Office with regard to its accounts. He did not impute any personal blame to Mr. Travers, who had been put at the head of the office and must take the responsibility. Mr. Travers found the system of bookkeeping there and adopted it. He had the work of the Post Office on his hands and the general opinion was, he thought, that this had been well done, but he had not only this general business to attend to but he had the Stamp Office, and the Money Order office, and he was supposed to be in a sense responsible for these accounts. He stepped into the system with the impression in his mind that the Audit Office was responsible for these accounts. It had been shown what the state of things was with reference to the accounts and if money now could not be accounted for, was it not, on the face of the evidence before them, simply the result of the thorough and complete muddle in the accounts and not that the money had been stolen or embezzled? When they came to think that the prosecution had not dared to put in any document showing any general deficiency of money, what conclusion could they rationally draw but that the accounts were in such a state, not only in the prisoner's department, but in the Treasury, the Audit Office, and the Post Office, that they could not, if they tried, bring out a balance or show any deficiency? The prisoner received money from three different sources and he had to pay out for two different purposes.
When he received money for postal notes, the money was put into his cash box. Mr. Travers said that should not have been done, but there was no evidence to show that the prisoner knew of any rule against it. Mr. Travers admitted honestly enough that he himself, although he was the second head of the department, knew nothing of what went on in the money order department. He did not know what the practice was in his own time, and when he came to take charge of the office he had so much to do that he signed papers that were put before him without looking at them very closely and he (Mr. Francis) thought the jury would come to the conclusion that Mr. Travers did not think about or consider the figures put before him. He thought if they took into consideration the state of Mr. Travers's mind they would conclude that when he said that the prisoner should have done this or the other thing, those ideas had come into his mind since this investigation and that at the time he was in the office he simply signed what was put before him without having the faintest idea how matters stood.
The Attorney-General stated that the prisoner should have paid those sums into the Bank, but he asked the jury, considering Mr. Travers's evidence and giving him every credit for good intentions, were they satisfied that it was the prisoner's duty to pay these sums at once into the Bank and was he to be held responsible for not doing so? Was it not more reasonable to think that the prisoner was authorized to use this money for the payment of local money orders, and as there was no evidence as to how the local money order account stood, for all they knew there might be a heavy balance in the prisoner's favour on this account. The prisoner did not simply receive money; he had to make use of it afterwards, and he put it to the jury whether there was any evidence which would justify them in saying that those sums had been stolen. Could they conscientiously say that the prisoner was guilty until they had some statement before them to show that a deficiency existed? The onus of proof in this case rested with the prosecution and the prisoner was entitled to be treated as an innocent man until beyond all reasonable doubt the jury were satisfied that he had stolen the moneys in respect of which he was charged, and they could not charge successfully a man with stealing when they had never made up his accounts and shown how he stood.
They must be satisfied beyond all doubt that the prisoner had made away with this money before they could find him guilty on either or all of the charges, and in considering their verdict he would ask them to put out of their mind all that they might have seen in the newspapers or heard outside and be guided simply by what evidence had been laid before them.
The Acting Attorney-General said the prisoner was charged on four separate counts. His learned friend had stated that the jury could not find the prisoner guilty unless a statement of account showing the deficiency was laid before them. He (the Attorney-General) maintained that if he proved that the prisoner alleged to have paid so much money into the Bank, that he had credited himself for so doing and shown a receipt for it, and if it was further proved that the receipt he produced did not refer to this amount at all but had been made to do double duty, first as a receipt for postal notes and then being brought forward as a voucher for money orders, the jury were justified in coming to the conclusion that the prisoner had stolen the money.
Had the prisoner used this money for other purposes in his business, or had he said "I had such a sum of money that should have been paid into the Bank but I have used it for the payment of money orders," the case for the prosecution would not have been so strong, but the case was that the prisoner according to his book stated that he had paid so much into the Bank and got credit for having paid it in, and when it was proved that this sum had never been paid in they were justified in saying that the prisoner had stolen the amount. There were three charges of one category and one of another. They had heard in evidence that Australia was sometimes heavily indebted to the Post Office, but they must bear in mind what Mr. Travers said in his evidence, that when money was required for the purposes of meeting local orders, he supplied cheques to the prisoner to meet them. There was no need, therefore, of the prisoner applying these sums to pay local money orders.
With regard to what had been said about the prisoner's books not having been made up, the prisoner, by his conduct, had rendered it impossible for anyone to make up his accounts at short notice. He would like to say a few words with regard to the fourth count of the charge, which was very strong against the prisoner. They would remember that there was put in a certificate dated 16th March drawn up by the prisoner and presented by him which represented that $1,913.69 had been paid in for postal notes. It had been proved that that sum was paid and a receipt was given for it from the Treasury. On that receipt, which had been produced, the words "on account of" remained, but what followed there had been scratched out. The prisoner then credited himself with having paid in this amount for money orders. The cashier of the bank stated that no such sum had been paid in and it was clear that the accounts passed the audit examination by means of the prisoner bringing forward that receipt a second time. He should ask them to take the evidence on this point into account and he thought they would come to the conclusion this money had never been paid into the Bank.
Had this money been used for other purposes in his business the prisoner would not have made the entries he did. If the money, as was alleged, had been used for local funds, why did it not appear in the books as having been used for the purpose and not as having been paid into the Bank? He would not detain the jury longer. The case was a simple one and as experienced men of business he thought they would have little difficulty in dealing with it and he asked them to find the prisoner guilty on all four counts.
His Lordship said he felt sure the jury would not think it an impertinence on his part if, before making any further remarks, he repeated the caution which Mr. Francis had addressed to them and reminded them that juries were not concerned to arrive at a conclusion except on the facts placed before them. They were concerned to give a proper verdict according to the evidence, not according to what they had heard outside. It was extremely necessary in cases of this sort to bear that in mind, because in a place like this the case got talked about beforehand and it was impossible for anyone to come and try the case without some preconceived idea as to whether the prisoner was guilty or not.
That being so they would understand that in fairness to the prisoner they must disregard everything but the evidence before them. There were...
647
Office with regard to its accounts. He did not impute any personal biame to Mr. Travers, who had been put at the bead of the office and must take the responsibility. Mr. Travers found the system of bookkeeping there and adopted it. He had the work of the Post Office on his hauda and the general opinion was, he thought, that this had been well done, but he had not only this general business to attend to but he had the Stamp Office, and the Woney Order office, and he was supposed to be in a sense responsible for these accounts. He stepped into the system with the impression in his mind that the Audit | Office was responsible for these soconuts. It had been shown what the state of things was with re- ference to the accounts and if money now could not be accounted for, was it not, on the face of | the evidence before them, simply the result of the thorough and complete muddle in the accounts and not that the money had heen stolen er em- bezzled F When they came to think that the prosecution had not dared to put in any docu- ment showing any general deficiency of money, what conclusion could they rationally draw but that the accounts were in such a state, not only in the prisoner's department, but in the Treasury, the Audit Office, and the Post Office, that they could not, if they tried, bring out a balance or show any deficiency? The prisoner received money from three different sources and heį lad to pay out for two different pur- pages.
When he received money for postal notes, the money was put into his cash box. Mr. ravers said that should not have been done, but there
WAS no evidence to show that the prisoner know of any rule against it. Mr. Travers admitted honestly enough that he himself, although he was the second head of the department, knew nothing of what went on in the money order department. He did not know what the practice was in his own time, and when he came to take charge of the office he had so much to do that he sigued papers that were pat before him without looking at them very closely and be (Mr. Francis) thought the jury would come to the conclusion that Mr. Travers did not think about or consider the figures put before him He thought if they took into considera- tion the state of Mr. Travers's mind they would conclude that when he said that the prisoner should have done this or the other thing, those ideas had come into his mind since this investigation and that at the time he was in the office he simply signed what was put before him without having the faintest idea how matters stood. The Attorney-General stated that the prisoner should have paid those sums into the Bank, but he asked the jury, consider ing Mr. Travers's evidence and giving him every credit-for-good intentions, were they satisfied- that it was the prisoner's duty to pay these sums at once into the Bank and was he to be held re-p sponsible for not doing so P Was it not more reasonable to think that the prisoner was authorized to use this money for the payment of local money orders, and as there was no evi- dence as how the local money order account stood, for all they knew there might be a heavy balance in the prisoner's favour on this account. The prisoner did not simply receive money; he had to make use of it afterwards, and he put it to the jury whether there was any evidence. which would justify them in saying that those, sumas had been stolen. Could they conscien tiously say that the prisoner was guilty until they had some statement before them to show that a deficiency existed? The onus of proof in this case rested with the pro- secution and the prisoner was entitled to be treated as an innocent man until beyond all reasonable doubt the jury were satis-
fied that he had stolen the moneys in res- pect of which he was charged, and they could not ebarge successfully a man with stealing when they had never made up his accounts and shown how he stood. They must be satisfied be yond all doubt that the prisoner had made away with this money before they could find him guilty on either or all of the charges, and in con- sidering their verdict he would ask them to pat out of their mind all that they might have seen
in the newspapers or heard outside and be guid. ed simply by what evidence had been laid before them.
The Acting Attorney-General said the pri souer was charged on four separate counts. His learned friend had stated that the jury could not find the prisoner guilty unless a statement of account showing the deficiency was laid before them. He (the Attorney-General maintained that if he proved that the prisoner alleged to have paid so much money into the Bank, that be had credited himself for so doing and shown a receipt for it, and if it was further proved that the receipt hs produced did not refer to this amount at all bat had been made to do double duty, first as a receipt for postal notes and then being brought forward as a voucher for money orders, the jury were justified in coming to the con- clusion that the prisoner had stolon the money. Had the prisoner used this money for other pur- poses in his business, or had he said "I had such a sum of money that should have been paid into the Bank but I have used it for the payment of money orders," the case for the prosocation would not have been so stroug, but the case was that the prisoner according to his hook stated that he bad paid so much into the Bank and get oredit į for having paid it in, and when it was proved that this sum had never been paid in they were justified in saying that prisoner had stolen the amount. There were three chargesof one eatigors and one of another. They had heard in evidence that Australia was sometimes heavily indebied to the Post Office, but they must bear in mind what Mr. Travers said in his evidence, that when money was required for the purposes of uecting local orders, be supplied cheques to the prisoner to meet them. There was no need. therefore, of the prisoner applying these sums to pay local money orders. With regard to what had been said about the prisoner's books not having been made up, the prisoner, by his conduct, had ren- ered it impossible for anyone to make up his accounts to short a notice. He would like to ray a few words with regard to the fourth count: of the charge, which was very strong against the prisoner. They would remember that there was put in a certificate dated 16th March drawn up by the prisoner and presented by him which re- presented that $1,913.69 had been paid in for postal notes. It had been proved that that sum was paid and a receipt was given for it from the Treasury. On that receipt, which had been produced, the words "on aoconut of remained, but what followed there had been scratched out.. The prisoner then credited himself with having paid in this amount for money orders. Th cashier of the bak stated that no such sum had been paid in and it was clear that the accounts passed the audit examination by meaux of the prisoner bringing forward that receipt a seond time. He should ask them to take the evidence on this point into account and he thought they would come to the conclusion this money had never been paid into the Bank. Had this money been used for other purposes in his business the prisoner wouldnot have made the entries he did. If the money, as was alleged, had boon used for local funds, why did it not appear in the hooks as having been used for the purpose and not as having been paid into the Bank. He would not I detain the jury longer. The case was a sim, le one and as experienced men of business ho thought they would have little difficulty in dealing with it and he asked them to find the prisoner guilty on all four counts.
His Lordship said he felt sure the jury would not think it an impertinence on his part it, before making any further remarks, he repeated the caution which Mr. Francis had adirossed to them and reminded them that juries were uot con- | cerned to arrive at a conclusion except on the facts placed before them. They were concerned to give a propar verdiot according to the evidence, not. according to what thoy had heard outside. It was extremely necessary in cases of this sort to bear, that in mind, because in a place like this the cass got talked about beforehand and it was impossible for anyone to come and try the c450 without some preconceived idea as to whether the prisoner was guilty or xot. That bei g so they would understand that in fairness 10 the prisoner they must disregard everything but the evidence before them. There were
647
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.