CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT: William Cruse, aged 45, was charged with having, on the 1st October last, at Newton Abbot, embezzled monies, belonging to Mr. J. B. Pinsent. Mr. Collier prosecuted; and Mr. Stone defended the prisoner. The prosecutor stated that he was a wine and spirit merchant, as well as a coal merchant, residing in Newton Abbot. In July 1851, he succeeded to Messrs. Templar’s coal business; and, at that time, took the prisoner into his service. Previous to that time, he had been carrying on business on his own account. An agreement was drawn up, which was signed by both parties. The prisoner had resided at his coal-yard; he had been in his employ from July 1851, up to November last year. At that time the prisoner went through the Insolvent Debtor’s Court. Witness had occasion go to see him whilst he was in prison. He asked him about Couch’s account of £4 16s 6d, which he said was correct. He then spoke to him about Head’s account of £3 16s, which the prisoner said was not paid. Witness asked him how he could tell him such a lie, when he had received the receipt from Head that morning. He then said he must have forgotten it. There was an entry of payment of these sums in the ledger. In his cross-examination, the prosecutor stated that he had occupied the yard rented by the prisoner for perhaps six months continuously. Witness was to have four per cent, of all receipts for coals but never settled with the prisoner up to November last; there was due to the prisoner £80; he had sent in a demand for £96. In January the prisoner came to him to his office; they went through the ledger; witness drew his attention to 200 or 300 accounts, and he admitted that eight or ten had been paid to him, but not by him to the witness. Re-examined — The prisoner had let out a portion of his yard; and he had merely a shed in it. Witness had repeatedly asked him to come and settle with him. He had told the prisoner that he was deficient in his accounts to the extent of £200; he had never demanded his claim of £80 for commission as a balance due to him. William Holmes, clerk to the prosecutor, deposed that he called the prisoner’s attention to Head’s account sometime between Midsummer and Michaelmas, 1852, at the Brewery. In answer to his question as to the reason why Mr. Head had not paid, the prisoner said he was poor, and was always short of money “but had promised to pay it Michaelmas”. Witness asked him about Couch’s account; the prisoner said it was all right — ‘twas not paid: never mentioned to him that he had received either of these accounts. Cross examined —After some accounts were found to be wrong, there were two or three others pointed out by the prisoner. Mr. Head proved having paid his bill to the prisoner. Mr. Couch also proved that he had paid his accounts to the prisoner. This being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Stone addressed the Jury for the defence. He said the prisoner was indicted under awfully penal Act Parliament, and it was the duty of the Jury to be satisfied, — not merely that the prisoner had received the money, and had omitted to account for it, — but that he had wilfully and knowingly denied the receipt of it, when at the time he had a perfect recollection of receiving it. He contended that there was no evidence to show that the prisoner had wilfully denied the receipt of the money; on the contrary he had immediately admitted it on the prosecutor’s telling him of it. He protested that Mr. Pinsent had been too expeditious in bringing the case before jury, because the prisoner had not in any way attempted to conceal the fact that had received the sums stated. The prisoner had to deal with two or three hundred accounts, and how likely was it that he should have forgotten to account for these sums the multiplicity of his business. His Lordship having summed up, The Jury, after a short deliberation, acquitted the prisoner. There were other charges against the prisoner, for embezzling several small sums; but as his lordship thought that the jury would not likely come to a different verdict, the learned counsel for the prosecution, although instructed to proceed by his client, said he would not offer any more evidence, and the prisoner was then discharged. His Lordship told him that the jury had taken a very mild view of the case; and he hoped that they were right in supposing that it was a mistake. If the prisoner had been found guilty, he should have had no idea of inflicting a lighter punishment on him than on poorer persons, because he moved in a respectable sphere of life.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0518 Devonport: John Ball Pinsent: 1819 – 1901