R. D. MARTIN’S CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1924, Page 1

R. D. MARTIN’S CASE.

ELEVEN CHARGES. [hv TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCIt UliC'H, Feliruary (5. At tho Magistrate's Court. .Russell Dite.s Martin, formerly the Secretary of several labour Unions, was charged with the theft, of £990. moneys belonging to the Bakers and Shop Assistants’ Union, there being six charges, while five charges were preferred of allegedly making false declarations under the Arbitration Act in respect of tho annual returns of the officers and members of the various unions he was connected with. Chief Detective Cameron said that the accused, since J92M. had been secretary of a number of unions, including t lie Bakers, Shop Assistants, and Hairdressers’ Unions. His salary was iixed in respect of the Bakers’ Union, lut not for the .Shop Assistants, as far as the hooks disclosed. An examination of the hooks of the Bakers’ Union showed a. difference in the amount of moneys as mentioned in the charges. Amounts were shown as bavin;. been paid, whereas tliey were not. •e some eases, the expenditure was grouped, and in others it was not. After the books had been handed to tho police, the accused made restitution of £IOO. Under the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Secretary or Bresident o ; a Union was required to forward papers to Wellington for registration, and a copy of the book of rules was to accompany these papers. Tn the Buie Book the Secretary’s duty was defined. In January each year, the Secretary of the Union was required to forward to the Registrar in Wellington a complete statement and a declaration as to the correctness of the same as to the financial members of the union. Some of these declarations wen the subject of charges. It was alleged that they were false, and witntsre-, would he called to show that although, iheir names appeared in 10g.ir.l tu these declarations, they knew nothing about the matter. Altogether live declarations were alleged to he laise, one for the Tinkers’ Union, and two each in respect of the Shop Assistants' and Hairdressers’ Unions. In regard to the Shop Assistants, the acoi sod admitted that the cash hook had been written up for live weeks before it was handed in for audit. There was m> bank account or record of moneys having been expended. Lengthy evidence was given in support of the ease outlined hv 1 he prosecution. and I'mther hearing was adjourned till to-morrow.

A MISSING "WITNESS. (.'irUISTCHI’RCn, T'ehruary 0. Will ii warrant liiive lt> be issued for tlie arrest of I". A\ . Rowley. Registrar of Industrial Unions before lie ean he induced to give evidence in tlie E. D. Martin case? That i.s a question which will be decided to-morrow morning, when ii i' ascertained wlietlier Rowley at ri.es by the ferry boat or not. Tin- .bearing of the charges against Russell bytes Martin, funner City Couin illor, was hehl up to-day owing to the absence of the Registrar who started the ) race, dings, and \.ho is an impoiiaut witness. At one stage in tlie proceed ing.s. Chief Detective Cameron said that he was sorry he could not lake the ease any further, owing to the absenee ol the chief witness, the Registrar of Indu.stiia! Unions. The hitter duly revered a subpoena (•> uttend the ease, but be bud tailed to do so. lie had l eer wiring to Christchurch to say. ho could not. come, hut a wire had been sent to him to say that lie must Ik' here next morning. No doulit it was contempt of Court. Rowley was a very important witness, heeause the case had prnctienllv originated willi him. The Chief Detective asked that the cflfcv he allowed to .stand over until Thursday. Rowley’s action was hindering both the prosecution and the defence. «

Ah AV. J. Hunter, who apeared for Martin, said he also wished to protest emphatically, on behalf of bis client, at Rowley’s action. It was liable to bale a seriou.s effect, a.s the case might imt go up for trial at the coming session, but might have to wait for three months. By his contempt of the subpoena, Rowley had • .jeopardised Alartin's chances of a speedy trial. The Chief Detective: He has been warned that if lie is not in attendance in the morning, a warrant will be issued for his arrest. The Bench asked ally a warrant should not be issue:! immediately. The Chief Detective said he did not vish to act harshly. However, it was the first time in his experience that a man had acted in .such a way. Just he!ore the ease was adjourned. the Chief Detective said lie had heard that Rowley had interviewed someone higher in the Police Force than he was. The Bench expressed the opinion that, nevertheless, if the witness did not turn up in the morning, he should b? arrested. rauyr.» kt~. yema* ttgsa»»<iasa«WW3g»*gl