SOLICITOR GOES TO GAOL FOR TWO YEARS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 132, 25 August 1927, Page 15

SOLICITOR GOES TO GAOL FOR TWO YEARS

THEFT OF TRUST MONEY DEFALCATIONS OF DEAD PARTNER Press Association. GISBORNE, To-day. Sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour was passed by Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court this morning on John Noden Bullard, a former Gisborne solicitor, who pleaded guilty to 12 charges of theft by misappropriation. His total defalcations amounted to £2,488. Mr. M. Myers, K.C., who appeared for the prisoner, said that accused on his return from the war came to Gisborne as a managing clerk, and then, having passed his examinations, formed a partnership with a solicitor named Mann, which continued until the latter’s death. No one liked to besmirch the character of one not here to defend himself, said counsel, but in this case it was unavoidable and should be done. Shortly after the death of his partner, the accused found that the business was wrong. Mann had misappropriated the funds of the flrip. His Honour would see from the cheques put in that Mann had been drawing substantially on trust funds. Accused thought that the amount for “which he was civilly liable was .£2,000, and to meet that, he adopted a. course which was not right. Hoping to meet these claims he drew cheques on a trust accouna to meet claims which continued to be passed on him. He obtained assistance from relatives to the extent of £6,500, and had paid £8,500, but even that did not satisfy the aggregate of the amounts, for some of which the accused was not himself liable. Having paid the £8,500, he found that there was still a substantial sum, about £15,000, owing, so, having no further hope of putting things right, he went himself to the police. The accused would not have started on the course but fer the reasonable hope that he would be able to pay off the defalcations of his late partner. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Nolan, said that it was clear beyond doubt that large sums of money had been taken by the accused’s late partner, but there were, in addition, large sums received by Bullard that were not accounted for. He had a statement showing a deficiency of £18,500, but this was not complete, as the auditor had been unable to secure certain documents. The actual shortage in the trust funds could not be ascertained. The case was the most —d one he had had to deal with since ,;e had been on the Bench, said his Honour. It had been put to the Court of Appeal that, apart from the defalcations of the prisoner’s late partner, no moneys had been misappropriated, but the police report and Mr. Nolan’s statement threw light on the matter, and he did not think that the Court of Appeal had been fully acquainted with the facta of the case, nor did it know of the prisoner's gambling. In view of the fact that the prisoner admitted that he had gambled while he knew the position he was in, and had continued stealing money, probation was out of the question. The sentence accordingly was imprisonment with hard labour for two years. *