FORGED VOUCHERS

Hokitika Guardian, 15 January 1921, Page 1

FORGED VOUCHERS

TOWN CLERK'S defalcations

MASTKKTOX, January 11

Before Mr S. L. I’. Free, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court to-day, Janies ? Arc Her appeared on remand to answer feurtreu charges of forging vouchers whilst he was in the employ of the Masuwkm Borough Council as town clerk and engineer. The defalcations involved in the various charges appio\imated £7OO, and were committed in the names of Herhcit Hill and Co., -Murphy Bros., and P. Hudson and Co., all of Wellington. Mr 0. N. C. ITagnell appeared for accused and c liief-l)eteetive Ward conducted the prosecution on behalf of the police. Chief-Detective Ward said that the , lim-ges against accused extended over a 1 period from May. 1019, to October i 1010. Some years ago the Mastertoa • Borough Council bad entered on a drainage extension scheme, and ns a result accused had been brought in contact with Wellington firms who mpplied the drainage material. Of the fourteen vouchers falsified by accused only one bad been seen by the persons whose names were on them. Tn 1 lie majority of instances Archer had ensiled the cheques himself, giving as his reason that he was going to Wellington and would pay the amounts personally. Accused had admitted the authorship of the fourteen forgeries Thomas 'Pucker Denlice, town clerk and treasurer of the Masterton Borougn Council, said he had been in the employ of the council since 1013, and en May 7, 1020, he was appointed town clerk and treasurer when those positions had 1)001) separated from that of engineer. In 1917 the council had horro-v----ed £82,000 for drainage extension work and Murphy Bros., and Hudson and Co of Wellington, were engaged to supply the pipes. As borough accountant, it was witness’s duty to prepare the vouchers from the invoices and to write the cheques and attach them to 'ho vouchers after the amounts were passed for payment by the council. !".ieh cheque was signed by two councillors and by accused. The mornings after several council meetings he remembered that Archer lmd come out of bis office ami instructed witness, and Miss King, lii,s assistant, rpt to post certain

cheques. Accused gave as his reason that ho ‘'was over the hill ' and would take them with him. On another occasion accused had asked him to cash a cheque attached to the voucher. He was told that the payee bad asked for payment at the train as he was op bis way to the races. A\ i* ness cashed the cheque at the Bank ot Neu Huuth Wales and gave the money to accused. who put it in his pocket, together with the voucher. In March.. 1019, witness paid into the* bank on behalf of the council a sum of approximately £2OOO. Included in that amount' was a cheque which witness could not account for. He suggested mat i must have been placed in the cash drawer by accused and an equivalent amount in cash withdrawn. Witness went on to relate a similar happening , : .n (onuiytion with a bank payment of C 351 His (id. ‘ After the ease for the pr.K-vmi m had closed, Mr l’ragnel] said that Archer would plead guilty to all We charges. 1 Accused was committed to the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Wellington for sentence, bail being allowed in the sum of CIOO and two sureties of £IOO each.