DISHONEST POSTMASTER

Otago Witness, Issue 4031, 16 June 1931, Page 5

DISHONEST POSTMASTER

CONVICTED OF THEFT FRANK STATEMENT BY ACCUSED. AUCKLAND, June 11. Gambling and a desire to improve his financial position were the reasons given by William Richard Holmes, aged 4G. ex-postmaster at Mount Eden, in the Police Court to-day when he admitted the theft of £6OO, the property of tinGovernment, during the year ended April. 1931. The accused was charged with stealing the money in two sums of £5O me of £2O, and one of £4BO. Richard Edgar Williams, audit inspector for the Post and Telegraph Department, said he went to the Mount Eden Post Office on May 25 in company with the senior inspector. The accused ap peared very disturbed on being introduced to the senior inspector. At the request of witness the accused brought the cash to the counter and witness proceeded to count it. The accused then went to a table some’little distance away, and the senior inspector drew witness’s attention to the accused's actions. Witness said they went to the table where the accused was and saw that he had inserted th figure “ 8 ” in the remittance column of the cash book. The figure had been in sorted in the hundreds column in a remittance sent to the chief postmaster on May 23. The remittance actually for warded on that day was £260 instead of £S6O as the entry showed. Witness said he made a complete audit of the books and records of Mount Eden Post Office and a deficiency of £6OO was found in the official cash held by the accused.

Detective Sneddon said that when interviewed the accused was very frank and admitted that he had misappropriated £6OO from the cash of the Mount Eden Post Office. He later made a voluntary statement and gave every possible assistance in clearing up the matter. The accused, in giving evidence, said he was deeply repentant for what he had done. He said the defalcations arose partly through gambling and partly through a desire to improve his financial position. He had lost his employment and feared that he would also lose about £3OO which he had paid towards his annuation.The accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed in the sum of £looo—self £5OO and two sureties of £250 each.