"Truth "Spars Police To Action

NZ Truth, Issue 1196, 1 November 1928, Page 4

"Truth " Spars Police To Action

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.)

THE police have at last been stirred into activity m connection with the tragic death of Elsie Walker. On Saturday last the scene of her murder was visited by the Auckland police chief s-rf or the first time since the crime 'and one month after its. commission!

What conclusions they reached are not known, but "N.Z. Truth" has every reason for saying" that there have been ructions m the police headquarters since the startling- disclosures given to the public through the columns of this paper. fit is indeed a startling commentary on this particular case that this dilatory interest has been shown by the authorities, whose plain duty it was to have looked into the mysterious circumstances of the crime that were self-evident to tne most casual beholder from the outset.

', "Truth" has been the only paper, which, from the initial stages, ridiculed the opinion put forward — we believe, m all seriousness— by. those who are popularly supposed to be specialists m the detection of crime.

Before the riddle of Elsie Walker's death is finally solved — if ever it is — "Truth" will have some very searching 1 questions to put to the Commissioner of Police. Obviously, someone has blundered— and blundered badly. Who it is, the public is entitled to know. (For latest disclosures, see page 7.)

g iitiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiimiiiiii

iliiuMiimiiiiciiiiiuiiiuiiuiiiiiiuimuiiiimuiiiiuiiimm'iuimmiimniimiimiiiMiiiiniiiiiinimiim MllMltintllMllllllllllultllUUlUlHlllllllltllllllUlllllllltllllllllltltllllllllltltltlUllllHllllUllllllllUllllllllH

is 1 concerned, rests with-the Canterbury Law 1 Society. They are m the position, if. they so desire, to make application to have Inder struck off the roll of legal practitioners. The charges against Inder were as follow: That on May 15 he received £5 as trust money from one Williamson which was to be paid to one Craven, and failed to bank the sum into a separate trust account; That on May 5 he failed to bank the sum of £3 paid as -trust money by one Greer; That on May 2 he failed to bank a sum of £7/15/- given as trust money to be paid to one Virtue. The charges against McCarthy were: That' he failed to : bank sums of £1/10/-, £2/15/- and £5. The Canterbury Law Society was represented by Lawyer M. J. Gressoh, who stated that the. case had been brought under section 47 of the Law Practitioners' Act which provided that all moneys received from any person to be held exclusively for such person should be paid into _ ■ ' ■ "< ' a trust account, and further, that any barrister and solicitor who knowingly acted m contraven- __ tion of- this pro- \ vision was liable to a fine not exceeding £100. • As the result .of a series of offences, the Law Society,- acting on information received, put an accountant m to McCarthy and ln.d.er's with the firm's consent. The accountant found that money which should have been paid into the trust account was' merely acknowledged m the trust account receiptbook and had not been banked. The entry was made correctly m the books of. the firm, but the money was actually used for other purposes. From April 1 till August 11 this year, a sum of £118/19/- was received and was not banked m the trust account. Inder did not admit that all of it should have been paid m, as sonic £60 was due to the firm for costs which had not been rendered, to clients. The audit ordered by the Law Society disclosed a deficiency of £240 m the trust account and this amount was made good by McCai-thy. Lawyer Gressoh informed the court that it was very apparent the books had been kept under the control of Inder, who admitted that he knew the money should, hav.e been, paid into the trust account. The first charge against Inder concerning the sum of £5 was Avithdrawn and he^ pleaded guilty to the other two charges. Lawyer "W. J. HTunter, who appeared for. .Inder, stated . that the defendant had been taken into partnership with McCarthy some four years ago and had undertaken the financial administration of the : business.. . : . .

Trust Deficiency

The deficiency of £240, which witness had found m the trust account, had been more than covered by McCarthy, who had paid a cheque into the bank. ■ Cross-examined by Lawyer Upham, who appeare.dfor McCarthy, Quartermain said he was satisfied that McCarthy had nothing'to do with the book-keeping. The cash-book had been written up by a clerk and no receipts were m McCarthy's handwriting. Lawyer Upham contended that the Law Society knew McCarthy had no knowledge of the shortages and suggested that the case against him had been brought more to allow him to clear himself than m the hope of succeeding with the prosecution. The society knew that McCarthy was the loser by the incident. Giving- evidence on his own behalf, McCarthy stated that he had nothing to do with the books, which were kept by a clerk under the supervision of .Inder, who instructed the clerk as to ___ the banking. . „■=. Defendant said lie carried on the common iaw poi*tion of the business and ______ did very little conveyancing. He had paid m the shortage as soon as he had become aware of the amount, following the investigation by the auditor. ' Under cross-examination, McCarthy, stated that each year the firm was able to have its books audited and get its certificate. He sometimes operated on the trust account, but only for matters with which he was dealing personally m the business. He had no reason to suspect that the money was not' being paid m until the investigation was ordered by. the Law Society. , As soon as lie became acquainted with the position, he took what steps he could by dissolving the partnership and paying m sufficient money to coyer the shortage. Lawyer Gresson intimated that after hearing the evidence he could not apply the word- '"knowingly," as mentioned m the Act, to McCarthy, and with this the magistrate concurred. McCarthy was ..exonerated from any complicity m the affair and the information was- dismissed, by Magistrate Mosley, who added that he was satisfied McCarthy's actions had been honest throughout the whole of his long legal career. Inder was fined £20, with costs. The magistrate remarked that the penalty, while light, would remind young solicitors that the law must be complied with. . One month was avowed m which to pay thefine,, •■ . •■ ... - • •