THE HISTORY OF A CRIME.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1062, 28 January 1884, Page 2

THE HISTORY OF A CRIME.

The following narrative reaches us {Pall Mall Gazette) from a aerrespondeni who vouches for its accuracy in " every particular, although for obvious reasonsihe withholds the names of the parties implicated : The facility afforded to confidential servants of banks and trust companies for abstracting securities and deceiving auditors . reminds me of a case which illustrates better than any other the frequent selfish carelessness of directors, who, by an almost criminal neglect of duty, put . temptation in the way of underpaid clerks, and, when mischief results of it, make shareholders pay, so that they may themselves escape the consequences of their moral complicity. In ' ; this case there were two keys to the strong room—one kept by a director, the second -by the secretary. The business of this company being to advance largely on securities, there was ' daily occasion for going to the strong room. Now the director holding the ;; ; |cey—a,function which , brought him in’ a thousand a year, and who is director of ■’ a-litrttiber of similar concerns, found it rather tedious to cross the street from bis principal office when securities had to be locked up at the other place, . and he found it more convenient to --leave his own key with the secretary, who thus had under his sole control and in his personal keeping the entire property of the bank and its customers. The secretary was young, badly paid, and extravagant; to-make both ends - meet he tried his hand at some little private “ spec,” and he soon found him--self involved-in difficulties. The temptation was too much for him, the hope of recouping his losses too great; besides. he had just been married, the idea of a broken home, of the misery brought on an innocent head, unhinged his notions of right and wrong. The -'director’s key burned in his pocket—he became a thief. Fortunately for his company he had neither the pluck of Mr \\£arden, nor the good or bad luck of meeting a Mr Watters, and when the day of reckoning came his defalcations amounted to only Liz.ooo —he had been bashful. A board meeting was speedily convened, the unfortunate -oan made a clean breast of the whole matter and of course the little episode of the key was duly recorded; nay, when he had ended his woeful tale, he cafct a reproachful look at the tempter —who was sitting in judgment on his victim—and, pointing to the key, he .whispered, “ If it had not been for your lordship’s key I would still be an honest man!” The shareholders would have thought so top had the case gone into "court*; at any rate, no judge would have thrown the loss on the company, and, as a matter of course the ■ director would have been condemned to refund the amount abstracted through his fault. But in the present case the sinner was a peer, and as he ’ was the colleague of the chairman on . inanyxjther boards, this worthy representative of the interests of confiding shareholders suggested not to prosecute ‘ but to hush the matter up, “as a scandal might injure the credit of the establishment,” and of course the board assented nem con, his lordship voting, of course, for leniency. Under the • circumstances it might have been expected that the lordly director would at once have volunteered to make good the loss, or, at any rate, that some one, ~th%£9^d ; .would have suggested this the only fair one. But no; i. solidarity which distinguishes ( the genius “ guinea-pig,” the chairman got up arid appealed pathetically to his * not to allow his lordship mean himself” by worrying , - Cl ’' over this “ ’orrid ” villany—a. paltry Lu,ooo! why, the share- 1

holders would not even notice it in the profit and loss account, and after the invaluable services rendered by their noble “ friend,” it wbuld be unbecoming to waste another word on the subject. Accordingly there was that halfyear Li 2,000 less to be divided among the shareholders, while a minute stated that the secretary had been obliged to retire on account of failing health ; and needless to say the peer in question is still an ornament of this model board —a living proof that shareholders must pay for great names.