WATERSIDE WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2298, 31 October 1914, Page 10

WATERSIDE WORKERS

I. CHARGE AGAINST UNION SECRETARY d S ALLEGED THEFT n 3it As the outcome of the turmoil amongst; members ol' tho Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union, of late, tho union's secretary (Edward John Jones) it appeared before Mr. D. Q. A. Cooper, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon' to answer ten charges t- of theft of moneys totalling £2 35., ( l the property of tho "Wellington Wharf I.' Labourers' Union. The first charge >• against Jones was that, having received 10 4c. from Archibald Black, he did e fraudulently omit to account for tho d same, thereby committing theft. The nine other charges were worded alike, the amounts only differing. Tho amounts which it was alleged were stolen were five sums of 2s.' each, two '. of Gs. each, ono' of Bs., and one of 9s. i. The date of the alleged thefts extended 1 from March 10 to July 10. Sir John Findlay and, with him Mr'. H. F. O'Leary, appeared for the proB secutor (Thomas Joseph Ladd), while Mr. M. Myers appeared for Jones. A '• plea of not guilty was entered. I In opening tho case, Sir John Findlay explained that during the strike a last year the union in question was re- '; gistered. • Mr. Furdoy had been ap- :! pointed the first secretary, of the union, i and until he was relieved had acted in ' that position. Prior to April 17, 1914, s defendant was assistant secretary, but • after that date he was acting-secretary. f Counsel went on to explain tho duties i of the secretary as proscribed in the t rules of the union. Tho most iraportf ant point was that he was to keep a--1 true and correct record. of the union's ■ funds. Sir John Findlay went on to ■ say that in view of Mr. Myers's statement that the prosecution was a vin- ; dictive ono the Magistrate could disl miss tho slightest thought that this • was so. The prosecution had been ' brought by tho executive of the new union through Mr. Ladd, and had at i solutely nothing to do with the old . union as suggested by Mr. Myers. ' Defendant had continued as actingJ secretary up to May 6, and on account i of illness lie was compelled to give over his duties until July 1, when lie took ! over the position of permanent sccre- | tary, and from that date to September ■ 13, when he was suspended, he contin- ■ ued in that capacity. Counsel proceed- '. Ed to explain tho procedure in regard to ■ the receiving of the funds. The first ' duty was to record in the receipt book \ of the amount of the Subscriptions re- \ ceived, then enter it in the "pence" hook, later in the cash book. There 1 was another book, the subscription \ ledger, in which amounts were entered, I but this was unimportant. ' On May 4 thoy would show_ that 1 Jones received 4s. from Black in the ', "pence" book. This should have ap--1 peared in the receipt book, tho cash '■ book, or tho subscription ledger, but \ had not/ Tho defonce might, suggest ■ that if tho money had not been entered in the receipt book it was paid into the \ bank, but tho prosecution would bo ; able to meet that. They were going to ' prove that between April 17 and May 6 there was a deficiency.of £4 13s.- in i tho payments In ado into the bank. Ernest Wm. Hunt, accountant/ said :■ he had been asked to make an investiv gation of the account books of th« \inion by the- executive of the union. From his examination he had drawn up V statement of accounts from April 18 to May 6. There, was no entry in cither the receipt or cash book of the : amount received from Black, neither was there any record : of payments received from Stephens, Hannan, or Swain. Tho amounts were recorded in ttie pence book, however, and wore initialled by Jones. Tho examination had shown that thero appeared to bo a deficiency of £3 19s. for which there was nothing t« account. To Mr. Myers: Witness was instructed about 10 or 14 days ago by Messrs. Ladd and Radcliff to pursue his investigations. Witness had not' recommended n prosecution before October 23. The books worn in a muddled condition. This condition of tho books datid long -before Mr. Jones's time. Witness understood that from' April 18 to May 6 tho cash books were in Mr. Pillinc's possession, who \ was examining them. There were) a number of • meetings of. the executive during that, uimc, and there appeared to be; pay-' monts made during that period, but thero were no vouchors for tho same. If thero had been such payments made out of cash it might account for the £3 19s. Thwo might have been other moneys, apart from this, received from members of the union at these meetings. From the books it appeared to be the practice to pay money out of cash instead of by cheque, and it might be possible for some people to fail to keep a record of such transactions. : Re-examined by Sir John Findlay, witness said that a man who was .as careless as suggested deserved to lose his position. It was no excuse for th*> secretary if the casli book were not in his hand, as there was the receipt book to rely on. Archibald Black, a member of the union, in his evidence produced the "ponce" book to show that on May 4 there was an- entry indicating he had paid 4s. To Mr. Myers: On the night he paid the 4s. to Mr. Jones he saw him write the amount in the receipt book. Witness said that he left his book for audit with Mr. Jones, and an auditor could sea immediately that tho money had been paid. Witness added that he was not directing the prosecution, but had moved a resolution to the effect that all persons stealing the union funds should bo prosecuted. At this stage the. further hearing of the easo was adjourned to noon on Tuesday.-