ALL OVER TEN BOB!

Grey River Argus, 18 February 1927, Page 4

ALL OVER TEN BOB!

TOWN BOARD MEMBER. Sues Another. ALLEGED FRAUD OVER CONTRACT AUCKLAND, February 17. Further light was thrown on a recent stormy meeting of the Glen Eden Town Board at the Magistrate’s Court when one member, John Henry Hayes, claimed £3O 10s 3d from another member, Abraham Joseph Routley. He alleged that Routley, who is a storekeeper, supplied to the Board goods for which he was paid 10s 3d. Hayes also preferred charges that Routley, knowing this, voted on a matter in which ho had an interest, namely, the payment of accounts for goods supplied. Hayes claimed to recover the 10s 3d paid by the Board, and also £lO in respect of each of the three transactions, as provided by the Public Contracts and Local Bodies Contractors Act. Tn opening the case for plaintiff, Mr Northcroft said that Routley believed nt the time that he was entitled to supply the goods and receive payment. Routley learned at a later meeting that it was not open to him to receive payments from the Board. The amounts concerned were trifling, and it might have been expected that Routley would have abandoned so trifling an amount. Had he done, so, he would not have been guilty of any intentional offence, and probably no trouble would have arisen, but at this point defendant descended to subterfuge. However anxious he was to serve the public, lit was not prepared to relinquish the small sum concerned, and he proceeded to perpetrate a fraud on the other members, or at least some of them. He went to another storekeeper, J. Robertson, and asked him to render an account for goods to the Board in Robertson’s name. The account was rendered, as requested, and came before the Board in the finance report, and the adoption of the report was actually seconded by Routley himself In due course, the account was paid to Robertson, who credited the amount to Routley. Under ordinary circumstances, defendant would have beer, entitled to sympathy had he inadvertently infringed the law, but when a member of a Board, for a paltry amount of 10s 3d, descended to fraud, it was proper for any person, on becoming aware of the facts, to bring the matter before the Court. In this case, the impropriety whs so great that it was plaintiff’s duty to take action. Mr West, for the defence, said there was no proof that Routley had acted with a guilty knowledge. He would admit the utter foolishness of the transaction, but had no guilt in the matter.

The Magistrate, Mr Cutten, reserved his decision.