AUDIT SWOOP

NZ Truth, Issue 1187, 30 August 1928, Page 8

AUDIT SWOOP

+ rWas Careless, But Not Dishonest (From "N.Z. Truth's" Gisborne Rep.) If ever there was an instance of harsh officialdom it was concerned m the charge against a young Gisborne girl, Tui Hill, who was arraigned on charges of theft as a Government servant. AT the end of a lengthy trial, Magis- ** trate Levvey said there Avas not the slightest possibility of any jury convicting on such evidence, ancl the information AA'OUld be dismissed. Miss Hill is freed from a charge AA-hich must seriously affect the Avhole of her career, but it will, unfortunately, take more than the mere statement of a magistrate to remove the stigma which officialdom sought to place upon her, and to unravel the Aveb Avith which idle gossip sought to entangle her long before the case came before the court. In the Avords of the magistrate the young woman was guilty of carelessness, but there was not the slightest evidence of anything more serious. TAvelve months ago she entered thc service of the Public Health Department as a clerk m the office of Stl. Helens Hospital, Gisborne, it being her duty to bank what cash Avas received from patients. Hello—What's This? After she had been transferred, thc_ eagle eyes of the Audit Department discovered a shortage of £8, and m what LaAvyer Jack Wauchop described as their customary manner of assuming that mistakes Avere purposely made, they concluded that the money had been stolen. Matron Clark, AA'ho is m charge of the hospital, explained that she received all moneys from patients herself, and issued receipts, afterwards giving any money to be banked to Miss Hill. it was first found that 18/- Avas short, and this sum she made good. Subsequently, a further shortage of £8 Avas discoA'ered, and this AA'as the basis of the major charge. An inquiry was held, and .Miss Hill explained m regard to the 18/-, that she found tho shortage and thinking the 18/- must have been paid into the bank she altered the receipt accordingly. Matron Clark said her erstAvhile employee Avas Aery careless and overconfident, but witness had always found her perfectly honest, and had not suspected her of taking the money. Prior to the official inquiry, Miss Hill had not been giA'en an opportunity of explaining the matter, and her parents had not been informed. At the inquiry she insisted that she had never touched a penny and that all returns had been posted. She had been asked if she could repay the money, and said she supposed she could,' but did not see why she should, as she had not had it. Charles Beggs, inspecting accountant for the department, told lioav he had got on the track of the shortages. He explained minutely.his examination of numerous books and vouchers, and then told of. the intervieAV Avith Miss Hill. The latter had frankly admitted altering a slip from £3 to £3 18s., the obvious reason being to make it balance with the books. She had been equally frank m her admission that there was a shortage of £8, but she AA'as at a loss to account for it. To LaAvyer Wauchop, Bcggs admitted that the girl had confessed that tho mistake may have been due to he:carelessness. Frank Admissions LaAvyer Wauchop: And you suggested that she should, make good the Co- j ficiency?—l asked her if she was m a position to if she had. to. And she said: "I suppose I could get the money if I had to, but I do not setAvhy I should, because if I received the money I banked it?"— She may have added something like that. Lawyer Wauchop: The matron's complaint against the girl was that she was careless?— Yes. Was it possible for the money to have gone astray through carelessness?— Yes. Similar lengthy and technical, evidence avus given by Cement Roy EdAvards, Government audit inspector, and Detective McLeod deposed to a statement made by Miss Hill m Avhich she maintained that she was unable to account for the shortage, unless it was due to carelessness. The statement added that a sum of £1 9s. 2d. Avhich was due to her from the department had been deducted from her because of the shortage. » In asking for the dismissal of the charges, Lawyer Wauchop referred to the fact that the girl had been set to work with only one day's experience. There was absolutely no evidence against her, but there was evidence of countless chances for errors to be made when money was handled as it had been ih this case. * The greatest mistake'was that of the Government Avhich set the girl to.work AVithout explaining the duties to he;', and it Avas incredible that the court should be asked to ruin her whole career on the flimsy evidence which had been presented. The magistrate said the _case was peculiar, but Avhile there Avas evidence of carelessness, to send her for. trial would be uncalled for and unwarranted.