FOUND GUILTY

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 21, 25 July 1945, Page 9

FOUND GUILTY

AUCTION FUNDS CASE

EARLIER DISAGREEMENT

After a retirement of nearly three hours, including luncheon, a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday failed to reach agreement at the second trial of Lionel Clifford Nimmo, 36, auctioneer, and Clarence Haigh, 49, clerk, on a charge of theft as servants of £8740 from Townsend and Paul, Ltd. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) sent the jury back to consider the position, and an hour later it returned with a verdict of guilty against both accused, with a strong recommendation to mercy. The prisoners were remanded until Friday morning for sentence. •

"I confess I can't understand the position," said the Chief Justice when the jury first returned to the court-room. "Is there any matter of doubt upon which I can assist you?"

"No," replied the foreman. r His Honour: Then it is perfectly plain that the jury cannot have understood my directions, though. I thought they were perfectly plain. The position is this: as I have pointed out, it is proved beyond question that the sum of £8740 was taken over a period of years from the till of Townsend and Paul. That is not really disputed." The two accused were employees, and they had the opportunity of taking the money. That was not disputed, his Honour continued. It was they themselves who told the auditors how it had been done, and then the auditors went through the papers and found out what had happened. The next thing was that the two accused admitted having taken the money, and that they had devised the scheme, taken the money, and divided it equally. The only point by way of suggested defence was something about the Bell account, which, his Honour said, he had already told the jury had nothing to do with the case. The suggestion had been that the moneys might not belong to Townsend and Paul, but belonged to the growers,

"That is a matter of law, and you are bound, as honourable, conscientious men, citizens and jurors, to accept the direction of the Court on a matter of law," said his Honour. "If the direction is wrong, then the accused persons have their remedy. . . . You will please go back and consider your verdict."

When the jury returned the second time his Honour said that he would see how far the recommendation to mercy could be given effect to. So far as the verdict was concerned, it was obviously right. "I think lam justified in saying," he added, "that no honest man could have come to any other conclusion. The case is a perfectly plain one."

Mr. W. H. Cunningham represented the Crown and Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared for the accused.