CHARGES OF THEFT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 274, 13 November 1908, Page 4

CHARGES OF THEFT.

VCCI'rJEI) PLFAIJS GUIILTiT. In tin- .Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, bclore Air J-J. S. Fitztteruert, W..M., Jamts .UeArtliur, till recently secretary lo Ihe Nun- Plymouth Sash a-:id Door factory and Timber Compunv.. was charged wilti the theft of several specific .sums ol' money from the com-] puny, such moneys having been .n----truslcd to his keeping as the secretary to the concern. Tile dates and amounts alleged uere as follows: 17th August, I 1908, £ll !)s 9d: 30tn April, 1908 ■C2B Us 10d: 4th August, 1<J(I8, £|4 8s id: 4tli August, 1!)(KJ, £lO : Ist May, 11)08, Jia 4s 9d; 3rd May, 1007, £SO. ilr J. Quilliam acted for the prosecution. The accused was not represented by counsel. Mr. Quilliam, in his opening, said that. this was a series of informations laid' by the informant, Newton King, as chairman of directors of the Saslii and Door Company, against the accused for defalcations, the total of these specified amounts being £lB5 17s lid. This sum, nowever, did not represent the total deficiencies discovered, which were ov.'r £IOO, but the informants were willing to treat these as sufficient. According to information of the chairman of directors, accused entered the service of the company in August, 1904, and was dismissed in August, 1008. Aftuliis dismissal gross irregularities were discovered. The only case with which i he would deal fully in the evidence was the first, involving £ll »s 9d, and this was typical of the rest. In this case an amount had been paid by Pattio, and the accused had faled to account for it. Pattio produced a receipt for the money in accused's handwriting and the fact of his guilt was beyond all doubt. He called Newton King, chairman of directors of the New Plymouth Sash and Door I Factory and Timber Company, Limited, who said the accused entered the service of the company as secretary in August, 1004, at a salary of £3OO per annum. He was dismissed from the company's service in August last. At the time of his dismissal it was mot known that any irregularities existed in the accounts. The S.lf.: Did you have the accounts audited? Air. King: Yes, but the accounts for the year had not been audited at the time of his dismissal. Continuing, he was at a meeting of directors in September lust, and the accused was present. He told accused of the discovery of defalcations, and asked for an explanation. He did not deny that there were defalcations on his pa'rt. Witness said they would have to give notice to I ' the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Company, from whom the company held a I Udellty bond, lie said, "For God's sake, don't do that." This fidelity bond Avas Hi the sum of £3OO, and covered only defalcations within a year prior to the discovery. Immediately after that meeting, outside the company's office, he saw the accused again. Accused had. before the directors, made statements 'purporting to be explanations of tiie losses, and at the interview outside the office he referred to those explanations, saying he knew it was cowardly but iie had been telling them lies. Witness asked if it wasn't better to make a clean breast of the business at once. He said there were no more, as far as lie knew. Some little time after this he had another interview with accused in witness's own office, and some more defalcations were discovered. Asked him if there were any more. At first accused said he believed there were no more, but just as lie was leaving the office, he said he believed there was another in the first week in August, involving £SO paid by a man named Biggs. He recognised the letter (produced) received for McArthur on sth October. (The letter was not read • aloud). Up to the present the total amount of defalcations discovered was upwards of £4OO. To the Bench: All the statements were made voluntarily by the accused without any threat or promise of leniency.

Leslie I'iitlic, commission a"cnt -New Plymouth, gave evidence that lie had received an account from the Rash Hid Door Company for £ll fl s Sd for foods supplied. He paid the account by heque, and the accused gave him a eceipt (produced) for the money, bearng his signature. Hugh Baily, accountant, residing ir \c\v Plymouth, one of the auditors o ■lie Sash and Door Company, said li md made an examination of' the book >f the company. There was an entr n the cash book of the .CII <Js !)d ro :eivcd from Mr. Pattie, ami the anioun iad not been accounted for. lie hai nado an examination with a view o finding whether an amount for €2B 14 10d had been paid by Mr Coleman. Sfoo if tor accused left the company's en ploy, witness showed him one of Col man's books (produced), and asked V if lie had received £2B 14s lOd from. Coleman, as it was not shown in the books. He said he had no knowledge ot having received it, but that if Coleman said he had, he would not sav thai. Coleman was not right. Dealing with the sums of £74 8s 7d and £lO he said that on August 4th last a cheque was drawn by the company for £I2o Is ad. That cheque was'paid back into the company's account. 1( was drawn by the accused for sundries a lull list of which was shown in the cash-book. This £74 8s 7d and the .110 were both included in the amount Hie £,4 8s 7d purported to be paid t< D. Hamilton. As a matter of fact Ha* iltons claim for £74 Ss 7d had b<>ei previously paid on Hay oth last, anc the payment was supported by a vouch er. which was produced. As far as h< could lind out all the rest of the itemi embodied in the amount Jiad been pro nerly paid. The examination of thi books showed that the amount of £7< (is 7d was paid back into the company'; account to make up deficiencies in tin accused's cash, that was, a deflciwci existing at the time that the cheqjj was drawn. With regard to the £1(1 the same remarks applied. On Noyem ner 3rd lie had a conversation wit] accused with regard to these amountAsked him in the presence of Mr. Mor peth. representative of the Ocean M cident Insurance Company, if lie hai anything to say, and be said "No.'' Re spectmg the item of £.•> 4s (M, Sic wit ness produced the company's cash book Hie entries for May 3rd' last on foli. 57 were fictitious. The cash book dis closed that the accused commenced hi peculations in June, 190.). within a yea of file dale of his entering the com pany's service, and this had been goin on systematically up to August 3r! last. The accused was entitled to re tain £35 as a sort of imprest account Die shortage in the pctiv cash wa £22(i 7s 4d over the whole'period. Wit regard to the sum of £.lO mcntioiec Witness said that, prior to any discov cry of defalcations, in auditing the a< count he told the secretary Unit h would not pass .Biggs' account as corrce unless if were made out in detail an signed as correct by Biggs. Accuse told him repeatedly that iic- would hay it d»ne, but failed to do it, and witnes did it himself. A cheque for £.50 ha been drawn in favor of Uiggs on th 2nd August. 11)07. The amount ha. been debited to Higgs' account, bu there was no voucher [or it. It wa an open cheque, payable to a "number or bearer. The cheque was cashed a the bank, and was not paid to lii™; On 3rd November he was in the com Pjinys olhce with accused. Messr, Morpeth (Ocean Accident), <_'. T Mill, his fellow-auditor, and jlr. JO. Know ball, manager of the company, w.'r there, the latter for only part of th lime. "Witness asked defendant waa bad become of (bis cheque lor £JO, an he replied that it had not been paid t Biggs, but that the cheque or the ire ceeds of it bad been !■,.,,„i,| („ t i„. ~,„,: pan.v on, account of Pikett, a customot the company, who had a bill fo £2OO. then due to the company. Asked him if he would lie surprised' to hear that that bill was paid by fiketfs own cheque for £2OO. lie said be couldn't explain it, but adhered to his statement that he had paid the amount lo Pikett or on his own account. Witness thri produced the hank deposit slip sliowin.. that Pikett and Wilkie's single cheque iad been paid into (he bank to the Tc.lil, of the Sash and Door Company, I'ikctt bad been dead for about a year, \s a result of his investigations of the "inks he was not prepared to say tin nil extent of the defalcations, but In iad found deliciencies amountin" t. £407.

David Hamilton, contractor for the fash and Door Co. at the Kginont. road sawmill, said tl ul | m , mi, j|., v j. ls( hj (,

received L' 74 Ss 7d from the conipanv, 1111.1 signed the voucher produced, lie. .I'd not receive XU Ss 7.1 on Aiiaust ■llh or at a:iv lime (hereabouts.

Hubert Ciiieiiinn, builder, of N'eu Plyinmilh. said he had extensive dealings with (he company, lie owned several cot luges which he let to tenants. TTe collected the rents, and after deducting the expenses lie paid the rest to the credit of his account with the eompan/ On April 28th he paid .-C2S 14s lfld foj

the defendant, to be credited to him in the usual way. He loft the book at I the company's ofliee for two days at -MeArtlmr's request. About a fortnight ago he met McArthur 071 the Esplanade, and asked liini about tiro matter. | lie said he had no recollection of the payment, hut he was prepared to take witness' word, as he had never found [ him wrong.

This was all the evidence, the accused asking no questions. fn reply to the usual formal question, MeArthur said lie had nothing to say, except that he regretted it very much, and would endeavor to live it down. He pleaded "guilty/' and was committed to the. Supreme Court for sentence.