SUPREME COURT.
25th July.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
Before HIS HONOUR MR. FIELDING CLARKE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
DEFALCATIONS AT THE POST OFFICE. Mlada Barradas, clerk in the Post Office, charged with stealing certain moneys, the property of her Majesty.
The Acting Attorney-General (Hon. E. J. Ackland), instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. B. Johnson) prosecuted; Mr. J. R. Francis, QC, instructed by Messrs. Caldwell and Wilkinson, defended.
The Jurors were:-Messrs. W. Danby, H. Crawford, G. Raynal, Thos Arnold, G. de Champeaux, F. Dodwell, and D. McCulloch.
Francisco Freire, cross-examined, said-I have been in the Audit Office eleven years. Formerly was bookkeeper to Mr. Linstead. I had no experience of auditing before going to the Audit Office. I had no written instructions for any guidance when I began auditing. It was my duty to audit revenue simply. I have audited the money order accounts for about six or seven years I think. As regards Imperial orders there was usually a balance in hand. With regard to the Local orders, the reverse was the case. Sometimes the account would show an indebtedness to us of as much as $20,000. I checked both books by the counterfoils and application vouchers and found them correct. I never received any fresh instructions when postal notes were introduced. I knew nothing concerning postal notes until this matter was brought up. It never struck me when I saw postal notes on the collector's accounts that they had anything to do with the money order office. I had no instructions that they had. There was some question in the middle of last year as to the prisoner's accounts and he was called upon to make a statement. Mr. Rocha and myself examined the statement and found it correct. I have heard since that it has been examined and stated to be incorrect. I have again examined it and still believe it to be correct. I have never seen any account of remittances from Shanghai or the coast ports. How these moneys were dealt with there was nothing to show. When I went to the Post Office itself, I audited Rocha's books simply. I never audited any books kept by the Postmaster-General in his room.
By his Lordship-I did not know that there were such things as postal notes. When I saw the words "postal notes" I did not know there was any difference between them and postal orders. The accounts in which there is no revenue are not audited at all. If I had known that the prisoner sold postal notes I would not have accepted a receipt for postal notes in discharge of an account for money orders.
Alexander Gordon Stephen--I am cashier of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. I produce the receiving cashier's book for February and March. On the 15th March there is an entry of cash received from the Government of $2,015.89. I have vouchers to show how that sum is made up. There were two sums received from the Post Office, $1,913 and $101. No other sums were paid in by the Government on that day on account of the Postmaster-General. On the 28th February, 1888, there was no sum of $1,787 paid in from the Postmaster-General.
Inspector Stanton-I went to Manila recently to arrest the prisoner. He was handed over to me in the British Consulate.
By his Lordship-I told him that he was charged with stealing $40,000 from the Post Office. He did not say anything to the charge. This concluded the case for the prosecution.
The defence called no witnesses.
Mr. Francis, on behalf of the defendant, said he must ask the jury to eliminate from their minds everything that they had read and heard with reference to this case and confine themselves strictly to the evidence. He submitted that the prosecution had utterly failed to make out any case against the prisoner. For the prosecution to make good their charges they must show satisfactorily that the prisoner could not and did not dispose of those sums of money in paying money orders and that he did not use this money in the current day's business in payment of money orders. Until there was clearly shown in some adequate manner a statement with the total receipts on one side and the total payments into the Bank and over the counter on the other he submitted it could not be shown that any money had been stolen or embezzled or made away with. Even supposing that it was clearly shown that this money was actually lost to the Government, it did not necessarily follow that the prisoner had the money. Until the prisoner's accounts as a whole were balanced and it was shown that the prisoner could not have disposed of this money in any other way, the prosecution could not make out their case. One of the witnesses had told them that there was sometimes as much as $20,000 balance against the Post Office in orders coming from Australia, and it was necessary for the prosecution to show that these sums had not been used in the payment of local money orders. They had it from Mr. Travers, with a certain amount of reluctance that they could quite understand that although prisoner should not have used it to pay orders, as a matter of fact, and almost as a matter of necessity, the whole of the moneys received by him over the counter as well as the moneys received from Mr. Travers were mixed together and that the prisoner habitually, at any rate during the period Mr. Travers was in the office, used this money in payment of Australian and local money orders. No matter what explanation might be given, a man could not be charged successfully with having stolen money that had come into his custody by simply stating that he had not paid it into the Bank, or disposed of it in one particular way when it was not clearly proved that it was his duty to put it into the Bank as he received it and when it was not shown that he did not and could not dispose of it in the course of his business in any other way. The prisoner stood before them in the position of an innocent man whose conviction or acquittal so far as the jury were concerned depended not on public rumour or public report or individual belief, but on the evidence given against him since the jury were charged to try him. The prosecution had not shown that the money had not been properly and legitimately used in the payment of money orders, nor had they even shown that there was any deficiency at all. The Attorney-General had endeavoured to show that certain statements that the money had been apparently paid into the Bank were made for the purposes of fraud and that certain erasures were made for the purpose of concealing the fraud, but his lordship would tell them that in the absence of proof that something had been stolen these statements were not evidence of theft. There was not a tittle of evidence that any money was stolen or that there was any deficiency in the Post Office accounts generally or in the prisoner's accounts. The prisoner absented himself from the office in March and of course his absence caused an enquiry, and all sorts of rumours and charges arose. He was next seen in the Colony in custody. He was asked no questions and being an accused person he naturally said "Prove me guilty," and standing upon his right, said nothing. He would ask the jury whether they thought it right, fair, or reasonable that any man should be convicted on such evidence as had been produced before them at that trial. When they saw what a wretched-he was going to say system, but it would be more correct to say wretched no-system-had been shown in these departments was it not possible that these charges should have arisen from this abominable system or want of system of keeping the accounts. Did they consider the evidence of Mr. Travers with regard to these accounts such as they could convict on when there was another course by which these blunders and miscarriages might have happened? Was it not possible that this deficiency had arisen from a blunder in the accounts? He (Mr. Francis) had not a particularly high opinion of departmental officials in Hongkong but never in his wildest dreams had he conceived such a discreditable state of affairs as had been shown to exist in the Hongkong Post Office.
Page 646
2PREME COURT.
25th July.
C-IMINAL SESSIONS.
Brose HIS HONOUR MR. FIELDING CLARKE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
DEFA: CATIONS AT THE POST OFFICE. Mlada Barradas, clerk in the Post Office, warged with stealing certain moneys, the moperly of her Majesty.
The Acting Attorney-General (Hon. E. J. Acki yd), instructed by the Crown tolicitor (sir. B. Johnsou) prosecuted; Mr. J. . Francis, QC, instructed by Messrs. Caldwell and Wilkinson, defended.
The Jurors were:-Messrs. W. Danby. H Crawford. G. Raynal, Thos Arnold, G. de Champeaux, F'. Dodwell, and D. McCulloch.
Francisco Freire, cross-examined, said-I bave len in the adit Office öleven years. Former- ly was backkeeper to Mr. Linstead. I had no experiene of auditing before going to the Audi
ffice. I lad no written instructions for any guko when I began auditing. It was my duty to andit revenue simply. I have andit- the money order accounts for about six or seven years I think, As regards Imperial orders here was usually a balance in hand. With re- gard to the Local orders, the reverse was the Case. Sometimes the account would show an in- dobieduess to us of as much as $20,000. I checked both books by the counterfoils and application tutes and found them correct. I never received any fresh instructions when postal notes were introduced. I knew nothing concerning postal notes until this atter was brought up. It never trnek me when I saw postal notes on the collector's accounts that they had anything to do with the wuoney order office. I had no instructions that they had. There was some question in the middle of last year as to the prisoner's accounts and he was called apon to make a statement. Mr. Rocha and yulf examined the statement and found it correct 1 bave heard since that it has been examined and stated to be incorrect. I have again examined it and still believe it to be cor- voet. I have never seen any account of remit- tances from Shanghai or the coast ports. How these moneys were dealt with there was nothing o show. When I went to the Post fös itself, I andited Rocha's boots simply. I never andited any books kept by the Postmaster- General in his room
Dy his Lordship-I did not know that there were such things as postal notes. When I saW ühn words" postal notes" I did not know there was any difference between them and postal orders. he accounts in which there is no re- venue are not audited at all. If 1 bad known that the prisoner sold postal notes I would not. have accepted a receipt for postal not-s in dis- chase of an account for money orders.
Alexander Gordon Stephen--Jam cashier of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. I produer the receiving cashier's book for February and starch. On the 15th March there is an entry of cash received from the Government of $2,015.89. I have vouchers to show how that sum is made There were two sums received from the Post Office, $1,913 and $101. No other sams were paid in by the Government on that day on account of the Postmaster-General. On the 28th February, 1888, there was no sum of $1,787 paid in from the Postmaster-General.
1
Inspector Stanton-I went to Manila recently to arrest the prisoner. Ho was handed over to me in the British Consulate.
By his Lordship-I told him that he was charged with stealing $40,000 from the Post Office. He did not say anything to the charge. This concluded the case for the prosecution. The defence called no witnesses.
Mr. Francis, on behalf of the defendant, said he must ask the jury to eliminate from their minde everything that they had read and hoard with reference to this case and confine them. selves strictly to the evidence. He submitted that the prosecution had utterly failed to make out any case against the prisoner. For the pro- secution to make good their charges they must
taken
show satisfactorily that the prisoner could not | and did not dispers of those sums of money in paying money orders and that he did not use this money in the current day's business in par! ment of money orders. Until there was clearly shown in some adequate manner a statement with the total receipts on one side and the total payments into the Bank and over the counter on the other he submitted it could not be shown that any money had been stolen or embezzled or made away with. Even supposing that it was clearly shown that this money was actual- ly lost to the Government, it did not necgs- sarily follow that the prisoner had the money. Until the prisoner's accounts as a whole were balanced and it was DOWD that the prisoner could not have disposed of this money in any other way, the prosecution could not make out their caso. Que of the witnesses had told them that there was sometimes as much as $20,000 balance against the Post Office in orders coming from Australia, and it was neces sary for the prosecution to show that these sums; had not been used in the payment of local money orders. They had it froin Mr. Travers, with a certain amount of reluctance that they could quite understand that although prisoner should not have used it to pay orders. as a matter of fact, and almost as a matter of necessity, the whole of the moneys received by him over the counter as well as the moneys receit ed from Mr. Travers were mixed together and that the prisoner habitually, at ang rato dur- ing the period Mr. Travers was in the office, used this money in payment of Australian and local money orders. No matter what explana tion might be given, a man could not be charged successfully with having stolen money that had come into his custody by simply stating that be had not paid it into the Bank, or disposed of it in one particular way when it was not clearly i proved that it was his daty to pat it into the Bank as he received it and when it was not shown that he did not and could not dispose of it in the course of his business in any other way. The prisoner stood before them in the position of an innocent man whose conviction or acquit tal so far as the jury were concerned depended. not on public rumour or public report or in- dividual belief, but on the evidence given agiust him since the jury wore charged to try him. The prosecution had not shown that the money had not been properly and legitimately used in the payment of money orders, nor had they even shown that there was any difficiency at all. The Attorney-General had endeavoured to show that certain statements that the money had been ap parently paid into the Bank were made for the purposes of fraud and that certaia erasures were made for the purpose of concealing the fraud. but his lordship would tell them that in the absence of proof that something had been stolen these statements were not evidence of theft. There was not a tittle of evidence that! any money was stolen or that there was any de ficiency in the Post Office accounts generally or in the prisoner's accounts. The prisoner ab- sented himself from the offioe in March and of course his absence caused an enquiry, and all sorts of ramours and charges arose. He was next aoan in the Colony in custody. He was asked no ques tions and being su accused person he naturally said "Prove me guilty," and standing upon his right. said nothing. He would ask the jury whether they thought it right, fair, or ressonable that any man should be convicted on suoh evidence as had been produced before them at that trial. When they saw what a wretched-he was going to say system, but it would be more correct to say wretched no-system-bad been shown in these departments was it not possible that these charges should have arisen from this abominable system or want of system of keeping the ao- counts. Did they consider the evidence of Mr. Travers with regard to these accounts such as they could convict 12:211 on when there was another course be which these blunders and miscarriages might have happen- ed? Was it
not possible that this de. ficiency had arison from a blunder in the ac- counts? Ha (Mr. Francis) had not a particularly high opinion of departmental officials in long- kong but never in his wildest dreams had he conceived such a discreditable state of affairs as had been shown to exist in the Hongkong Post
646
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.