THE DECENT BANKING DISCLOSURES AT NELSON.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume IV, Issue 201, 18 November 1864, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE DECENT BANKING DISCLOSURES AT NELSON.

(From the* Onehunga Warden, Nov. 12.)

The trial of Mr. I). H. Murdoch at Nelson for the embezzlement of certain monies daily passing through his hands, presents a new featu e in banking, for which we were altogether unprepared. The evidence adduced at the trial is not only “marvellous,” but astounding, and from the looseness which prevailed in conducting the business of the bank, we feel sure that Shareholders and the public will be as much taken by surprise, as we are ourselves.

We do not even at this distance from the place of trial, wish to advert in the slightest degree to anything that would influence the decision that may be arrived at in the matter; we merely wish to place before the Shareholders what we consider to be a fair aud impartial opinion of the manner in which their interests are guarded, taking the evidence of Picton Bankers as a rule to guide us in judging of the general working of the business of the Bank. 'lhe following remarkable evidence was elicited in the cross-examination of Mr. Griffiths, the predecessor of Mr. Murdoch. This witness, when asked by counsel “ if he took any receipt for the =£3,700 of branch notes handed to Murdoch,” replied, “ I am not in the habit of taking receipts from officers of the Ban for money handed to them for delivery. I was in the habit of handing large sums to the Bank officers to send away—to Mr. Dickinson, for example, without taking a receipt. He would take the money from me without counting it. That has been done.” Counsel : “ Frequently ?” Witness: “It has been done. 1 could not say frequently.” And Mr. John Thomas Warren, manager, on being asked, in examination, if he knew at the time Griffiths went away whether there were any notes belonging to other branches, answered and said that there ought to have been ! When further asked “If there was any entry in his books to shew that Griffiths handed over these notes t<> Murdoch, ’ lie replied “ Nothing whatever !” We do not presume to judge as to what are the duties of the Manager of a Bank, but appointed as he is by the Directors and Shareholders as the representative of their interests, to the tune of perhaps .£20,000 of £‘30,000, we certainly think that a little more watchfulness should have been manifested than to allow the sum of £T5,000 in the hands of an official receiving the munificent salary of £73 per annum, payable monthly, and out of which he was expected to make good all losses and deficiences! The folly of such conduct is unequalled by anything we have yet met with in our limited experience.

However averse we may feel in bringing such matters before the public, we nevertheless feel it our duty to cull upon them to declare openly that such zeal for their welfare is far from being appreciated, and that they have no wish to place in the hands of miserably paid officials such large sums of their capital. Let them affirm at once that it is not their wish to employ young men upon a starving pittance, who must uphold a respectable position in society. We do not hesitate to state that if a Bank Clerk were to present himself in the garb of a laboring man, with torn coat and soiled collar, he would very soon find that hi services were no louder required, although to replace his coat might cost him a 415 note, and laundry maid 4s. a dozen, with from 30s. to 40s. for board and lodging. We maintain that to employ Bank Clerks at such a paltry remuneration as that we have named, is unwise, as it is unsafe, and we have no hesitation in affirming that if such parsimouiousness is continued amongst a Directory receiving a splendid dividend, embezzlements and robberies will become far more numerous.