His Lordship said that where there were no witnesses called for the defence the Attorney- General did not sum up.
The Attorney-General-There are reasons why I should insist upon it, because it would be very invidious if I were to do so in one case and not in another.
Mr. Francis May it please your Lordship. gentlemen of the jury, with reference to the first and second counts of the indictment I shall not address any special remarks to you as the charges which are embodied in those two counts must be decided, not by you but by the decision of the Court on the points reserved. With reference to the three last counts, in which Mr. Huffam is charged with having appropriated to his own use different sums of money, in one case $46,000, in another $20,000, and in another $4,831, they are all in fact one charge, the two latter forming part of the sum mentioned in the third count, su that I shall deal with them as one count. I do not tlink, after his Lordship's ruling that he will lay it down to you that in point of law there is! evidence on which you can properly find the pri soner guilty, that I can very usefully occupy ! your time in discussing the question of the pri soner's guilt or innocence. I would only point. out this, that the only evidence before you-it is the same point which will afterwards be dis- cussed before his Lordship-is evidence of non-acconuting. Mr. Huffam has received large sums of money, they have all been duly entered in his accounts, and he has been charged with them. With reference to those counts his Lord- ship will tell you he was the legal holder of that money; he did not hold it as servant for some one else. Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance it is rested in him. He is trustee, of course, for the greditors, and he is bound to hold it and invest it for their use and benefit alone. That money, in this particular estate, is not forthcoming when called for, and the question whether or not the evidence which is put before you, the evidence of the mere non-production of the money without any evidence as to how that money has been disposed of, is sufficient to justify a vordiot is a question which must: be discussed before the full court. There- fore I must confine myself to this, simply asking you, if you feel bound on bis Lordship's ruling and the evidence before you to find a vor- dict against the prisoner-I do ask you, and I ask you seriously, to accompany that verdiet, if it must be a verdict of guilty, with the strongest recommendation to
meroy which you can put into words, and on the following grounds-That during the ten years or more that Mr. Huffam has been Official Assignee, and not only Official Assignee, but charged with various other and important duties involving the custody of enormous sums of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, as Mr. Sharp and Mr. Arn- old have told you, and more than a hundred accounts, neither the creditors, nor the court. Bor the government (if he is a government officer) scem ever to have taken one single precaution to check what he was doing, to see that he kept any accounts, or that the accounts he did keep were properly kept, to see what he did with the money or how it was disposed of, whether he held it ie his own bands or whether it was banked. In
the course of the ten or fifteen years, with no check over him, with hundreds of thousands of dollars passing through his hands, and keeping no banking account, it would not bo at all astonishing if, without any criminality on his part, the mousy might have got mixed, or mis- laid, or one set of moneys mixed with another, because he has had moneys in his hands as Registrar of the Court, Registrar of the Vice-Ad- miralty Court, Official Trustee, as well as Official Assignee, and in one or two other capacities from time to time. If he has kept no banking account daring those years, no check has been exercised over him, he had no accounts to render to any one, left entirely to himself-would you consider It astonishing in a mercantile firm, with accounts and moneys kept irregularly in that way, that at the end of fifteen years there should, out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, be some un- accounted for. That is a point which must bo taken into consideration when we come to consi der whether the evidence before you is sufficient ! to justify a verdict of guilty. I submit there ought to be substantive evidenco before you that i the money was made away with. It is perfectly conceivable that in that ten or fifteen years that money may have been lost or mislaid without any actual criminal culpability on the part of the prí. soner, without any deliberate stealing and taking of that money for his own use and benefit. Now,
it is rather curious in one point of view that the
i
Crown should come here and claim this man as a public officer. If he is such they are in this dilemma they have never exercised suy control over him, he has never boen called on to show his balance, and there has been no audit. Under the! Bankruptcy Act here there are provisions for the framing of a code of rules and orders for officers of the court. There is a reference in that Ordinance to the rules and regulations for the time being in force in England. which the Chief Justice had the power to apply here. Now, I find under the English Bankruptcy Act of 1861 the Official Assignee is directed by the rules and regulations what books and accounts he shall keep, that be! is not allowed by those orders to keep more than! €100 in his hands at a time; that he has to pay the sums coming into his hands on proper vouchers into a banking account, that his ac- counts are to be audited every three months, he the Registrar: at every audit also the debtor and property book must be carefully examined. Under the Bankruptcy Aot in England every procantion has been taken, by such frequent audits as four times in the year, to see that any one holding that position does his duty properly. In fact he has no opportunity to misapply the money. No such rules or orders have ever heen applied here, and no such precautions have been taken with reference to the enormous accounts this Official Assignee has had to deal with. The creditors seem to have taken no care to ascertain what became of the moneys. According to their own account all legal proceedings con- nocted with this estate farminated in 1873, and until 1977 there was no carnest attempt to look into Mr. Huffam's accounts to ascertain where the money was or to force on a settlement. Wo have it in evidence that neither the government, northe court, nor the creditors, have ever thought it worth their while to place any check on Mr. Huffam or his dealings. Now, gentlemon. I submit to you with some confidence a man placed in that position, without any rules or orders for his guidance, not a professional 'accountaut. ra- coiving a salary of £150. left without any anlit or check or control whatever on any side, that if he is to blame--and if you find him guilty of course serious blame attaches to him--there are other persons equally or perhaps more to blame, because more responsibility rested on them, and it is a strong ground for a recommendation to mercy from you, if you find him guilty, that he has been left in that position without check or control. There is another consideration which seems to cut one way, but which I am sure you will weigh, and that is his long servies and, as Mr. Sharp said, his unblemished good character, and you will also consider, gentlemou, that no punishment this court can inflict will weigh more beavily upon him that the mere disgrace and discredit, the natural consequences at- taching to your verdict of guilty; if you pronounce him guilty, gentlemen, he goes from this Court a dishonoured man, after twenty-three years' service deprived of employment and pen. sion. What must have been the mental suffer. ings of that man for some time past, what must be his sufferings now, what must be the position of his family? Take these things into your con- sideration, his responsibility, his position, the manner in which he has been left to himself, the punishment which your verdict mast necessarily inflict upon him, and, if you must find a verdiot of guilty with reference to this charge of em- bezzlement, do accompany that verdict with as strong a recommendation to merey as you can put into words. Remember that others are re- sponsible as well as he. Do all you can to make any punishment be must receive from this court as light as possible.
The Attorney-General-May it please your Lordship. gentlemen of the jury, I shall not have to trouble you with many remarks at this period of the case with regard to the cireum- stances of the alleged defalcations of these moneys, because I explained fully to you the circumstances which I considered I should be in a position to prove and which, as I submit, I have fairly proved in evidence. With regard to the law of the case, there have been several points taken hy my learned friend. Mr. Francis, which have been reserved by his Lordship the judge, and with which therefore you will not be troubled. With regard to the facts and merits of the case, apart from any legal objections that are taken, I submit to you there has been no defence whatever attempted on the part of the prisoner. The only defence I could gather from my learned friond Mr. Francis was this, that considering the prisoner had a large number of ancounts to attend to these amounts might bave
365
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.