Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Jones v. Reynolds, 1874

[larceny by bailee]


Jones v. Reynolds

Police Court, Palmerston
Price SM, 20 March 1874
Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 27 March 1874, p 3




Thursday, March 20.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M. Dr. Ellison and Mr. Gardiner were also on the Bench.)


Samuel Edward Reynolds was charged on the information of Joshua Jones, that being bailee of a cheque, the property of Jones and others, he did, on the 12th April, 1873, fraudu[l]ently take and convert the same to his own use.

Dr. Kaufmann for prosecutor; Mr. Smith for defendant.

Joshua Jones, agent, said that in April last he was in partnership with Messrs. Barclay and Abbott, and Mr. Barclay was the agent for different companies. Wrote out and drew a cheque for £1o5 in March, 1873. Gave it to Mr. Barclay and saw him send it to defendant's firm by a man named Uhr. A few days afterwards saw Mr. Barclay draw an order in favor of Mr. Warden Melville for three leases, to be paid by defendant's firm. The cheque was to meet that order. Some time afterwards came down to Port Darwin and settled accounts with defendant. Next day saw defendant and his father. Reminded defendant that he had received the cheque for £105, and said "Give it to me and I'll go to the Land Office and pay the cash in to meet the order." He said something to his father, and then replied, "Oh, I'll pay your cheque in; it's just as convenient to transmit as cash." This was in the month of June. Defendant added that it would be all right, and informant thought it would be all right. Defendant also said that it would be as convenient for the Government to send down the cheque as cash. After that, informant went to Adelaide, where he saw the cheque in the National Bank. The cheque had been cashed and debited to informant's account. Became aware for the first time on the arrival of the Tarama, that the money had never been paid; This was the 3rd of March, and the Government then applied to informant for the £105. Had not had time since then to obtain the cheque from Adelaide. Was doubtful as to whom the cheque was drawn in favor of. It was Reynolds, or Reynolds & Co., or Reynolds, Gore, & Co. It was debited in the Bank to informant himself. Believed the words " Eleanor Lease" Were inserted after the name. The amount was £105, and the signature was "Joshua Jones;" the date was somewhere between the 14th and 18th of March, he believed. The name "Reynolds" was endorsed on the cheque when it was in the Bank. Had not kept his pass-book; and could not find it now. Defendant generally communicated with informant, but they did not communicate with each other more than once or twice. On the £105 being lately applied for by the Government, spoke to defendant about it. Said to him "The Government are pushing us for this money, they have applied to us for that £105 again; you never met that order drawn in favor of Mr. Melville by Barclay." He said "I'll try and make it right." I replied "You square it with the Government Resident not to push us until you make it right." He afterwards said he had seen the Government Resident, and he would not push them for the money. After that defendant offered him 10s. in the pound to settle the matter, as he believed the other creditors would agree to that arrangement. Declined to do so, as this was not like a transaction with goods.

By Mr. Smith-The letter was given by Mr. Barclay to Uhr, and was addressed to Reynolds & Co., but could not say whether it was Reynolds, Gore, & Co. Could not say whether A. D. Gore opened the letter and dealt with it. The order was drawn on defendant or on his firm. That order was given to Mr. Melville at Yam Creek. Never spoke to A. D. Gore about the matter. Could not swear that the endorsement on the cheque was in the handwriting of A. D. Gore; but at the time thought it was in the defendant's handwriting. Always considered Gore a member of the firm.

By Dr. Kaufmann-Before the cheque was given received a notice that Reynolds, Gore, & Co. had dissolved, and that S. E. Reynolds & Co. would be the name of the firm for the future. Defendant and A. D. Gore then carried on the business.

Bv Mr. Smith-The paper produced marked A did not enable him to remember whom the order was addressed to. Could not say whether the £105 was included or not in the remittance of two thousands pounds and odd, marked B.

John Young Barclay, agent, remembered that in March, 1873, he applied to the Warden for some leases in the Eleanor Claims. Received from Mr. Jones the cheque for £105, drawn in favor, he believed, of Reynolds, Gore, & Co. On the 9th April wrote a letter with the cheque to defendant. On the 17th March an order was drawn. In the middle of May saw defendant in Port Darwin, and asked him if he received the cheque. He said he had, and that witnesses' firm were credited with it.

By Smith-Believed the letter was sent to Mr. S. E. Reynolds. But the order was addressed to Reynolds, Gore, Co. Saw by book produced by defendant that the cheque was credited to informant's firm on the 12th. Uhr left Yam Creek with the letter on the 9th, and might have arrived on the 12th.

The Stipendary Magistrate asked Mr. Kaufmann if he could connect the defendant personally with the cheque in any way ?

Mr. Melville, lately Goldfields Warden, remembered receiving the order produced, with an application for claims. Had applied for payment of order at the request of the Government, but never received the money. Applied to J. Y. Barclay; never applied to defendant for it.

The Court said there was nothing on which to send the case to a Jury at present; but a remand could be granted if there was any chance of evidence being obtained to connect the defendant personally with the cheque.

Dr. Kaufmann said he could show, if time were allowed, that defendant paid the cheque in to his own account.

The Magistrate said, then, the defendant could be brought up again. At present he should dismiss the case, as there was no evidence to justify a committal

Mr. Smith, on behalf of his client, thought that Dr. Kaufmann ought not to have made the serious assertion which he had just made without proof.

The Magistrate said he certainly should not have made the assertion unless it were true.

Dr. Kaufmann said Mr. Smith ought to know that no barrister would make such an assertion without having had full instruction to that effect. His remark was therefore most uncalled for, as being from one counsel to another; for he (Dr. Kaufmann) undertook to say that books and papers could be produced to show that the money was paid in to the account of S. E. Reynolds.

The Special Magistrate-If so, the case can be brought on again.

Court adjourned.


Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 3 April 1874, p 3


The Case of Jones v. Reynolds.

Both the Hon. T. Reynolds and Mr. S. E. Reynolds have written us long letters in reference to our report of the case Jones v. Reynolds. But that report was a very full and careful one, and as it would be easy to compare its contents with the actual records of the Court, we are quite satisfied to let it stand on its merits.

However, in order to show the singular nature of the objections raised, we append the following postcript from the Hon. Mr. Reynolds s letter:

"How is it that your reporter does not give the following facts:-The defendant's counsel said, during Mr. Barclay's evidence (a supposed party to this prosecution), 'Ah, I thought so; I knew we should get at the truth;' and, again, immediately after Mr. Melville's evidence, 'Quite so; I knew we should get the truth.' When immediately after Dr. Kaufmann said, 'That is my case.' Mr. Smith then rose, with an evident feeling of contempt for 'his case,' and said, 'I shall call no witnesses, your Worship, as every witness has been a witness for the defence. After making a few remarks, simply bearing on the law, he would not condescend to make a speech, in consequence of the thorough collapse of 'the case.' The Magistrate said the 'case is dismissed.' Dr. Kaufmann then, contrary to all proper practice, essayed some remark, when the Magistrate, with some warmth and dignity of manner, said, 'The case is dismissed, Dr. Kaufmann.' Then followed a little caparte talk, which your reporter, evidently receiving his inspiration from Joshua Jones, leaves in his report as a sting in the tail."

It is rather amusing to find ourselves represented as the champion of Mr. Joshua Jones. But we assure the Messrs. Reynolds that our report was written with a desire to do full justice to all parties, and with no other desire whatever. The merits of the case before the Court are not in the slightest degree affected by the omission of such things as " Ah, I thought so;" "quite so," &c, &c.; and with regard to the conversation at the end of the report, it was absolutely necessary to publish that, for the purpose of showing under what circumstances the case was dismissed.

Mr. S. E. Reynolds will see that Mr. Smith's objection to Dr. Kaufmann's assertion about further evidence is distinctly given in the report; and we assure him that there is no partiality whatever.


Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 10 April 1874, p 2

The letter of Mr. J. Jones on the case "Jones v. Reynolds," relates to a question which cannot be discussed in a newspaper correspondence; and it was on this ground that we last week objected to publish the letter of Mr. S. E. Reynolds. We may, however, quote the subjoined paragraph from Mr. Jones's letter, as it refers entirely to the question of the report of the recent Police Court case. He says:-" I can bear testimony to the impartiality of your report of the case before the Police Magistrate; in fact it was as favorable to the defendant as it possibly could be from the evidence." And Mr. Jones further remarks-"Pray, Mr. Editor, don't be at all amused at your being represented by the Hon. Mr. Reynolds as my champion. Take my advice, and don't be at all amused at anything which the hon. gentleman may represent you to be."


Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 August 1874, p 3


(Before Mr. Price, S.M., Hon. Thos. Reynolds, and Mr. Gardiner, J.P.'s.)
Mr. Smith, on behalf of Mr. J. Jones, who was absent through illness, made an explanation in reference to the complaint made by the Hon. T. Reynolds the Thursday previous, and submitted that Mr. Jones did not apply offensive words to Mr. Reynolds as one of the Court, but merely as a private individual.
The Special Magistrate advised that Mr. Jones should be more careful for the future, as he was very apt to insult magistrates, and he might do it once too often.
Mr. Reynolds said he would consider whether or not he should lay an information on account of the words applied to him on the previous Wednesday.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School