Mr. A. H, Leslie, against whom three separate charges of falsifying the accounts of the International Recreation Club were framed in H.M, Police Court, was committed for trial fon Thursday. "me Keg.strar, Mr. C.
Haines, said the prosecution nad produced ' sufficient evidence to) Justify him committing the accused on all, three counts, Mr, John Neill Conducted the prosecution, ana Mr. Ranald MeDonald the defence. the accused was granted bail on tone surety in his own recognizance of £60, and two sureties of #25 each.
The question whether defending counsel, in a preliminary hearing, has the right to address the Bench fat the conclusion of the ease for the prosecution, and before any charges fare framed, was argued by Mir. Mangia MeDonald, defending Mr. Leslie, on Monday, April 1. The Registrar held that the Criminal Justice Act of 1925 gave no such Tight, and framed three charges against the accused, in answer to each charge when read, ie accused said "Iam. not, guilty." The accused was asked by the Registrar whether he wished to give evidence or to call any witnesses to Me:
Donald, who asked for an adjournment s6 that he could explain to his client what had happened, Mr, Leslie, he said, was handicapped by his The Registrar granted the request The three charges framed against the accused were that he, in the capacity of a clerk or servant of the -C.; between January 1 and January 1985; with intent to defraud, firstly made a false entry in the balance sheet of the LR.C. purporting 10 show on December $1, 1984, that the sum of $45,375.49 was due to the ERE, from sundry members in re~ spect of unpaid "monthly accounts; secondly, that he made a false entry in the journal of the LRC. purporting to show in January, "1035, aggregate sum of $4,110.26 had been ald to the LR.C. by members in Fespect of chits due in 1994; thirdly, that be made a fae entry in the Journal of the LR.C. purporting tot show in January, 1938, the gregate gum of $1,215 ' had been aid fo the LRC. by members in respect of subscriptions from sundry members in 1034.
Mr, MeDonald said that, where the submission of the defence was that no case had been made out by the prosecution, Section 12 of the Crimnal Justice Act of 1025 didn't apply, and defending counsel was entified to address the Bench. was, in the interests of elementary Justicn that the should be heard. as to whether there was sufficient evidence on which to frame a charge, because, he submitted, it was impossible for any human being to fact judicially unless he heard both sides of the case upon the point at Mr. John MeNeill, for the prow secution, submitted ' that Mr. Me-Donald had confused the duties of the Bench in a preliminary hearing, which, he sakd, must decide firstly whether the evidence disclosed was sufficient to frame a charge upon any indictable offence, and secondly, to consider whether it was a case which properly could go before a jury.
"I fail to cee," Mr. MeNeiil concluded, "how my learned friend can address you, if he does not know beforehand what the charge is, if there is to be one,"
Ths Registrar said he had given the matter very careful attention, The position was that the prosecution laid complaint and evidence was heard support of it, His first duty was to decide whether it was to be heard summarily, or whether it was a case which ultimately might be sent for trial, Assuming it was a grave offence, and therefore could not be taken summarily, he would hear the evidence brought forward by the prosecution, and the cross-examination on such evidence by the defending counsel. When the evidence for the prosecution was complete, he had to decide whether there ' was sufficient evidence put forward, unassailed by cross-examination, to enable him to frame the charge.
The procedure, he said, definitely was laid down under the Criminal Justice Act of 1925, which pro. vided that, in a preliminary hear-ang, defending counsel only could address the Bench after the charges were framed, if the accused either should give' evidence himself, or should call witnesses to give evidence on, his behalf.
"Immediately the prosecution is finished," the Registrar quoted from the Act, "the justices shall read the charge," and he coneluded:—"I wont to muke it quite clear there is no question of unfairness. What I have to decide is merely whether the evidence discloses sufficient material 10 frame a charge; that is all. There is no question of finding the accused guilty. or committing him for tri that remains until Inter."
Mr, MeDonald on Wednesday addressed the Bench on the case as presented by the prosecution. 'The Regis-tar allowed Mr. McDonald to give an address when counsel said he would bbe calling one witness—Mfr. ¥. S. Day, the late secretary of the Internation' Recreation Club.
Mr, McDonald said his submission was that no case had been made out upon which any jury possibly could convict. He emphasised the laxity In the conduct of the club, and gave instances the missing "$20,000 in 1633; the shroff who got away with $582' in 1935; the apparent neglect Of observation of certain rules fof the club; the apparent lack fof supervision of the accused; the "fact that the accused had no written instructions; the fact that the accused was super-imposed upon by work without extra remuneration; and the fact that no balance-sheet even yet had been prepared by the '"so-caited" club. He reminded Court that the fundamental factor to Keep in mind was that the accused was not a chartered accountant. fall him an accountant was mis demeanour; actually he was either 9 book-keeper or an "oficial" as defined by Rule It of the club, which specified that an official should keep all accounts under the supervision of the treasurer.
Mr. MeDonald drew attention the amount of work done by the accused while engaged by the LRC. The membership, he said, was about 1,000 persons, whose yearly accounts came to some $14,000. The balance sheet, prepared by the accused, totalled about $9,000,000. 'The bridge Accounts also handled by the accused rose from some $500 in July 1033, to $6,500 by December, 1938, with an annual turnover of' $57,000. All winners were pald in full, but some of the losers had failed to pay, Since the accused's suspension, the bridge accounts had been discontinued. Another duty of the accused was to look after the bar and bar accounts Mr. Blaker, Mr. McDonald said, sald'the system of Keeping the accounts was adequate, but Couns-1 thought it a legitimate inference that the accused, in having to. prepare balance sheet by January 11, enrolling all details up-to December 31, 1934, was very rushed to have it ready and also to have the books in order by that date, That there was an apparent dis appearance of a considerable amount of money, Mr. MeDonald submitted, was not relevant to any of the charges. It was no evidence that the accused knew of its disappearance because, in answer to questions put by Mr. Blaker, the accused stated he could not explain how it had disappeared. 'That' the accused was careless was apparent, and he would bbe the first to admit it, but that was rot the offence with which he was charged.
'Mr. McDonald emphasised the ease with which a mistake could be made a balance sheet and books, and reminded the Registrar that' Mr. Spink admitted omitting to put the date in the ledger when he opened the cash suspense account, whilst no balance sheet was yet prepared. 'The transparent honesty of the accused was shown by his openness in all his' actions. Both Mr. Blaker and Mr. Spink said the books were very well kept.
"In short," said Mr. McDonald, "the accused withheld nothing "and deceived no one."
The prosecution Counsel argued, must prove their case, and in that they nad wholly tolled, because they not proved any attempt to defraud whatsoever.
"In conclusion," defending counsel said, "T submit that the prosecution have wholly failed to discharge the onus of proof, which is, fortunately, in our courts, always imposed upon them, and your Honour has no other course open to you than to hold that uno case has been made out, to allow the accused to go forth into the world able to hold up his head among his fellows and to forget the shame and ignominy to which he has been. sub-Jected, and, with the aid of his many friends, to make a fresh start in life.
Mr. ¥. 8. Day, former secretary of the ERE. was then called to give evidence. He said he was in the employ of the LR.C. for some eighteen for nineteen years. On February 21, the was suspended and in March dismissed, The accused was recommended to him and Lo put his name before the committee, and in August, 1931, the accused slarted his duties a a book-Keeper. The accused had no Jagreement in writing with the LRC. After the accused was fully engaged with the LRC,, his duties were to look after all the books of the club, and ater he took over the running of the bar and bar accounts, the control
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.