CO129-182 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [9-12] — Page 320

312

cheques at an early date; he even went so far as

to write to one of the parties that the cheques should be paid on the following day. He did not come to the office on the Tuesday, alleging he was ill, and he remained away on Wednesday, Thurs- day. Friday, and Saturday. In the meantime correspondence was going on. He alleged he was ill, but called no medical man to prove it. The presumption was that his medical man could not prove it. He went to Macao without any leave whatever. He wrote to the Registrar saying he was going for a few days. All that about going away from Saturday to Monday was beside the question because he did not intend to come back on Monday. He received an order from the court but did not obey it. A. policeman was sent over to Macao but was unable to arrest him at that time. He re- nained there for upwards of two weeks, making no intimation of his return, sending no informa. tion to the court, and if he had not been brought on board the steamer by a Portuguese inspector and handed to our inspector he would probably have been thore now. Now, how could his learned friend say there was no attempt at escape. Judging from what he did the prisoner would never have come to throw any light on his ac- counts and his creditors might have whistled for their money. The jury, taking that into consideration, and also that no explanation what- evor had been made, found him guilty. It scarcely came within the point taken by his learned friend, but no explanation had been made at the time, aud was it not a case to go to the jury, was there not a prima facie case which he was called upon to rebut P His learned friend had laid before the court the arguments which he laid before the jury an successfully, that there might have been loss, etc., and that Mr. Haffam ought not to be con- victed. The jury did not accept those arguments. He contended that there was sufficient evidence. to establish a prima facie case which the prisoner could have rebutted if he had been able to do so. If it had been shown what had become of this money, how it had been invested, how it had been lost, of course that would have been a circumstance for the jury to have taken into consideration with regard to his guilt or innocenes, but at the time his learned friend closed his case there was abun- dant evidence to convict if the prisoner was un- able to explain his accounts. It would be impossible to couviet in nine cases out of te unless you could refer to presumptive evidence. A certain noiber of facts being proved what was the presumption the jury might arrive at? In no case would the jury be more justified in coming to the conclusion they did than in this. Of course every presump. tion was liable to be rebutted, and there might have been evidonos produced at that moment to show Mr. Huffam's innocence. His learned friend had referred to what was possible. Juries were not to acquit simply because there was a possi- hility a van might be innocent; they were to take a clear, common sense view of the case and deal with it as if it was business of the greatest importance to themselves personally. The learned Attorney then referred to Mr. Francis's objection that the prisoffer had only been charged with converting the money to his own use, and not with disposing of it in any of the other ways mentioned in the Ordinance, and said that the reason those words were inserted in the Ordinance was that 'in case the evidence showed he hud not appropriated it to his own ase he might be charged with disposing of it by the other methods: mentioned. He referred to the impossibility of showing what had become of money misappro priated by a trustee, and submitted the convic- tion ought to be sustained.

Mr. Francis briefly replied, arging that no test of employment by the Crown applied in Mr. Haffam's case, also that the whole property in an estate vested absolutely in the Official Assignee, and that it would be a perversion of language to assert that he could be guilty of the embezzle- ment or larceny of that money,

Their lordships reserved judgment.