FRAUD NOT PROVED

Taranaki Daily News, 10 February 1921, Page 8

FRAUD NOT PROVED

A HAWERA CASE. THE ACCUSED DISCHARGED. The hearing of t'he charge against George Hinch, of wrongful conversion of moneys, totalling £92 10s, received by him on behalf of the Sargent Electrical company at Hawera, was continued in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday. Mr. C. H. Weston conducted the prosecution and Hinch was represented by Mr. O’Dea.

Ernest H. S. Piper, who joined Sargent on October 18, as book-keeper, said that up till December 23, when he left Sargent’s, Hinch 'had never paid in any money.

R. S. Sage, Deputy Official Assignee, at Hawera, said Sargent filed on December 11, and witness immediately proceeded with the collection of moneys, forwarding acebunts' to everyone shown in the ledger as a debtor. He received replies from Reynolds, Little and Holmes, and Cross, showing that certain payments 'had been made. These did not appear in Sargent’s books, and had not been accounted for by Hinch. In the course of settling affairs he approached Hinch asking if there were any wages due to him, and Hinch replied that he had had a settling up with Sargent and there was £1 owing to Sargent. As the result of his findings he placed the matter in the hands of the police.

IV. H. Andrews, constable stationed at Hawera, said that on January 17 he arrested the accused, witness read the warrant over and Hinch made a voluntary statement. He stated be was holding the £59 received from Reynolds, till the job was completed satisfactory before handing it over to Sargent. In regard to other moneys, Hinch said he used some as commission and expenses, as h e said he was entitled to do. Other amounts were sums he had borrowed personally and intended to repay. For the defence Mr. O’Dea contended it was a pity that the D.O.A. had not approached Hinch before instituting proceedings, because if he had done so the whole thing could have been explained satisfactorily. It seemed that the only thing Hinch had done wrong was in not bringing in the money and then getting it paid back again. His Honor: Is not that enough. The law says he has to account for it. The real point is whether he has acted fraudulently.

The accused, George Hinch, said he entered Sargent’s employ in January 1920. He was employed on wages for a month and then on commission. The first three contracts he got no deposits, and Sargent then instructed him always to get a deposit, and press for an amount at least sufficient to pay commission. He began by handing over all the cheques received to- Sargent. There were times when Sargent was behind with commissions, and in one case when witness brought in a cheque, Sargent endorsed it and immediately handed it back as part payment of amounts owing to witness. In Reynolds’ case he was holding the money till the job was completed, as the understanding was that the plant first installed was to be replaced by another or the deposit refunded.

Cross examined by Mr. Weston, accussed said he realised it was 'his duty to account to Sargent for moneys received. The money received from Holmes was Sargent’s, and he led Holmes to believe that it would be deducted off the account. He admitted having been convicted of failing to account for moneys at Invercargill in 1918 He was now.in a position to pay back the money concerned in this case, but it was not all by his own efforts, as his brother was helping him. Mr. O’Dea in addressing the jury said he trusted they would not allow the evidence of the -previous trouble to weigh with them in making a decision. On that occasion he made restitution and was given employment with the successors of the firm concerned in the case. He urged that the case be judged on its merits, and pointed out that Hinch had been quite frank in the matter. He had signed receipts for the money and made no attempts to cover up his tracks. Summing up His Honor pointed out to the jury that there were five different sums of money concerned and each charge would have to be considered separately. In this cafe there was no question as to whether the money had been received by accused, and the whole controversy would turn on the question whether he had fraudulently omitted to account for them. In regard to Reynolds’ case, it was a question whether such an arrangement would be made by a man giving a cheque to an employee of a firm to hold till the job was finished. Further when he received the account ho replied that he had paid. After fifty minutes’ retirement the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty on each count