"I SUPPOSE I TRUSTED HIM TOO MUCH"

NZ Truth, Issue 1214, 7 March 1929, Page 3

"I SUPPOSE I TRUSTED HIM TOO MUCH"

Candid Admissions Of Muddle And Loose Control In County Council's Finances

ASSISTANT CLERK FOUND NOT GUILTY OF THEFT

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

Keating Tries To Show How Costeiloe Became Involved In Trial By Jury

An unusual story of muddle and mismanagement of the affairs* of the Grey County Council, was unfolded m the Supreme Court m Greymouth a few days ago when Denis Costeiloe, assistant clerk m the county office, was charged with being responsible for shortages m the funds amounting to £648.

THE accused, who was represented by Mr. C. S. Thomas, of Christchurch, waa acquitted by a jury of twelve, but during the trial it was ascertained from the Crown witnesses i that the clerical work in the office had reached a chaotic state of mismanagement; that approved business principles were entirely foreign to the county staff, and that supervision by the county clerk, Michael Keating, had been extremely lax. ; The Grown adopted the unusual procedure of grouping all the charges in three indictments. ' The total shortage amounted to £648, but the first indictment contained eight charges, involving £275. When the jury found Costelloe not guilty on the first indictment, : the other two were not proceeded with. Costelloe, the accused, is a wellknown figure in Greymouth, having been employed in the Grey County Council office for fifteen years, arid his appearance before the court to answer the charges attracted a capacity audience in the small courthouse. Commencing duties as an office boy, Costelloe had risen to the position of assistant county clerk, and was in charge of the outer office where Suspicion Aroused moneys owing to the county are paid in, and disbursements owing by the county are iiaid put. Costelloe received all nioneV paid in, and it was his duty to enter it into the ca,sh books and attend to the banking. ' . Suspicion was primarily aroused when William Ross McCullougn, the Government auditor, commenced the annual audit of the county books in August of last year. A deficiency of £72 was found in the cash -box, and a detailed inspection of the books revealed a shortage of over £600, which had disappeared from the county's funds from April 13 to July 2 of last year. The Crown case, conducted by Mr. F. A. Kitchingham, alleged that the accused was responsible for the shortage, and that, without entering them in the books, he banked seven cheques which had been paid into the office and had abstracted the equivalent of the cheques from the cash-box. ■" McCullough, the auditor, after finding the deficiency in the dash, • made further investigations, and then discovered the shortages as set out in the indictments. . The banking slips covering the

period of the alleged defalcations were m the handwriting of the accused, and the cheques wex'e m his 'custody, and had been banked, but they were not entered m the books. .'.-... McCullough stated at the outset of his cross-examination by Mr. Thomas that he had written to. Keating, the county clerk and treasurer, some time before this, notifying him to bank more regularly. He had found- slackness m the county methods, and it was Keating' s responsibility to see that the system was improved. ' Referring to the slackness m system, Mr. Thomas produced the banking slips for the period, showing that from April to August the county had banked its money only eight times, and over one period — from July 2 to August B— -no money, had been banked at all. | 'JjiinniiitHiiiiiiiiiiMniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiuniiii

Mr. Thomas: Do you call that good supervision? .'■'.-- McCulloch: No, I do not. Was this a well-run offlce? — No, the clerical, part of it has not; been. Evidence was also given by Michael I Keating, the county clerk and treasurer. He stated that Costeiloe was receiving £5/10/- a week, and from £50 to £60 a year m commission on the collection of heavy traffic fees. N At the conclusion, of his evidence-in-chief he was subjected to a rigorous oross-examination by Mr. Thomas, ywfio endeavored to djs- ' close that a very loose system of • office routine was permitted by. Keating, and that 'the cause of the shortage was entirely muddle.

Keating stated that during any time Costeiloe was absent from the offlce, h*e (Keating) handled the money, but" it, was all handed to Costeiloe on his return.^ Counsel: But you received a fair bit of money and Issued a number of receipts m his absence? Keating: Yes. -And any moneys to be paid put m his absence .would be paid by you? — Yes. ' ' Do you think you exercised proper supervision over this place?— Yes. Did you take proper steps ito keep the offlce work from getting m a muddle?— l suppose I trusted him too much. Keating admitted that the banking had been done- at too irregular intervals, and he agreed that it should have been done' more frequently.

Counsel: Did you not receive a letter from the auditor Instructing you to bank more: often? Keating: Yes. Well, why didn't you do it?— lt wasn't always convenient. * Under further cross-examina-tion, Keating agreed that he had been lax m his supervision, of the • " office, and said he was aware that • Costeiloe had to hold slips m his ' till for some months before a cheque was drawn to meet them. . l Mr. Thomas: That is another avenue for muddle and mistake, <and my client, has to pay for your bad system. In a further denunciation of the office routine, Mr. Thomas elicited, from the witness that the cash-boolj. was only written up once a month. . " Keating said this method was satisfactory so far as he was concerned.

He never checked the cash m hand when he was. making. up his cash-book. VY'Mv. Thomas:; Well, Costelloey could have gone''' oti year "after year taking cash and- you- would never have found OUt? . ...... Keating: It would have had to come to. an end. "Yes, when he had taken all the money the council had," 'retorted counsel, to the accompaniment of ribald laughter m the, body of the court. "If you are not . suspicious you are not looking for trouble," added Keating. , He said that on March 31 last year he discovered defalcations, but up till August of that year he had not reported it to anyone. He also found' a shortage two years before. Mr. Thomas : And how was it refunded? - Keating: Costeiloe raised the money and paid it m. Did you not pay something m also? — No, but I advanced him about £60. I received £25 a year for. commission on license fees, and as he 'had been given extra work I handed the money over to him. Mr. Thomas: So you found him short two years ago, and yet you never sub-

He never checked the cash in hand when he was. making. up his cash-book. iVIr. 'Thomas:; Well, Costelloe v could have gone' -"oft year "after year taking cash and- you- would never have found OUt? . .... .-. ...... . Keating: It would have had to come to. an end. "Yes, when he had taken all the money the council had," 'retorted counsel, to the accompaniment of ribald laughter in the /body of the court. ; "If you are not . suspicious you are not looking for trouble," added Keating. , , . " ; He said that on March 31 last year he discovered defalcations, but up till August of that year he -had not reported it to anyone. He also found' a shortage two years before. Mr. Thomas: And how was it refunded? ■' -■■:'• ■■■■■:..-•. Keating: Costelioe raised the money and paid it in. Did you not pay something in also? — No, but I advanced him about £60. I received £25 a year for. commission on license fees, and as he 'had been given extra work I handed the money over to him. Mr. Thomas: So you found him short two years ago, and yet you never subCause of Trouble sequeritly bothered to check up because you had no suspicions? Keating: That Is so. We all give a man a chance. Was not the reason that there was such a muddle that you both paid in? —Oh, no. , ■ *""" Keating said he knew there was some trouble with his predecessor, but he (Keating) carried on his system. Giving Costelloe time to pay, he said, was the whole cause of the trouble. When the shortage was first discovered, Costelloe was interviewed by Detective Murch. /Costelloe did.-.- not deny that there was a deficiency of £ 648, but he refused to make any statement or answer any questions. ' No evidence was called for the defence, and Mr. Thomas, in a brief summary, of the case, suggested to' the jury that it was simply a question of whether Co'stelloe stole the money from the box or whether he lost it from the bOX. ■"'.-. ' , ' ■-.■; -:\ . . . ' ! The jury, following an absence of three-quarters of an hour, found Costelloe not guilty and he was discharged.