QSR1887/2/5/1

Depositions of Frank Chapman Scargill of King Street, Luton, Henry John Thomas, Peter Alexander Findlay, Richard Bailey, Hutchinson William Lathom, John Gurney, Ada Gurney and Walter Neve. In the case of Edward Dutch accused of embezzlement.

19 January 1887

From: 1887 To: 1887

Frank Chapman Scargill: a solicitor in practice at Luton and also the owner of the Luton Brick and Lime Company. The defendant was employed by him as a manager of the business and was paid a salary of £4 per week. He had been employed for about 3 months. It was his custom to pay Dutch weekly by a cheque, which he drew from a clerk in Dutch’s name, and signed. The amount was rendered by himself or his clerk on a pay sheet. Dutch did not have the entire management but did have the entire control of the distribution of money when paid by cheque. On 4 September he did not see the pay sheet. He had signed the cheque produced and the signature on the back was Dutch’s. It was for £168 18s 5d. A man by the name of Gurney had done some work for the business and he was paid small sums from time to time on account. The sum of £10, included on the cheque, was payable to Gurney and it appeared on the pay sheet. Gurney did not receive this money from Dutch despite an entry in the pay sheet in Dutch’s handwriting. This was discovered by Scargill when settling accounts with Gurney. [cross examination] he was in litigation with Dutch, as Dutch had bought an action against him. Dutch was in his employment for 4 months and continued in Scargill’s service until 13 October when he was discharged. Dutch had a £4 a week salary and there was no arrangement about a house to live in. He had lent Dutch the deposit to purchase a cottage at Round Green. The property was later conveyed to him by assignment. He had acted as the solicitor for Dutch and Dutch was alleging negligence. On 5 January 1887 the defendant’s solicitors took out a summons for the particulars. His defence was misconduct and drunkenness. On 8 December 1886, Scargill wrote a letter charging Dutch with stealing 3 bricks. He did not pursue the matter as it was inconvenient with him also being the clerk to the justices, and the case would appear before his own bench. He recollected writing a letter to Dutch on 10 October, which he later took back. Dutch said he was coming from Liverpool but had gone away without leave. Scargill took the letter from the company office, and the letter was technically the property of Dutch. He had made no complimentary remarks in the letter. Dutch had left and he had seen it on his desk and then destroyed it. He dismissed Dutch at the railway station when he was telegraphed an account of Dutch’s absence. When Dutch returned he was drunk. He had not been satisfied with Dutch altogether and he recently discovered the omission of the £10. He instructed Mr Neve at once. He had no business with Gurney before his manager had employed him. Mr Gurney had not sued him for money. The pay sheets were controlled by the accountant and were seen at times by Scargill. [re examination] the action by Dutch was for wrongful dismissal. He had discharged him for good reasons. Dutch had given no explanation for the £10. Henry John Thomas: cashier of the Luton branch of the London & County bank. The cheque produced was drawn on his bank and was paid to Dutch by him. Peter Alexander Findlay: was employed by Mr Scargill and was in the habit was receiving the pay sheet from Dutch every Saturday morning. He would then fill the cheque for the amount and Mr Scargill would sign the cheque if he was at the office. If away, he would enclose a blank cheque under a certain amount in a registered letter to Mr Scargill, who would sign it and return it to him. He would then fill in the amount. At this time, Mr Scargill was away at his home in Lancashire. He sent the cheque to Mr Scargill as described and then handed it to Dutch. [cross examination]: if the cheque was handed to Dutch he would keep the pay sheet at the Brick & Line Company’s office. The payment in the pay sheet was presumed to be right if it added up correctly. There was no dispute about the accounts in September. Dutch may have written him a letter but he could no say if he received a letter. He was not sweet on any building scheme. When the pay sheets were handed to him they were the amounts to be paid not already paid. Richard Bailey: an accountant at the Luton Brick & Lime Company. It was his practice to sometimes pay some of the weekly expenses for Dutch, such as wages. He would receive the money from Dutch. He would get the particulars from the pay sheet and Dutch would tell him what to pay. On 4 September he paid a number of items on the sheet to the value of £37 1s 8d for which the money was given to him. He kept the ledger account of Gurney and other and the item for £10 was posted on the ledger by himself. He did not pay Gurney this money and was in possession of all the receipts Gurney gave for payment. It was Dutch’s practice to pass him the receipts for payments. When the accounts were made up he found himself short of a receipt from Gurney for £10. He mentioned this to Dutch but not Scargill. He entered the item as paid despite no receipt. Hutchinson William Lathom: he heard Dutch say that the blue entries on the sheet were his writing but Lathom disputed this. He had found the sheet lying on a desk at the Brick & lime Company office and thought it to be a dirty sheet of paper. Lathom took the paper and made notes on it. John Gurney: an engineer and millwright of Luton. During September and October of 1886 he was doing work for Mr Scargill and from August to November he was paid various sums on account. Sometimes Mr Bailey paid, sometime “the lad” and sometimes Dutch. He always gave receipts, which were in his daughter’s handwriting. He could tell when the receipts were given by the counterfoil of the receipt book and in September he received no money from Scargill. [cross examination]: he supplied machinery to Mr Scargill and had several dealings with him and was paid by money on account. He sent in his account in May and Christmas but there was no rule to this. He could not write well and his daughter would give out the receipts. He felt sure that from June/July all receipts were given on a printed form and the counterfoil kept. His only dispute with Scargill was for the £10. Findlay told him he had not given a receipt for the £10. He was advised to give the debt over to someone and transferred it to Bunn. Ada Gurney: she would generally sign her father’s receipts. She received no money from Mr Scargill. She would write out the receipts when her father brought home the money. Walter Neve: a solicitor of Luton, instructed by Mr Scargill on 6 January 1887. He wrote to Messrs Crundall & Co and received a letter in reply from Dutch on 9 January. In the letter Dutch said he would appoint a time but did not keep the appointment. [cross examination] He wrote to Crundall & Co in London and received a reply from Dutch from Liverpool. He had been concerned in the question of the account between Scargill and Gurney. He heard incidentally that there was an action between Dutch and Scargill. He did not think it strange that Mr Scargill should not employ his own solicitors. Statement of the accused: he was innocent of the charge and would call no witnesses.

21 pages

item

Scargill, Frank Chapman,
Thomas, Henry John,
Findlay, Peter Alexander,
Bailey, Richard,
Lathom, Hutchinson William,
Gurney, John,
Gurney, Ada

LUTON, embezzlement, brick company manager, solicitor, accountant, receipts, engineer