BOROUGH OFFICE METHODS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 44, 16 November 1926, Page 11

BOROUGH OFFICE METHODS

COUNCIL CONCERNED OVER JURY’S RIDER “GROSS INJUSTICE TO STAFF” Dominion Special. Palmerston North, November 15. . The rider deprecating the banking system employed by the Palmerston North borough officers added by the jury to its verdict of not guilty in the case heard recently in the Supreme Court, wherein a seaman was charged with stealing £220, the property of the council, was the subject of consideration at to-night’s meeting. Councillor A. J. Graham, DeputyMayor, who presided, said that the rider was rather a serious reflection on the administration of the council’s activities and was a statement which could not remain unchallenged. it was very much to be regretted that the ’’ull facts of the case were not placed before the jury either by way of direct evidence or cross-examination, as c therwise the speaker felt sure that the lider would not have been brought in and broadcast all over the Dominion. He had asked Mr. J. R. Hardie, the town clerk, to prepare a statement in regard to the matter, which would show that the rider of the jury was quite uncalled for and tnat a very gross injustice bad been done to the town clerk and his staff. It was understood that certain evidence was handed to the borough solicitor Mr. F. H. Cooke, (who was prosecuting counsel) but these facts had not been made use of. The foreman of the jury concerned had since inspected the system employed in the borough offices but had been unable to suggest auy improvement. "The whole of tbo circumstances,” continued Councillor Graham, "go to show that the cashier, Mr Newson, knew the money was in the office and he was sbsolutely in chargo from noon to one o’clock, during which time be was responsible. It was only his gross carelessness in leaving the office unattended that enabled the intruder to get over the counter " Councillor R. Edwards interrupted to say that he doubted very much the wisdom of proceeding with the matter in the way it was being done and be considered that the public would be better satisfied if a public inquiry were held and a report made to the council in open meeting. , , The Deputy-Mayor retorted that there had been so much publicity accorded tho affair that it was deemed rdvisable to make a statement concerning the matter. He went on to read the state ment prepared by the town clerk, which stated, inter alia, that the present procedure was for both cashiers to make up their cash, which was checked, and shortages, if any, made good, the town clerk making a daily check of the previous day’s transactions. Upon the statement being read, Councillor Edwards moved that the matter receive further inquiry and tgain be referred to the council. Councillor M. A. Eliott expressed satisfaction that it had been macle clear that money was not left on the public counter, but on the counter at the rear of the public desk. Councillor W. L. Fitzherbert 'cnced the opinion that the jury had been labouring under a misapprehension and said that no blame was attachable to any borough officers but rnly to the clerk who had failed in his duty. The system adopted in the borough offices was similar to that employed in ■ banking institutions. Councillor Graham said he did not consider it necessary io conduct nny further inquiry. "I very much doubt whether there is another borough in New Zealand whore the administration is more efficient," he said After further discussion the motion lapsed nnd the town clerk’s statement was received.