G.—s

25

Witness (examined by Mr. Brookfield) : Was aware that Nuku had repudiated the payment in 1878, but paid him £7 in 1879, because he had relinquished the denunciation. Made a statement to Mr. T. Cooper in the gaol. Wrote to the Attorney-General. The statement was to the effect that he did not know who signed these vouchers. When Young asked him to fill them he got them out of the portfolio. Did not know that the money had not been paid. The error occurred through the bankbook being so badly written. There were hundreds of vouchers filled at Young's request. A Native would come in and want an order on a storekeeper. Young would say, " Give him the order and make him sign." The plan was to give the signature in duplicate. [In another statement the witness said he believed that Young had acted improperly.] His Honor: The schedule appeared to have been made out before the vouchers were filled. They would make out the schedule from the pass-book. Then they would have to support the schedule, and the vouchers were filled from whatever memoranda they had. Mr. Brookfield: Now, which is correct —the statement you have made in Court to-day, or the one you made in the gaol ? Witness : The statement 1 have made here is the correct statement. Mr. Brookfield : Then you did make that incorrect statement in the gaol? Was not yonr license suspended for making a false declaration two years ago ? Witness : My certificate was suspended. Mr. Brookfield: Did you not make one declaration that you saw a particular Native sign a deed, and then another declaration that you did not see him sign ? Witness : I did not make two declarations. I acted under power of attorney. You represent the matter incorrectly. It is true my certificate was suspended for a time. This concluded the evidence. Mr. Hesketh : I apply, your Honor, that the prisoner be allowed to address the jury before his counsel addresses the jury. Mr. Brookfield: 1 have never known a similar application made. His Honor ; But does the Crown oppose the application. Mr. Broolcfield : We do, your Honor. Mr. Hesketh : I will cite the authorities: Eegina v. Malings (8), Carrington and Payne; Eegina v. Walker, in the same volume Lmv Times, 1879, in a case before Mr. Justice Hawkins, at Leeds. The grounds for the application were that there were circumstances in those cases which the prisoner alone could explain. Mr. Broolcfield: The law is laid down in Eoscoe's "Criminal Evidence." The practice has been against it. His Honor : I do not think this is such an exceptional case as would induce me to depart from the ordinary practice. This appears to me to be a case in which the prisoner will not lose anything by being represented by his counsel. Mr. Hesketh : Then shall 1 be permitted to state to the jury what the prisoner has said to his counsel ? Mr. Brookfield: It appears to me there is nothing to warrant such a proceeding. His Honor : Ido not think I can depart from established practice. There are, perhaps, exceptional cases in which that might be done. It might be that if a prisoner were allowed to offer himself for cross-examination, it would be an improvement in procedure. This case is not such an exceptional case as would induce me to depart from the ordinary course. Mr. E. Hesketh addressed the jury for the defence. He asked the jury whether there was ever a deeper piece of villany than that displayed by the last witness —a man who, on the verge of ruin, with charges of forgery and perjury staring him in the face, had the audacity to come before the Court with such a story as Warbrick had deposed to. If there was duplicity, falsehood, forgery in the case, it went back to that man's door. The prisoner was in his hands. But if these things were done, it did not follow that the prisoner was guilty of larceny of public money. The prisoner knew nothing of what Warbrick was doing. If the prisoner was the dupe of others, he was not guilty of felony' —even though forgery or perjury was committed. Here was the case of a servant trying to save himself at the expense of his master. The villany of that .witness suggested the innocence of the man at the bar. No felonious intent or guilty knowledge had been proved. He left the prisoner in the hands of the jury with perfect confidence. Mr. Brookfield said the prisoner had failed to account when required to do so. As to the blank vouchers, it was in evidence no such practice obtained while Mr. Mitchell, the prisoner's predecessor, had charge of the office. He concurred with many of the remarks about Warbrick ; but it did not lie in the mouth of the defendant to vilify his own witness. The fact was that Young was the man who certified that " the above account" is true and correct. The Government knew nothing about Young's account, for he alone could operate upon it. His Honor said that there was great force in the defence that the money said to have been stolen remained in the bank, and it was singular it should not have been operated on. Young appeared to have delegated all his functions to Warbrick, handing over to him large sums of money for disbursement. The question was, whether the prisoner knew that these were fictitious returns. Did he know that there were false returns made ? Was there a felonious intent ? Was there any appropriation by the prisoner of the money to his own use? The jury retired to consider their verdict at 11 p.m., and, after deliberating a quarter of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of "Not guilty," with the following presentment: "That the system of Native land purchase expenditure, as disclosed by the evidence, is extremely loose and reprehensible, and affords no sufficient check against fraud by persons employed as agents," His Honor : Gentlemen, that is the least you can say. The prisoner's bail was enlarged, and the Court adjourned at 11 o'clock to 10.30 this (Friday) morning. 4—G-. 5.