The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1870-05-03 00:00:00

ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT BY A SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE.

On Wedneeday hue. Mr. Edward Lewis, late* Superintendent
In the Dorset County Conetabulary, itru charged before J. E,
Bridge (chairman), J. A. Dlgliy, and C. B.filyn &qrs., at
Cenie, with embeatesient.—Mr. Ellis for the defence.
Supt. BTO•111, of Blandfonl, depend that when Lewis became
superintendent at Cerne in April, MT, be handed over to him
monies he had rewired from the pollee for cottage rents, at
Ilillaeld and Chesiihorne, which had accumulated since he
(Brown) had mid thnla_ndl.ords

P.C. Ktranew of Hilleeld,and P.C. Gill, of Chas:Glenne, .poke
to paying their note be prinoner monthly.
The landlords said they were paid yearly. Mr. J. Cornick, of
did not expect further payment Mil August; and Mr.
G. Kingsbury till Midsummer.
Supenntendent Plummer mid that on Sunday. the 10th of
April, he, by the direction of the Chid Constable, applied to
Mr. Lewis for the monies that he had received In the execution
of his duty as the Supeentendent of the Cerne disjoint
meaning the amount that he had deducted from the pay of the
men for the rent f ,he cottage.. The prisoner mid it had
nothing to do with Ms duty as Superintendent, but vitae.,
told him It had. for that wan decided In Baynton's cam.
Several applications were made to defendant, but he did not
pay.—Crnse-examined : Had, upon an examination of the books
of the defendant, discovered &defalcation. which had since been
paid. It amounted to over te). Them sem mine salary due
to him at the time, between 8.5 or Rd. He gave him • receipt,
after which he discovered that the rents had not been paid, and
he then asked him to account for them, and Miceli they were not
due. He told the defendant that he wished he had been in •
position to pay In order to orevent further proceeding& He
could not tell whether the rents would have been paid had they
been included In the balance for which ho sane the defendant
• receipL The sureties would have been liable for them. At
the time he gave the receipt he believed that wan all the
defendant owed the county.
Mr. Ellis submitted that trireme had been made out against
the 'defendant. The monk" in question were never the
property of thecounty, but were due to the lendlorda of the
cuttagew. and would hare been paid over when due. Further,
he contended that the receipt riven was a conclusive diacharge
of the debt of the defendant. Had these mote been included
In it they would no doubt have been paid, but because Mr.
Plummer had omitted to do im • criminal charge could out
surely be contained.
. . .

The Bench retired. and dte • prolonged absence mid it waa
• very painful case, and one which they much regretted to
have had brinurht before them. It was • very important came
and the evidence In many point, wee very conflicting.
Happily, however, the Bench had not to alJudge upon that
point, hut they considered the cans so importuit, and the
interims concrrned no extensive, that they, felt bound to send
it for trial.

_
ye. El you will swept bail?
The Chairman : We have no objection to that; Mr. Lewis
himself in t. 50, and two sureties in *:25 inch.