THEFT ALLEGED

Hokitika Guardian, 19 November 1929, Page 5

THEFT ALLEGED

BOROUGH OFFICER CHARGED. FOXTON, November 15. Before Mr J. L. Stout, 5.1v1., in the Foxton Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, William S. Heyes, gas manager to the Foxton Borough Council, was charged with the theft of 7s and of 9s on different dates, both sums being the property of the Foxton Borough Council. Mr M. B. Bergin, who appeared for accused, entered' a plea of not

guilty. William J. Kane, Government Auditor, tendered evidence as to having carried out a series of checks on local slot meters during July and August, which showed that in certain cases sums of money checked in the meters had not nil been accounted for by the gas manager after he had rend the meters. Tire meters had been locked and Heyes was the only person with a duplicate key other than the investigating officer, Witness had. taken the Mayor and the Town Clerk into his confidence hut had sworn them to secrecy,

The Town Clerk (W. Trueman) gave corroborative evidence and said Heyes had been instructed to give discounts to slot meter-holders, which had not been done. Heyes handed his books in every month with the cash collected and these had tallied correctly except in one or two cases where minor adjustments were made. Recently Hayes had paid in 11s too much and that was. refunded to him. Complaints had been received from certain consumers that they were not getting the correct amount of gas for their money. It would be possible for the manager to supply gas in accordance with his hook readings and balance up his cash accordingly. Witness had been sworn to secrecy by the investigating ‘officer. _. Evidence was tendered by several witnesses to the effect that they had never received a discount from accused.

Mr Bergin, for the defence, stated that while Heyes was charged with theft from the borough council, if the Town Clerk’s evidence was correct the council had received all the money it was entitled to, despite what might have happened to individual meters. The whole trouble, he considered, was due to gross negligence on the part of Heyes and a had system adopted by the •council.

The Magistrate said that it was very doubtful if tb*e money, if stolen, belonged to the council.

Senior-Detective Quirke pointed out that the meters could have been regulated to suit the money in the meter. The Magistrate said that did not prove that the money was the council's. In his opinion the investigations had not gone far enough. The Court could not draw inferences. The Town Clerk said the council had re. reived all it was entitled to according to the hooks. In dismissing the case, the Magistrate made some very strong comments on the fact that accused had not been. apprised at the earliest possible moment of the suspicion resting; on him. The matter should have been reported to the council, which could have taken whatever action it thought fit at the time instead of ill. lowing the accused to continue in office.