You were both of you pretty busy?—Yes.
What was the nature of the business Importing, and commission.
Was that all done through Harvie Bros., of Liverpool?—No, not all. The largest amount of it was.
Do you know anything at all about the You are now in business on your own account?—Yes.
And you and your uncle are not on good terms?—I cannot say.
Mr. Warxewnicut—Oh, yes, you can say if you like.
Witness—There is no ill feeling on my part.
Do you ever speak to him?—No.
Mr. Watsewnicht—You are really running an opposition business, are you not Wnrese (after some hesitation) Yes.
Mr, Moore (juror)—Mr. Harvie, you stated that you did not see the memo, at the foot of that letter which you say was written by you in the letter book. Did you ever look in the letter book again after the mail was gone?
Witness—Generally.
Mr. Moonz—And it was not there?
Witness—Oh, I cannot say it was not there. I never saw it.
Mr, Cuzerian (juror) asked if the memo-random was indexed.
An examination of the book showed that although there was an index to the book, the letter or memorandum said; prisoner to have been sent to Messrs. Harvie Bros. & Ca. t included in that index.
Mr. Watsewnicur intimated that he should call no witnesses.
The Crows Apvocare then summed up for the prosecution. He said the jury would have seen that it was abundantly proved that the prisoner received the sums of money in question on account of Mrs. Smith. He received the whole sum, Tls. 10,287, between the ist March and the 14th June, 1883, and he paid away from time to time small sums of money on account of the estate, the largest amount. being Tls.319 on account of Court fees. The last amount he received was on the Lith June, 1883, and the last amount he paid was in December, 1883. On the 14th June, 1883, he had only sume Tls.80 to pay out of TMs. 10,080 received; so that there was no excuse for his keeping that amount in his hands after that date. The prisoner had admitted that with the exception of the small sums mentioned in the account, he had applied no part of the money received to the purpose for whic he had received it. 'They had then to cun-sider whether at any time he applied thi money to his own use, and whether he did it fraudulently. 'They would find upon the evidence that he had' put this money into his own account, and that he had not got No clearer evidence could be given in any case of a fraudulent appropriation of ey than had been given in this case. With regard to the order on Harvie Bros. requesting them to pay over the money, the jury had heard the evidence and could judge for themselves whether that letter hhad'ever been sent. If it had been sent the prisoner would be able to produce Messrs. Harvie Bros' reply. They had heard Mr. Morrison Harvie's evidence, and they had heard the answer given to the very pertinent question from a juror as to whether that letter was indexed. If the jury came to the conclusion—as -he thought they must—that would tend to confirm the impression made by the rest of the evidence, that for some time previous to the interview with Mr. Inverarity the prisoner knew he had appropriated this money in a way he should. not have done. The evidence showed conclusively that the prisoner had appropriated the money to his own use, no matter what expectation he might have had of being able to replace it. 'The appropriation of the money to his own use constituted the fraud, and however strong his expectation of replacing it might be, the jury would be constrained to find him guilty. In conclusion, Mr. Wile kinson impressed upon the' jury the necessity of putting aside anything they might have heard outside, and of not allowing any feeling of sympathy for the prisoner to influence them in giving their verdict. He submitted that upon the evidence they had no other course than to find the prisoner guilty of the offence with which he was charged.
Mr. Warxewniont asked if the prisoner might be allowed to make a statement on his own account. His Lordship had allowed this in a former case, and Mr. Wainewright thought this was peculiarly a case in which the prisoner should be allowed to make a statement, although represented, as there were necessary facts in connection with the case which were in the exclusive knowledge of the prisoner, and of which he could therefore produce no evidence.
His Lonpsuir said it appeared to be a growing practice with some judges at home to allow a prisoner represented by counsel to make a statement. The practice was not settled; it seemed to his Lordship avery curious practice, and he had grave doubts of its expediency in the interest of either the prisoner or the crown, However, as it seemed to be the increasing practice at home, and as he had allowed it before, he should not prevent the prisoner from make ing a'statement in this case, He thought it would be most inconvenient to have an argument in every individual case as to whether it should "be allowed in that particular case.
The Crows Apvocars said he should have a right to reply to what. the prisoner might say. He presumed that the prisoner would have to make his statement before the Counsel for the defence summed His Loxnsutr said certainly.
Mr. Warewntoxr pointed out that in the previous case to which he had referred (R. vt, McFarlane), the prisoner had made his statement afterwards, His Lonpsutr said nevertheless he preferred that the prisoner's statement should be made before Mr. Wainewright addressed the Ji wy.
The Prisoner then addressed the jury, He said he did not deny having received the money; but with regard to his havin; shown Dir. Inverarity how he proposed to pay the money, he wished the jury to see copies of the correspondence with reference to the business between Tientsin and Yokohama, to which reference had been made.—The prisoner then passed a letter book to the Jury.
The Cxowx Apvocare said he had seen these letters, and he had no objection to the Jury seeing them; but he called attention to the inconvenience of allowing the prisoner to put in a number ut docu: ments which were in no way authenticated.
Mr. Warvewntoxr acknowledged its inconvenience. He said he had no idea that the prisoner was going into this matter.
The Prisoner then said Messrs, Harvie Bros. had been indebted to him in a considerably larger sum than he had asked them to pay. The business between himself and the firm had begun in 1880, and had gone on till November of last year. -'There had never been a settlement accounts between them in all that time, and the business done amounted on an average to Tls. 250,000 a year, the agreement being that the commission should be divided equally between himself and the firm in Liverpool. In this way there was
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.