SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 May 1918, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

misappropriation of county

FUNDS

WELLINGTON, May 22. 8 Honour Mr Justice Edwards, presided over a sitting of the Supreme Court, and had before him Martha Hutchins for sentence. ' l ' h ? who was clerk to th e \\ oodville ■County Council, pleaded Kuilty to misappropriating £565, t)ie property of that local bodv. , Mr. M. Myers, who appeared for the prisoner, said the misappropriation was admitted. The women he believed, had been reported by the authorities to the Court as a woman wht, had borne an excellent character. She was a woman of whom no one would have said that she was spending money that was not her own. She was not .spending more than a person in her position would spend. Therefore when it was known that there was such a shortage in her accounts the people of Woodvillo were unable to credit the statement, and could not account for how it camel about. She came to Wellington last week and information was given by her | to the, authorities as to how the misap. probation took place. Certain information was given to the police which, if true, would indicate that this woman was more sinned against than sinning. She was forced to give this information by the members of the family, who indicated that no matter how painful the circumstances were it should be given. There must have been some way in which this money was disposed of; it was not spent by her. The position was this; Some few years ago she an unmarried woman,® had a child. This was about six years ago, in 1912. Some time afterwards, about three years ago, a certain man whose name was supplied to the "police—he has since been killed at the front—obtained the information about the birth of an illegitimate child, and threatened to expose the woman unless she gave him money. The man was killed in June

last .year .It appears that another man then came to the woman and said there was owing to him by the dead soldier a sum oi’ £93. He also possessed the information that the dead soldier had, and demanded further sums from her. This second man died recently from consumption. It might be said that this woman had a way out of the difficulty, but the result of such proceedings would have been just what she had

been trying to avoid, namely, the exposure of her previous trouble. Money vyas demanded from her from time to time, and her books became muddled. That was th e statement made by her, and it was unfortunate that the police were unable to verify all the facts, but it was hardly likely that she would concoct a story of this'nature, since it involved her good name. With respect to the question of restitution, counsel stated tha she was covered by a fidelity guarantee policy for £SOO, and the shortage was therefore £65 while expenses of the audit would probably amount to £IOO. The relatives of the woman were not people of means, but she had friendß who .were prepared to help to the extent of finding this hundred odd pounds. If that amount wer6 restored it would indemnify the local body, though not the insurance company. The accused had had her whole life spoilt by what, had taken place, and her Bufferings had been terrible, particularly as regards the disclosure she had been compelled to make. Under the circumstances the question arose as to whether any poo U purpose would he served by , further punishing this woman after the moral punishment she had undergone. Ho ventured to ask His Honour to deal with the ease as one in which the accused should be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. Counsel then placed the accused in the witness box to repeat on oath the statements made to the authorities. After cross-examining the accused, Mr. Macassey, who appeared for the Crown, asked for an adjornment of a fortnight for further inquiries to be made as to the statements made by the woman. This was granted, and the prisoner was allowed bail as previously.