CHARGED WITH THEET.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5161, 5 August 1927, Page 2

CHARGED WITH THEET.

PUBLIC WORKS EX-STOREMAN.

PROCEEDINGS AT LOCAL COURT

An ex-storeman of the Public Works Department named William Ne-alie (Mr E. A. Porritt), who had been employed at the Puke depot at Paeroa, appeared at the local Police Court yesterday, before Messrs P. EBrena.n and G. P. Lamb, j’s.P., charged with nine indictments of theft and one .of falsifying a document. The theft* totalling about £lB 13s, were committed over a period extending from May, 1926, to May of this year. Senior-Sergeant D. A. Maclean prosecuted.

In evidence- John Dean, carter, Paeroa, stated that on May 23 he purchased 10 yards of sand, for which he paid cash fo accused and received a receipt (produced). Later he bought more sand from accused and again paid him £1 and received a. receipt. The receipts had been destroyed since accused left the department, but before he was arrested. He had had no conversation with accused since the happening. To Mr Porritt witness said that in eleven months he had paid accused for cases eleven timefe. He ‘had destroyed every receipt and had nothing to show for the payments. It was his habit to destroy receipts in all his business- dealings. He denied that the whole of his evidence, wa.s an assumption of an average. The 33s paid accused was based on the assumption that he received one dozen cases each time he bought them.

To Sergt. Maclean witness said that the receipts for the cases had been destroyed because when accused left the job it was thought that they would not be wanted. Witness explained that he did not destroy all business receipts, but only those P er ‘ taining to ,the purchase of benzine cases. j William W. Scott, contractor, Paeroa, deposed to not knowing accused, but he had had certain dealings with the department and had purchased sand on March 23 last, the amount paid being £4 16s, for which he received a receipt. He bought a lot of sand, and paid for it ea.ch month over a period of about eight months. He remembered paying an account, through his carter, amounting to £3 8s in May last, and a receipt was obtained from accused. The receipt was on a rough piece of paper, probably off an ordinary scribbling pad, and bore two Id stamps.

To Mr Porritt witness said that the £4 16s was for sand purchased prior to March 23. He remembered paying £4 10s on June 11, which represented sand purchased in April and May. He could not account for an odd amount of £3 Bs, which had been paid between the two periods. He gave the money himself to the- carrier. The receipt for £3 8s had beehi mislaid, but he was usually very careful with all his receipts, but had necessarily to leave some of the clerical work to his son.

To Sergt. Maclean witness said that his carrier used to bring a rough statement from the Puke each time sand or silt was purchased, the amounts due being paid at the end of every month either by cheque or cash. William Page* carter, Paeroa, em-, ployed by the las-t witness, said that he knew accused and had had dealings with him on many occasions. Witness said that he used to obtain the sand from the pit at the Puke, and after loading up he .would call at accused’s, office and advise- him of the quantity taken. At the end of the month he would get a statement from accused for the quantity of sand taken. He did not remember the date on which he had paid the £4 16s, but a receipt was produced for the ameunt. He could not swear that he had paid an- amount of £3 8s on any particular date. He had a recollection of receiving a receipt for that amount on an ordinary piece of paper; but could pot be certain. To Mr Porritt witness said that the receipt for £4 10s was for a sum paid by him on June 11. He was not prepared to say that the £4 10s was for sand purchased prior to the previous payment being made.

J. A. Wilkinson, clerk in charge of the, local Public Works Department, gave evidence as to the method adopted in working the store and the use of the quadruplicate store invoice book. The first copy was given to the purchaser, fire second was forwarded to the office with the cash, the- third to the district storekeeper, a nd the fourth was kept by the storekeeper as a record. The duplicate copies of a number of invoices were compared with the original sheets, and were found to be not the same. Money collected by accused in many cases had not been accounted for, while the amounts in several instances had been altered in the duplicate copy. In most eases the money was handed to a storekeeper’s assistant to take to the office.

Sergt. Maclean gave evidence- of arresting accused, and of the confession made by him. When arrested, accused •said that he did not know how the accounts stood, and frankly admitted the defalcation he was charged with. This evidence was corroborated by Constable McClinchy.

A plea of guilty to all but two of the Charges was entered by accused.

The. Bench dismissed the two charges, which they said 'had not been proved, and committed accused to the Supreme' Court for sentence. Bail was allowed accused, himself in one sum of £lOO and one surety of £l5O.

Senior-Sergeant Maclean strongly objected to bail being allowed, and contended that the Court had no right to grant bail once accused had confessed his guilt and was awaiting sentence of the Supreme Court, and also owing to the fact that the Supreme Court was now in session.