FURNITURE DEALS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 251, 17 July 1919, Page 3

FURNITURE DEALS

A MANAGER IN TROUBLE 1 ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION) ! OF MONEY 1 Alleged misappropriation of his emuiovers' monev was the nature of tlio : charges oreferred against Harold Albert l'pard before ilr; E. Page, S.M., at tlio Magistrate's Court; .yesterday. The charces were that on March 31 last he received from Mrs. Mary O'Neil, on terms requiring him to account for mime to the Jenkins Furnishing Co., Ltd.. but did fraudulently omit to do so: and that between January and Alarch. 1919. ho received various sums tutallinir i!2l Bs. Gd. from various persons. and failed to account for same to his emnlovers. The employers were George "William Frederick Rouse and Arthur Lvnch Goldfinch; trading as tho Jenkins Furnishing Co., Ltd. Chief-Detective Boddam prosecuted, and 111'. H. P. O'Leary appeared for the defendant. In relating the facts of the first case, ilm c.hinf-dctective said that in 1018 Messrs. Rouse and Goldfinch purchased the Jenkins furnishing business, and the accused was appointed manager at a salary of £8 per week. In addition, he was to receive 25 per cent, of tho net nrofita. His duties included buying for Ihe firm, and valuing furniture, houses, etc. T.ate in December, 1918, ho purchased the furniture of a house owned by Mr. Partridge at No. 252, The Terrace, and raid a sum of .672 ids. for it. The furniture should have been at once removed to the company's premises, but the accused failed to do this. Instead, lie went, into possession of the house, and used the furniture. The money paid to mirc.hasH the furniture belonged to his emnlover. In March last he 6old tho furniture to Mrs. O'Neill for ,£220, and shortly after this left tho firm's employ. Some time later matters in connection with the firm's accounts were investigated. and. as a result, the charges were oreferred against the accused. George William Frederick Rouse, public accountant and auditor, and a member of the Jenkins Furnishing Co., Ltd.. cave , evidence on the lines of the chiefdetoctivc's statemeut. He said that tho .'••ccused had no authority to apply-the ( firm's monev for his own personal use. Accused had ho authority to-purchase furniture for his own use. Accused had the handling of the petty cash, but all cheaues had to be countersigned by one member of the firm. After tho accused left tho firm it wns found that a cheque for .£52 and ,£2O in cosh had been given to the accused for the purnose of purchasing furniture from Mr. R. Partridge. Thern was nothing to show that the furniture had been removed to the firm's business premises. Mr. Partridge v/as enmrnunicated with, and Mrs. O'Neil interviewed. and subsequently the matter j was nlacod in the hands of tho police, j Some time later accused said that lie j desired to see witness, and'a conversation ■ took nlnce at the office, of witness's solici-1 tors. There, accused said that he had heard in Auckland that witness was making statements reflecting on accused's i lionest.v. which witness denied. Wit-! lipss. however, explained that -certain j matters reauired an explanation, and accused said that as far as the book debta were concerned lie might have made a mistake in not entering transactions; bnt in any ca.sc ho was not tho bookkeeper. As to the moneys missing, accused said that he had nothing to do with that. Gesnep.t.inir the Terrace furniture transaction accused paid it was quite fair and ahnvc board. He had fent .£35 worth to the firm's premises, had kept the balance, and paid «£35 into the firm, j HV> further stated that he could bring ; witnesses to prove this. The money, he said, was uaid into the firm in dribs and drabs. Witness then questioned accused' as to whether he could any particular article of furniture for which lie naid the firm. He said that he could not. and witness tested every method known to him in order to trace the mnnovs uaid in by accused, but without result. He could not find any entries ■ made by accused in resßect to this furniture. Witness knew nothing about the transactions which accused hud with Mr. Partridge and Mrs. O'Neil till some itime after he had left tho firm's ohiplov. Later, when questioned about this, the accused admitted that he had made a mistake in not telling witness. There was no entry in the firm's bno Its that the accused had sold the furniture at No. 252 The Terrace to Mrs O'Neill for .£220 on behalf of the firm, nor was thero any ontry that the accused had paid any part of this sum into the firm. Further, there was no entrv in the books to show that' the accused had refunded the =£72 used lo purchase the furniture from Mr. PartridgeArthur Lvnch Goldfinch partner in the firm of .Tenldns Furnishing Co., Ltd., gave corroborative evidence. Endorsement of a Cheque. H. Partridge gave evidence that the accused purchased his furniture for „?72 10s. The .chief detective: This cheque was drawn by the firm in part payment for tlu> furniture purchased from you? •' is endorsed—please look at the back. The witness did so: and said: "It looks like tlhe cheque I received, but that is not my signature." The 'chief detective: Well, the cheque is endorsed "11. Partridge"—your name. Look again—is that your signature? Witness: No. The chief detective: Then it is a forgery, and we may 'hear more of it. Mrs. Marv O'Neil said that she called at N0.'252 The Terrace, and saw a woman, who said she was Mrs. Pea rd. She asked witness to pay <£250 for the fur-, niture, but witness would only pay AM* Witness paid .£l5O deposit on the tunature, as the price was agreed as £~J>, and she arranged to pay the balanco m the course of a few days. She paid the balance of <£70 to the accused two days after paying the deposit. Detective-Sergeant Andrews sail that the accused admitted that he sold the furniture in Partridge's liouse to O'Neil for ,£2lO. There was a lot oj. furniture in tho house which lie did not buy from Partridge. He paid back Jiifl to'the firm in small amounts, but did not tell them anything _ nbout it. -He further .said he was foolish in living in the house, and that he should have sent the furniture to the firm's premises. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed to the Supremo Court for taial. . , ' The Second Charge. Tho second charge was then proceeded with, and similar evidence as to tlio accused's position in rega.rd to 6alca was given. Mr. Rouse stated that it was the duty of the accused to onter amounts received in connection with sales m the rough day book. _ • In cross-examination, witness stated that when the moneys would not balance with tihe entries in the sales book tho surplus was placfftl in a suspense account. There was ill to tho accused s credit in the suspense account, and witness laid the criminal information that the accused was deficient of .£2l Bs. 6d. Witness admitted that in eight weeks accused had handled ,£I4OO. , , , I To Mr. O'Leary: Mr. Goldfinch stated that tho accused was the outside man, and would bo away sometimes for half a day. During his absenco money 6 received for cash sales would bo held by tho salesmen, or their assistants. He was not aware that the accused had only ' passed the Third Standard at school. Dorothy Weston, saleswoman, employed by the Jenkins Fumisliing Company, stated that moneys received for sales wero put in a till. In reply to Mr. O'Leary sho said that at times money was taken out of the till for the purpose of making payments on behalf of the firm. The practice was to leavo a note-in the till stating the amount taken. Witness admitted that it was possiblo for someone lo take money out and forget to put the noto In. Arthur Chv'les Chcgwidden, treasurer of a club known as tlio "Thirteenth Club," said that 'he had made three payments to the accused for goods received. Detective-Sergeant Andrews said that when charged with the offence iilie accused said, "That will be all right." Tho accused plef.ded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in the sum of ,£l5O and ono surety of Jilso.