Embezzlement at Jude the brewers (1859)

Post date: Apr 24, 2012 3:15:58 PM

Extract from Kentish Gazette 22nd March 1859 reporting on Crown Court cases:

EMBEZZLEMENT. Henry Leigh, 32, brewer's clerk, for embezzling £9. 17s. 6d., the property of his master, J. B. Jude, at Wateringbury. Mr. F. Smith prosecuted; Mr. Denman defended.

James Wyatt, the younger, stated that his father kept a beershop at Forstal. About Christmas time he went to Mr. Jude's and paid £8. on account of his father. Leigh gave him a receipt for it. He did not know who had the receipt now. (Papers produced.) He could not say the papers produced were the receipts. They were very much like them. He was certain he paid the money to the prisoner, and took a receipt for the beer his father had had of Mr. Jude. It was paid at Jude's office. Cross-examined: There was another man in the office, Leigh put the money in a box in the desk.

Wm. Whyman, a carpenter at Wateringbury, said that during the last year he bought some coals of Mr. Jude, for which he paid the prisoner, at the office, on the 31st Dec., £1. 4s., and took his receipt. Cross-examined: I paid the money to the prisoner. I don't know where he put it.

Sarah Lutchford, of Nettlestead, had bought some coals at Mr. Jude's, January, and paid for them to Mr. Leigh, who put the money, 13s., in a box. Cross-examined : He changed a sovereign for me.

Ralph James Fremlin, brewer to Mr. Jude, stated that the prisoner had been with Mr. Jude for about four years. He kept the waste book in which he was to enter all monies that he received immediately after it was paid. The book was examined every day. When Mr. Jude was ill he received tbe money and entered it in book. (The waste book was here produced and no entries appeared in December or January, as paid by Lutchford or Whyman.) No money had been paid to him on those accounts by the prisoner. Cross-examined: I examined the book from the 17th of December, not before that. When cash is paid it ought to be put down at the time. (He then explained several entries the book, but not connected with the case.) The prisoner never supplied me with information that I afterwards entered in the ledger without its first going into his book. He did not daily account to me. He ought to have done it. I did not see that book sometimes for a week at the time. I have given him I0U's sometimes for money paid to customers. There were some I0U's about December, but I destroyed them directly. Towner was the ledger clerk. I believe he is now in London. Entries were sometimes made in the day-book. There was one entry of the kind made, but it was not money paid to the prisoner. Eight pounds were paid by Mr. Wire, on account of beer, to the prisoner, but it was not entered in the waste-book. Re-examined: The waste-book is the only book kept by the prisoner. I have examined the day-book. When Leigh paid me money I gave him an I0U, and when I balanced with him at the end of the week they were returned to him.

Mr. J. B. Jude, the prosecutor, brewer and coal-merchant, at Wateringbury, said it was the prisoner's duty to enter into the waste-book everything that went out of the yard. He had no business whatever with the day-book. Any money he received was to be entered in that book. When I was absent my business was managed by Fremlin. The prisoner has never accounted to me for the monies as named in the indictment. The Hon. Mr. Denman, for the prisoner, thought he could convince the jury that two of the cases out of the three had not been proved, and the third was very doubtful —in fact that there were more errors of omission than culpability. The learned gentleman then went at length into the accounts of the prosecutor, but his statement would not be clearly understood without a reference to these books. He also commented on all the prosecutor's books not being produced, instead of only one, it was possible that in some them the entries might be found entered in a regular manner.

His Lordship went through the evidence very briefly, and pointed out to the jury that it was for them to say whether they believed these omissions were really done with fraudulent intention, or the result of an accidental omission. If the former, the prisoner must be convicted ; if the latter, they would acquit him. After a short deliberation the jury returned verdict of guilty, and a former conviction, in 1853, was then proved against the prisoner. His Lordship said the prisoner had been guilty of very grave offence, and had it even been the first it would have been a very serious one, but as he had been previously convicted he should now sentence him to four years' penal servitude.