Mont
heen lost or mixed up with other accounts with- out any criminal knowledge on the part of the prisoner. With regard to that, gentlemen, all I oan say is that whon parties are entrusted and take upon themselves the duty of keeping ne couuts it is their duty to keep them in a proper manner, and if there are deficiencies in the accounts, subject to the point of law reserved, it is for the party who keeps the accounts to point out how these deficiencies arose. My learned friend has contended that as a matter of law specifio amounts should have been proved to have been mis- appropriated. That is a question which I under. stand his Lordship has reserved, and the question for your consideration then really is whether these amounts appearing in Mr. Haffam's accounts have been misappropriated or not. I submit that, these points being reserved, there practically is uo defence on the merits at all, and that my learned friend's speech went more with rogarl to getting from the gentlemen of the jury a rê- commendation to mercy rather than a defonce on the merits entitling the prisoner to an acquittal. With regard to the first count in the informa- tion, on which there is a question reserved whe- ther Mr. Huffam was or was not in the public service of Her Majesty, the proof of that is that he was official assignee, and that according to his own account he received large amounts of money on account of various bankrupt estates, and that those appear in his own handwrit. ing to be still due upon those bankrupt estates. He went away to Macao and although he was summoned to attend this Conrt, and received an order to attend, yet he did not return until the 31st August, two weeks after- wards. In the meantime a warrant had been signed for his arrest, which had not bona executed, but a warrant was again sent over; he was brought on board the steamboat by the Portuguese Authorities and handed over to our Police Inspector, when he was brought before the Magistrate. With regard to the second count, which alleges these moneys were mublic moneys, there is exactly the same evidence. With regard to the third count, in which are really included the fourth and fifth, and which charges him as a trustee, as the Oficial Assignee of the estate of Lyall, Still and Co., the evi- dence against him there is more particular. According to the evidence of Mr. Arnold, which has been in nowise contradicted, on the 6th March, 1872, Mr. Huffam had in hand $6,360.10, according to his own accounts. He was then required to pay an account of $4,817 to Messrs, Sharp and Toller. From Mr. Toller's evidence yon have it that he said he had at that time no money belonging to the estate in bis hands and was unable to pay the account. Mr. Toller then asked about the deposits at the bank, and Mr. Huffam told him there was a de posit of $25,000, and it was arranged 85,000 should be taken out, so that it would appear that at that time, in March, 1879, there was a deficiency. that although he ought to have had in hand 36,980 yet he was unable to pay $5,000 without drawing from the bank. On the 26th April ho ought to have had in hand, according to bis own accounts, $12,009. He then received from the bank the amount of the deposit $20,400. He re ceived after that $3.548.20, making a total of $85,953,18, and he only paid out $2,353,05, show- ing a balance against him of $39,500. Now. I subunit, there would be evidence of misappro priations in both those circumstances. As T put it, if it is necessary to give evidence of specific mix. appropriations there is the misappropriation of that $20,400; then there is that $5,000 which was paid to Mssrs. Sharp. Toller, and Johnson in 1877 and was refunded on secount of Lyall. Still and Co., with a slight deduction, leavin $4.800 odd, and with the exception of $160 no payments have been made since then. That is the cvi dence with regard to the third count. And with regard to both the first, second, and third counts, as I said before, there seems to me to have been no defence whatever raised upon the merits. My learned friend has appealed to you that in case you feel it necessary to find a verdiet of guilty you should couple with that verdict a recommendation to mergy. Of course, gentlemen, it would be a most inviduous thing for me to attempt to dissuade you from anything of that kind; all I can say is, it ought to bo a spontaneous expression of opinion on your part. My learned friend has referred to certain cir- cumstances which in justice to the Government With as well as the Court. I should reply to. regard to the fact that there were no general orders made, my learned friend has referred to the proviso. That proviso does not meet the case, as I submit, in any way, it refers to special
cases.
Where in any particular case rules were required to be made the Chief Justice had power to make rules. That surely could not apply in any way to the disposal of moneys or the books the Official Assignes should keep. As to whether e general audit should be made or not, that was discretionary with the Chief Justine. And it is to be observed the section is a po-* enliar one, and it is that supposing the Chief Justice exercised his discretion of making these orders they should be approved by the Legislative Council. Probably some general orders have been brought forward aud probably they were considered sufficient at the time. The Official Assignee was an officer in bankruptcy, and there were certain provisions made in the Bankruptcy Ordinance itself as to the custody of money and so forth which, if they had been followed by the prisoner, would have prevented bim being placed in the eirenmstances he is in at present. I refer particularly to section 174 and to the interpretation clause. It was proscribed ander very heavy penalties under, that section that no assignee should at any tame retain in his hands more than $300 beyond! e space of one week. It may be said, and has been said, no one saw as to this regulation being carried out. With regard to officers of court, there always has been a difficulty in every colony I have been in and in England itself. Mr. Edmonds, who has sued out several petitions of right, has over and over again complained that he never could get his ac- counts andited, and the Lord Chancellor said in one case the regulation had never been carried out, and within his knowledge there was over £1,000,000 which was totally unsecured. Those things do arise, and more especially with re spect to officers of the court, bocause it is no one's business in particular to look after them. Of course this will be a lesson to all parties concerned, and in faturo things will be placed on a more satisfactory basis. But it is not only in this Colony the difficulties have been experienced, but in other colonies, and also in England, where things are conducted usually on a much more strict footing. Here everyone knows each other; you give your confidence and in uine cases out of ten it is not misplaced; then possibly comes a tenth case in which it may be misplaced. Whether because there was no audit is a reason why you should recommend to mercy is really a question for you. Of course 1 have no wish to say anything pressing against the prisoner in his present position. "All I would say is, in the case of a very highly conscientious man the very fact of his feeling he was in such a position, and was altogether unshocked, would lead him to much greater care in keeping his accounts than he would otherwise feel him. self bound to do. Woll, gentlemen, the only defence raised is this, that it may be that some of this money has been lost or mixed up with other accounts. As I say, it would be for the defence to show that. The amount is a large one; there is, as appears from Mr. Huttam's own statement of the balances, and as appears in his books, $50,417.30 unaccounted for. If you deduct from that the amount of interest, $12,000, which he has credited in Lyall, Still & Co.'s estate, and which we cau- not find he received, there would still be a deti- ciency of $38.417, and I think it is idle for me to take up your time in endeavoaring to convince you $38,417 in one set of accounts could not possibly pass through his hands without his knowing what became of it. No attempt at explanation whatever has been made. It will be for you to say, under these circumstances, whether you consider I have made out the case according to the evi. dence I have placed before you. In my opening I told you I thought there was a prima facie case established against the prisoner unless it was robutted. No attempt has been made at rebuttal. If you think that under the circumstauces you cau attach to your verdict any recommendation I am sure it will have the consideration both of the court and of the highest authority in this community
He said they
!
His Lordship then summed up, had now come to the last stage of this very painful and distressing case and he really thought, after the points of law reserved by the learned counsel, it would be necessary for him to detain the jury a very short time. The learned counsel had agreed between then that he should put the evidence to the jury on the first count in the way he had taken it down: therefore be should repeat that to them and ask! them to find a verdict on the facts of the case without his view of the law. The question would be whether the prisonar, being appointed as.
906
1..
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.