The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-08-05 00:00:00

gm! an 4jeiDs.

SERIOU CHARGE OFESIBEZZLEMENT.

At the Police Court, on Saturday, before Major
Fletcher, Christopher Brunt was brought up
and charged with embezzling the several sum,
of 14s, 12s, 53,17 s tid, and .£1 3s 7d, belonging
to his late employer, Mr, titorge Smith, coal
merchant at stourbridge and Hagley. —Mr.
Perry conducted the prosecution, and Mr. C.
W. Collis appeared for the defence.—Prosecutor
said that the defendant was engaged by him ist
January last as a salesman, at Hagley cod
wharf. The return sheets produced he supplied
defendant with, to enter all sales in, whethi r
for credit or cash. When the defendant sold
any coal he gave the purchaser a ticket out of a
ticket book provided for such purpose, reserving ,
a copy of the same on a counter ticket in th,
book. The return produced %VAS in the hand-
writing of the defendant. It showed that a load !
of coal bad been sold to Police-constable Hai,
on March let last, but there was no entry et
money received for it. Another return showed
coal sold to Mr. Thomas Waldron, for ss, 01:
March sth, but there was no entry of money re
ceived for the same, neither did the return for
the 25th of Marcia contain an entry of the money.
The return of sales for March 27th contained uo
entry of coal sold to Joseph Sock, for the sum
of 17s Od, neither was there any entry of the
sale in the duplicate ticket book. In the ticket
book between the dates of the 27th and 28th ot
March there vt as a blank ticket. The ticket and
receipt produced for coal sold to Joseph Sock.
on March 28th, were in the handwriting of thi
defendant, and there was no corresponding en-
try of the same in the ticket-book, neither did
the defendaut'e cash-book contain slay entry of
money received from Sock. The return-sheet
for the alst Meech showed coal sold to a person
named Mountford for 14s. The duplicate ticket
of the sale was in thy handwriting of the defend-
ant, as was also the ticket .nd receipt produced,
the latter bearing the date of May 2nd. The
defendant's return for May 2nd c,intained no
entry of money received from Mountford. The
return for the 14th, 15th, and 17th of April con-
tinued an entry of coal sold to Mr. J. Wilihnia
Purgeter, of lverley, for 11l 3s 7d, on the 15th
April. The receipt produced was dated .3lat
4tu, and was in the defendant's handwriting.
return of that date showetL no entry of money
received from Mr. Patrgeter, neither did the
defendant's cmili book contain an entry of ill,
same. The defendant had never accounted te
Lim in any way for the above several sums, and
he had not asked him if he had received the
moneys. He dismissed the defendant from his
employment for had conduct, at which time hi
anew nothing of the above defalcations. He
had charged the defendant with receiving other
money which he hail not paid over, when hi
replied that he had not. Witness asked him
how he could deny it when he had the receipts,
and defendant remarked that lie should like to
see them.

In cross-examination witness said that he did
nut receive a good character of the defendant
when entered his employ, but he received n
good reference front Mr. Hopkins afterward..
He had not produced all the books that the de•
fendaut kept; there were t,overal monoraudne
hooks at Hagley, mut some of theta might con-
t ,in ntrie, of motley received which were net
in the hooks produced. It was the duty of th,
defendant to pool up all the entries from tto
memorimilutn books into the cash book, but Io
leel not done so. There was another book a•
igi, y which contained entries, but be had cei..-
iateed them with the citJt book. When (I. fele:.
ant last called mem him he did not tell Witte ,
that th 11101 Icy wi o;eeuilii'ed for in the otle •
books. lie weuld sweiir that lie did not tell 31r.
Hopkies to ask the defendant's father to go and
see hie,, It from a conversation he had wit
Clot e, • 0 .lefelolant's father wait, o
interview he did not age.
the defii!eations and let ti
1 hear any Oiler loAs 1e might

th
At that

,n 1

ti; LcueA. L 7 f

t •r r

sa.t:Llne,l. It r..:14 ;tout thy., %reel:A :711.
the lefendant tbat the Lth r

v.:aqui upon him. With, balmeedhis Iniek
aild found F0111(41141,3 like £7 43 deficient, 1, 1
which defendant's father paid Itim .£7. The 1-
f,•tolaht pui3 him from time to time stuns I
111...1ey who,li 110 it of in hand, out of which It.
iii wed him money fir expenses. At
ti thle he I,ft he claimed 4:9 for expenses in-
curred, but lie only allowed hint 10s. The me-
morandum book produced contains an entry of
Lie 12-; received from Mrs. 3lary Hall in pay-
ment for coal sold.

Mrs. Mary halt was next called, and stated
that sue received the receipt produced on March
Ist for 124 paid to the prisoner.

Mrs. 3loluitford said that she received the
produced receipt on May 2nd, tor 141 paid to
the prisoner fur coal. _

Mitlll H. Richardson, houeekeeper for Mr. .1.
W. l'argeter, at Iveriey 11111, said that she re•
ceived the produced receipt for the Rlllll of .t 1
paid to prisoner on May 4th, the snrn of 7.1
:...:ng allowed.
~ergant .lone then atatod that he ap-
• 'v:vneled Co. prisoo.:r on la:it W. ~nesday afro' -

at I v,•rley. Wlii oi,proat•hin4hiw th
prisoner remarked, " I 3on are nth r
Witness said, •• 'A on aion :It to know n!
•;,,okt 'foe ; " lii..; this i
••

.t

h'A yr .f.cruay