£337 MISSING.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19160, 17 November 1927, Page 6

£337 MISSING.

CLERK STEALS TRUST MONEY. BAD OFFICE SYSTEM REVEALED. No proper system of bookkeeping, and dire necessity nnd an unsatisfactory business arrangement, were the main reasons advanced by Samuei Phoenix Briggs, married, with six children, a conveyancing clerk, in the Supreme Court yesterday, lor the theft of trust moneys, amounting to £337 16s 3d from the trust account of W. J. Cracroft Wilson, solicitor, in whose enrplov he was. The' jury found him guilty with a strong reeomWndation to mercy. Briggs was remanded for sentence. Accused, who conducted his own defence, in the course of his statement., showed that there was no system of keeping accounts in the office, that trust moneys were handled in a haphazard manner by both him and Wilson, and that he did most of the'wove of the office. He had entered Wilson s omplov on the understanding that he should receive a third of the profits, which he had never done, often ekeing out an existence on a pound a week. If the book debts bad been realised his share would have been sufficient to meet the shortage. _ During the examination of Wilson bv Briggs relations were not too cordial between former employer and employee. Mr A. T. Donnelly, who appeared for the Crown, said that Briggs was charged with the theft of the inonay belonging-to the Sinimond's estate, which was in Cracroft Wilson's office He referred to the unsatisfactory business arrangement employer and employee whereby Wilson . had taken Briggs as a virtual partner and proinised/to give him a third of the profits. There were no business methods in the office and they did not get in the moneys due. On that account accused did not get his share and had stolen money. He was in a necessitous position, but this was no answer to a charge of theft, though it might be a reason for leniency. It seemed that gambling had something to do with his downfall. Charles Henry Roud, executor of the Sinimonds estate, said he looked upon Briggs as Mr Wilson's clerk, and that Briggs had the solo' handling of the business in connexion with the estate. Cyril Alexander Stringer, solicitor, said that about the end of 1926 accused came to him and admitted he had taken the money, and agreed to pay it bv instalments.

' Waldegrave John Cracroft Wilson, solicitor, said that Briggs was the only person he had in his employ under the terms stated. The estate in question was handled exclusively by Briggs. Accused: Did you not have a typist for two months?

Witness: Mo, I wouldn't swear it, else you couldn't have been getting a share of the profits. Accused: Oh, she did not get paid, so it did not make any difference. Were there any books kept?—l thought you might have kept some. Wasn't tho receipt book the only one in the i*Bcc? —Mr Briggs did what he liked. He came when he liked and went when he liked.

Who did the banking?— Sometimes you, and sometimes L. You know the trust moneys were not all banked, but paid out as costs?— The less you say about that the better it will be tor you. Well, you know, Mr Wilson, that things were very slack in the o.ffice? —Well, you were there to remedy that.

You remember £IOO paid in. to the trust funds out of the estate ?—Yes, as costs. ■ ..-

Briggs:, Yes, and the drawings were one pound, two pounds, five pounds, and so on till the £IOO was gone.. The cheques were endorsed "Cracroft Wilson. " Did the business pay ? I expect I was running at a loss. Did you report this matter to the police?—No, though you seem to think I did. I did not lay the information. I. tried, to help you. Do you remember a meeting about the trust estate?—l did not know the £337 was' gone, till a friend of yours told me. I nearly fell off my perch.

Detective E. W. Thomas said he interviewed the accused, when he made the statement produced. Briggs addressed the jury at length. He said he did not hold himself blameless, hut pleaded that circumstances had been all against him. His Honour said he could not conceive a. clearer case. Briggs had taken moneys which belonged neither to him nor to Wilson, but to clients. The law about trust moneys was very strict and did not "allow those who had them n trust to use them except under instructions from the client. It would shake the very foundations of the law if such things were allowed to go on.