MAN FOUND GUILTY OF STEALING £335

Press, Volume C, Issue 29516, 18 May 1961, Page 13

MAN FOUND GUILTY OF STEALING £335

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Gerald Raymond Augustine Wall, aged 40, married, guilty of the theft of £335 0s sd, the property of Nu-Way Dry Cleaners, Ltd., by failing to account for that sum while working on contract with the firm between March 20 and August 26. 1960. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Wall in custody for sentence on May 25. The jury took 80 minutes to reach its verdict. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) conducted the case for the Crown Mr D. H. Hicks appeared for Wall.

Summing-up. his Honour said that the Crown evidence was that the shortages of dockets began in March, 1959. The Nu-Way company’s financial year did not end until June, 1959, which, witnesses for the Crown said, explained why the shortages had not been discovered until the drop in business was discovered by comparing turnover in the financial year, 1960, with that of the previous financial year.

“The evidence of the shortage of dockets in 1959 is admissible,” his Honour said. “If you accept there was a very extensive shortage of dockets in 1959 and that the shortage occurred between the end of one week and beginning of another, you are entitled to take it into account as part of a system employed by the accused, as showing he had a guilty mind and as against the defence that the shortages were caused ony by muddlement.” Search of Exhibits

His Honour said that the defence had placed great reliance on the fact that Miss Smith, who typed out the weekly statements from the dockets, had admitted that her weekly statements for April 29 and May 6. 1960. did not check with the docket books produced for that period, s “The f defence submitted that these two statements typed by Miss Smith were completely wrong, and that if these two were wrong it was reasonable to infer there were errors in her other statements.

“Miss Smith, you will recall, said she thought the docket book must be wrong Having examined the exhibits overnight, I am convinced that Miss Smith was right,” his Honour said. He said that the docket book provided in relation to the two weeks was not printed by the North Canterbury Gazette Company, Ltd. but by Bullivants. Ltd In all the exhibits, as far as he could see. it was the only one printed by Bullivants. Ltd. “Clear Conclusion’* His Honour said that, from his examination of the exhibits, he had come to the clear conclusion that the docket book produced was for the April 9 and May 6 weeks of 1859. not 1960. Miss

Smith’s statement was for 1960 and was, in his opinion, correct.

"It is a matter for your decision, I repeat. I invite you to examine the exhibits as I have done. As far as I am concerned. Miss Smith was clearly correct in her statements for these two weeks. “I would point out to you that the statements of Miss Smith cover a period of five months and that even if you think there was an error in the weeks April 29 and May 6. the defence has not pointed to any errors in the other statements typed by Miss Smith,” his Honour said. His Honour said that Trotter, the manager of the NuWay company, had seemingly wrongly produced the 1959 docket book as a 1960 one. The jury could see a docket in the book where a driver had entered the date “1959.” Moreover, if the jury compared a 1959 day book, which he had marked, with Miss Smith's .statement, it would see that the statement tallied with entries in this day book. His Honour said the jury must keep this matter in perspective. but the defence had olaced heavy reliance on it. The accused was not charged with theft in 1959, and the evidence in regard to shortages in that year was only relevant to the charge as showing, if the jury accepted it, part of a system alleged by the Crown.