SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 13 September 1930, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

SITTING AT HOKITIKA. 4 . FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER, 12th. (Before His Honour, Air Justice Adams). - • 1 *' • * CIVIL CASE. Julia Devaney v. Bank of New Zea r : land, a claim for a receipt ol"a deposit, of £2OO, alleged to have been deposited; by plaintiff with the Bank of New; Zealand, at Hokitika, oil 2oth.,March,: >1929. ' ' ' . v , . ' Air A. G. Neale (of Dunklin), n.i- . strutted by Messrs AVard an(l Downing (of Dunedin) for plaintiff. Air H.f F. Johnstone, K.C. (of Wellington!with him Air Park, for the defendant. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court resumed, at 2.15 p-m. Imelda Devaney continued—lt was her mother’s practice, to ,keepSUms of money in the safe -for cjiange. knew her mother had a sum of money in tli© safe after the demonstration, which she wished to give to witness and her sister. There was £2OO in a canvas hag mad© up of ten £lO and 20, £5 notes. It remained there, till the 25th. Alarch when her mpthov took ii; to the hank. Did not actually see lifer mother take it out of the frafe. In July her mother asked them about a feast- day and that was how they orf 25th. March, because her. mother had gone to mass that morning. Went into the room when Mr wo| with her mother and heajpd him say, \ "unless someone took tlie slip and the money.also.” Her mother sqid, '‘pould that be done,” and Aff Afipholla saicj it could. Asked by her mother if he did not remember signing the slip, Nicholls said that would be done automatically. She wrote the, letter addressed to the Alanager of the Bank To Air Johnstone— They c’V piot keep accounts but she helped lifer mother to count the money. The £2OO was set aside after her mother had paid the accounts. Jt was the balance left of the fire brigade takings. On 2oth AJareh, cheques and the £2OO werepaid in. The monthly takings were £2OO /or more. Her mother told r ])er the money had gone astray, on 29th July. Samuel Prince L; Evans gave ence that he was employed by the .Bank of* NX at Hokitika. Saw Airs- povaney at her hotel. Took up £lO. of silver on a Saturday morping.. . According to their books it was 25th Alay 1929. On coming out saw Airs Devaney who asked if he had brought her fixed deposit receipt up. He said lie had not, but he would make enquiries at the’Bank on his return. On his return to the bank he asked Air- Spencer if he was holding a deposit receipt % Mrs Devaney. He looked the papers up and found he was holding a receipt for £2BO in a trust account. On May 28th delivered this receipt to her daughter at the hotel and obtained ft receipt foi;,.-;jt;.,.sot ; £lO i,ji.?,,singles -;foy £lO in silver iif the’ bar Hunter, Only took up cash ' once. Could not sweur actually to Alay 23 th., . To Air Johnstone--* After taklhg up * this particular deposit he had' not been asked about any deposit receipt. - : This was the case for plaintiffCASE FOR DEFENCE.

■Mr Johnstone said the case was of importance to the Bonk, not for the amount involved, but that it involved the procedure of the bank and the trustworthiness of its officers. His Honor had heard the extraordinary, evidence given by the plaintiff of depositing this money on 25th March. She had not made enquiry till 29th July, in spite of Mrs Devaney having been in the bank, and her servants on several occasions. It was almost beyond belief that Mrs Devaney could have allowed the matter to rest from 25th March till the 29th July. There was one distressing incident in the evidence of Mrs Devaney, She sard on 10th April she made a trust deposit of £2BO and got a receipt for it from Mr Baker. It was proved that this receipt was given on 28th May to her daughter Mary, being delivered by Mr Evans. On 10th April she received from Mr Baker the receipt for the deposit of 9th March and according to Mr Baker, never mentioned the deposit of 25th March. Mr - McPhnil Inspector for the Bank for the South Island had come down and made a thorough inspection, without result. It the money were paid in the only thing that could have, happened was that someone in the bank had pocketed the money. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Edward McPhail gave evidence he was a sub Inspector for-the Bank of Ne.v Zealand for the South Island. He made inquiries into Mrs Devaney’s complaint. He had cheeked the hank’s transactions for the day and found them correct. If the £2OO was paid in there was only one alternative, it had been stolen. The applicant signs! a deposit - slip. If it bad been signed then the slip must have been destroyed. He had seen Mrs Devaney and explained the position to her. In the bank records Mrs Deva:'°v banking showed an increase of £SOO in 1929 over the same period in .1928.

/ To Air Neale—The teller would initial the deposit slip before he passed it out. The money does not go beyond the teller, the slip would go to the denosit clerk.

The custom of the bank was for the deposit receipts to lay in the bank till called for ''by the depositor. A matter of a month to six weeks was not unusual. It was not customary to jgiye duplicate receipts for deposits. No

alteration to the practice had been made by the" Bank since this case had' arisen." There was no check on the teller till he. had entered up bis cash book;. This? book was entered up as the transactions took place otherwise the work of the office would be held up. Tp His Honor—He considered it very remote'the possibility of a person who, kept no . books, being able to. keep in memory figures of receipts.

Allan taker gave evidence be was manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Hokitika. Airs Devaney came. tb liim oii 29tli July and said she had not- got a receipt for a fixed deposit* of £2OO. Called in Air Spencer and be brought in the ledger a count. Showed, she- had put in £2OO in current account- and £2OO on deposit. Explained t)ie position and she went away apparently quit© satisfied. On August 4th she came back and said she had put in another £2OO on fixed deposit. Asked lier the date, and she did not know. Asked her hbw long after Alarch- 9th and she said a month or six weeks. She could not fix any day and picked on 10th April as a month after Alarch 9th. Later again interviewed her and she gave him 6tli April as the 4 ft y- Then she gave him another day and on that Air Nicholls was' not on the counter. Then there was only Alarch 25th left and she picked on that date. AVhen Mrs Devqjiey put on deposit the trust account, witness gave him a receipt for £2OO put on deposit on 10th April. It wanted the fixed deposit receipt can be given right away. Alany, fixed deposits receipts remain in the Bank all the time. Produced a list of transactioss with Mrs Devaney a copy of which he had supplied to her. -To »Mr Neale—On 10th April paid in j£2Bo on fixed deposit and gave Airs Devaney a fixed deposit receipt for £2OO passed in on 9th Alarch. Did not sqy at the time what the receipt was for. He denied the evidence of Mrs Devaney in connection with her s'-ate-niffit of asking on April 10th for a missing deposit receipt. On August s,'Airs Devaney fixed the dates of the deposit of the disputed sum. He thought' she was quite satisfied wkh the explanation up to that date. The hank records showed Airs Devaney was No. 5 account dealt with and Rooney (Rost Office) N0,.64 account of the same day. One would be early in the morning,' and the other late in the afternoon. ‘

. 'George Edward Nicholls gave evidence that,he was teller at the Bank of New Zealand, Hokitika; when these circumstances arose. He first heard of Devanfey’s claim to have lodged £2OO on fixed deposit on Alarch 25tli 1929, on 29th July. Recollect Airs Devaney calling at the bank on 5 occasions between 25th Alarch and 29th July, but she made no reference on these occasions to any deposit. No one in- the bank bad stated to him that Airs Devaney had made any claim to a deposit, before 29th July, or that any telephone enquiry had been, received. On Alarch 9th Airs Devaney made a fix. ed deposit of £2OO. He made out the slip. It was not put on the file. He did not receive oil March 25th, £2(10 on fixed deposit from Mrs Devaney. His hooks balanced on 25th March. Qn 29th July Mrs Devaney made a lodg. meht. on current account and asked for her fixed deposit receipt. He referred her to the accountant, as he had no knowledge of it. On 25th Alarch her lodgement was No. 5 and Post Offlfee (Rooney) No. 64. On August she went to interview Airs Devaney, by request of the Alanager, about the alleg. ed deposit. He tried to convince her that she had' not made any deposit on 25th Alarch, but he failed to coil, vince her. They could not come to anv satisfactory conclusion. He was now teller at Greymoutli. Had 13 years service. He was the only person who had access to the money if it had been paid in To Air Neale: Remembered making out a fixed deposit on 9th Alarch for Mrs Devaney. On 25th Alarch Airs Devaney made a deposit on current account and changed £57 in cheques. She did not ask for her pass hook. He did not receive £2OO from Mrs Devaney on that date, He could not remember any other persons deposits about. this time.

This was the case for the defence. J UDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. In answer to his Honour, counsel intimated they did not propose to review the evidence. In giving judgment, His Honour said he had no difficulty in coming to a decision. The onus was on plaintiff to prove her case, and this she had failed to do. If counsel for the defence had moved for a non-suit at the close of the case for plaintiff it was probable he would have granted it. It was better, however, that the course of giving all publicity possible had been followed. The evidence of the plaintiff was quite unreliable. He did not say it was from deliberate intention, but it might be the result of ignorance of business and failing age. According to her statements, she keeps no books and no records. There was nothing that would help to discover her position how much money she was taking or what she had. She was now advanced in years, and naturally finds it more difficult to remember the happenings of a particular day. The plaintiff had herself proved she was unable to give an account of the actual transactions, He found that Miss Devaney’s evidence had shown tlie method on which plaintiff had carried on. She had entirely failed to convince him that she ever had the £2OO or that it had ever reached the defendant. He desired to say that it was his duty to entirely exonerate the Bank and its official staff from any responsibility in the matter. It was a most improper claim that the plaintiff had made. Judgment would be given for de-