Witness—Yes, unfortunately. He was an assistant in the editorial In HM. Police Court, on Monday before the Magistrate, Mr. G. King, advertising traveller, was charged on a warrant with the fraudulent embezzlement of $108.60, part of a sum of money received from Messrs. Garner, Quelch & Ca. for the Shanghai Mercury, Ld. Mr, Maitland prosecuted on behalf of and Mr. P. W. Goldring department, nothing more and. nothing less.
"The defendant, witness said, had not informed him that Garner, Quelch & Co's. receipt Haynes had been given for cury" money. He only saw it last Friday. There was no entry in the "Mercury" books showing this amount as having been paid. The defendant left their employ in July. Tt was as a result of.a conversation Mr. Maitland said that the d fendant was employed by the "Shanghai Mercury" a a canvasser for advertisenients. Messrs. "Garier, Quelch & Ca. paid an account through him, but the amount paid to the "Shanghai Mercury" was $108.60 chort of the full sum. Defendant was given a number of separate receipts for the full amount.
"Davey Hitting Back"
Det.-SubéInspector Tinkler said that he arrested the defendant on Sunday. "He neither denied nor ad-_ mitted the charge, but afterwards he said:—"Davey is hitting back already. I am going to file a suit against him."
Cross-examined—The defendant rather treated the matter us a joke. He laughed and did not appear to be worried about it, Mr. Henry Quelch said that in August, 1925, he paid the defendant $294.70, on behalf of the "Shanghai Mercury," for various advertisements his firm had inserted in that. Paper. He wag given a written receipt in full. He could not recollect Faving had any other receipts. At! that time he rether thought Mr. L._ E. Haynes was the manager of the "Shanghai Mercury" and witness believed that he did write and ask, for official receipts Cross-examinod—The payment as not made fully in cash. Witness gave the defendant a receipt for $103 owing by Mr. Haynes and the balance in cash.
Mr. Goldring—That is the amount this gentleman ts charged with embezzling. It io rather curious. You said you thought Mr. Haynes was the manager?
Witness—I was under that impression.
Re-examined—It was a cross-transaction. The balance was paid by a compradore order on Messrs. Garner, Quelch & Ca., which subsequently was redeemed.
Mr. Maitland applied for a remand, stating that he only was ad-ised that morning and was not Prepared to go on. ith Mr. Quelch that witness ascertained there was a shortage of $117, including the $103 referred Cross-examined by Mr. Goldring—Did you take any legal advice before you Laid this charge?—It was not necessary, Witness said there was nothing in writing in the nature of a contract or agreement between the defendant and the company. The defendant ]was a canvasser on commission and did not receive any salary, but he had a guarantee for the first three months. A new arrangement or contract was not made when the three months' probation had expired, as the big strike then was on and everything was upset. Tt was, not part of the defendant's duties to make entries in the firm's book. Wit-Mess denied expressly having asked defendant to collect money from Garner, Quelch & Ca. Witness personally examined the compradore's and other books frequently more often than once a month.
Way didn't you find out this shortage sooner?—That was the business of Garner, Quelch & Ca.
Witness said. the firm's official receipts were handed to the defend. ant to give to Garner, Quelch & Ca, If the defendant was not a clerk and it wes not his duty to make entries in books, what entry did he cause to be omitted?—That I don't Know. All T know is that we are short 2f $103.60,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.