COURT NEWS

Opotiki News, Volume II, Issue 241, 2 October 1939, Page 2

COURT NEWS

ALLECED OF * £360 POSTMISTRESS CHARGED -'.i \ PLEA OF GUILTY COAIAIJTTIi.iI) FOR TRIAL At the Opotiki Police Court this morning before Messrs. G. S. Moody and CL Pipe, J.P’s., Nora Wallington was charged that at Raukokore im or about 21st .April, 1930, and on divers dates between 21st. Ap/il and 22nd. September, 1939, being a servant in the employ -of the New Zealand Government, she stole sums of money totalling £3OO 2s, the property of the New Zealand Government. Detective-Sergeant R. 11. Waters.m, of Gisborne, conducted pro .; xjmg < on behalf of the police. In evidence, Weeti Kata'i, stated that as tlie result of an accident he received £3OO from' the Native Department as compensation" the money being paid ia £o notes. Lite ntom v was then deposited in his savings bank account, the deposit slip being dated 3rd. July. Later; he withdrew £l7O atintervals.

Richard H. Waterson. Detective Sergeant, stationed at Gisborne, stated that on 28th. September, 1939, as the result of a complaint made by the Chief Postmaster, Gisborne, lie interviewed accused at Raiikokore regarding'a shortage in the accounts. He showed her a letter (produced), and also .showed! her a main balance, tho 80 registration levy coupons and the 18 deposit slips (all produced), which included the deposit slip already produced by Weeti Ivatai, also the three withdrawal slips and the payment warrants. The accused made a statement which he -typed down .and read over t ( ;; her. * She said it was true and signed it. The explanation was produced in which accused stilted that lour years ago the office was burnt down leaving her without money. She was afraid to report- the matter, to the Department. She became muddled with her work and found the deficiency, becoming larger. When the- ’ native’ deposited tlicr money he told her he would! not- he withdrawing it for some time and accused thought she could use the money to hide the deficiency. Registration coupons and deposit slips were also withheld. After making further enquiries witness arrested accused at Raukokore on the presentcharge. Accused pleaded guilty and was committed for trial at Auckland. CH ARAB OF FRAUD CASE. DISMISSED At the Opotiki Police. Court on Friday, before Messrs. J. D. Clark and C. Pipe, Reginald Keith Bain of Auckland, was charged that on 26th'September at Opotiki, lie dishonestly obtained from R. J. Young the sum of £2 IDs in money, by falsely representing'that he had received authority from R. J. Young’s father for a sum to join a certain union for completing taxation returns, thereby committing the ft. Defendant, who elected to be dealt with summarily, was represented by Mr. A. F. Bunkall. He pleaded not guilty. Sergeant J. Lsbister, who conducted proceedings on behalf of the police stated that defendant claimed to be the salesman for a certain organisation and! it was not intended to infer that the organisation was not quite an honourable one. For the complete service the' charge was £2 IDs. Defendant came to Opotiki on 26th inst and interviewed Mr. W. li. -Young who was driving a team of horses some distance away from the farm. Mr. Young believed defendant to he a Government official and he was busy with a cow at the time. Defendant went to Mr. Young’s home where he saw the son who was told that his father wished to become a member of the organisation. The son paid £2 10s. Later when the father returned he was told what had happened. The son was quite definite that he would net have parted with the money if he had not been told his lather had authorised it. "William Robert Young in evidence said he was working a team of horse's on 2bth. -September when defendant saw him. lie did not say who he was but just asked a number of questions at first giving witness the impression that lie was a Government- official on taxation business. Witness gave defendant to understand that- he was hot going to have anything to do with him and

he had no intention of paying the £2 10s. When, the son mentioned the matter to witness lie went to see the police. - Questioned by llr. Bunkall witness said that in the course oi : conversation defendant showed him books of record which were for the purpose of keeping 'tax returns. The factory also:.sold the same books. Witness also memtioned to defendant that his son. kept his books. Bonn Id Jagios Young stated that he was employed l on his father’s farm and was busy at the time when defendant called. lJain told witness that he had been, to see witness’ fathey and gave; witness - to understand that, he was to join oil his father’s behalf. Bain hud witness’ lather’s name in the receipt book and lie understood from that that he had bis father’s authority. Witness would nlgt have given him the money if he had not thought his father had given authority. Witness told b,is father as soon as lie got home and witness went to town and saw defendant who promised to call the next, day but did not do so. d ?- The Bench: You say you saw. your father’s name in the receipt book? , Witness replied that'that* was so, adding that it. was in the book when defendant went to see him. Cross-examined by Mr., V Bunkall, witness admitted that, defendant did not -say directly that the father had authorised the collection of the money.

Defendant-was with witness for about an hour and explained the working ot the books and. the benefits. Mr. Bunkall: If defendant had represented to you that aft was arranged why was it necessary to explain everything to you? , Witness replied that defendant stated that lie came from his father and wanted to explain it to him. Sergeant Isbister to* witness: After the man came from your father he stayed with you an. hour' even alter your father‘asked him not to visit you that* day ? Witness: Yes. Mr. Bunkall submitted that there was no case to* answer. Jt was just a case of selling books. There was hardly need for him to call evidence. The bench considered there was a case to answer. Bain stated that he represented an Auckland firm and was travelling tho district to arrange membership and supply books of record! and instruct on their use. , The £2 10s was for the complete service. Witness saw Mr. Young and had other members sign up. Witness met Mr. Young and explained the position fully. Mr. Young said that his son handled the books and suggested he see him whenever convenient. He asked him not to call at milking time. Later witness called on the son-who said tlx< onus rested upon him and Mr. /Young joined up and was asked: to return the books at the end of the financial year. ' The son later called on witness and

witness said he would see his father towards the end of the week. That was oh Wednesday. He said his father was worried about the loss of a cow valued at £3O. Witness was prepared to refund) any money paid. The statement that he represented that the father had sent him was not correct. Sergeant Isbister; You heard Mr. Young (sour.) say he was busy and wanted to get away from you? ' Defendant replied that that was incorrect.

Sergeant Isbister: You have been in trouble before? Defendant admitted previous convictions. Mr. Bunkall submitted that it was irregular to deal with previous convictions at that stage. Sergeant Isbister contended that defendant) had! elected to go into the witness box and could be questioned concerning previous convictions. Defendant denied that he had told Mr. .Young (junr.) that the father told him lie wished -to join the association. The bench stated that it could not understand what all the iuss was about. Accused was a lot to blame for the trouble by not seeing Mr. Young immediately. Accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Defendant offered to refund the money within 48 hours and the case was dismissed.