr. Travers went to show what was the practice in paying in money for orders drawn. The money was sent to the Bank, where a receipt was given and a certificate with this receipt attached was sent to the Treasury, the Treasury sending back a receipt for these documents. That came to the Post Office and was sent into the money order department. He thought the jury would be of opinion that both at the Post Office and at the Audit Office the Money Order Office was regarded as a separate department.
Mr. Travers appeared to have thought the whole management of that office was in the hands of the prisoner subject to the Audit Office, and the Audit Office appeared to have considered that they had nothing at all to do with postal notes and were only interested in money orders with respect to the accounts. The whole matter appeared, therefore, to have been left in the prisoner's hands.
With regard to this charge the Chinese clerk from the Treasury said that he filled in the receipt for the $1,913 from the Bank receipt, and looking at the Bank receipt he said the words "for postal notes" appeared therein and he stated that he must have put the words "postal notes" after the words "on account of". The jury would see on examining the document that after the words "on account of" there was an erasure. It would be for the jury to say, if they could, what words they thought had been erased.
This receipt was returned to the Post Office and the prosecution alleged that this sum had been stolen by the prisoner. The Bank clerk was called and he stated that this sum was not paid in to the credit of the Government on the date alleged. It was suggested that this receipt by a fraudulent alteration had been made to serve a double purpose. It was suggested that the sum was not paid into the Bank but was applied by the prisoner to his own purposes and that he accounted for it by the production of this receipt which really applied to another matter altogether, namely, postal notes. It was for the jury, of course, to say what inference they drew in the matter.
The jury after half-an-hour's consideration returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty on the first, second, and third counts and guilty on the fourth count.
His Lordship said-Prisoner at the bar, you have been convicted of stealing a sum of $1,737.83. The amount is comparatively small, and of course I need hardly say that I don't for a moment assume that you are guilty of anything else but what the jury have convicted you of. You have been convicted on one of those counts only and you have been acquitted on the other three. Therefore the charge remains simply as a charge of stealing the sum which I have mentioned.
Although the sum is comparatively small there are circumstances in this case which make me deal more severely with it than I should with an ordinary case. You were a public servant and had been entrusted for a long time by the Government with the conduct of an office—in fact the confidence in you appears to have been most complete—and you committed this robbery under circumstances of considerable atrocity. By the alteration of the voucher submitted to the auditor and by the erasure of some words you were enabled to obtain credit twice over for the same sum, and in addition you attempted to escape from justice by quitting the colony.
You are convicted, as I said just now, of stealing a comparatively small sum, and the sentence I shall pass upon you is one of three years' imprisonment with hard labour.
648