NOT GUILTY.
CHARGE AGAINST GUSTAFSON. ALLEGED THEFT OF FUNDS. ACCUSED IN THE WITNESS BOX. For the greater part of another day the Supreme Court at New Plymouth was engaged in the hearing of the charges of theft of moneys against William A. Gustafson. The amount involved was £'247, and the alleged misappropriation occurred during the accused’s term as adjutant in the Second West Coast Mounted Rifles. Accused was found not guilty and discharged.
A further period in the history of some of the cheques was related by the next witnesses called for the Crown. Airs. Agnes K. Finch, bookkeeper at the Rutland Hotel, Wanganui, identified cheques produced as having passed through the hotel, as they ibore the stamp. She remembered cashing one cheque for. Gustafson, the amount being £5O.
Mrs. Grace I. Hookey, second bookkeeper at the Rutland, recollected seeing Gustafson filling in a cheque at the office window, but, under cross-examin-ation, she could not say whether it might not have “been Gustafson’s own cheque. Jessie H. Wales, now of Wellington, formerly in charge of the office at the Rutland Hotel, "Wanganui, deposed that certain cheques produced in court were paid into the bank by her. She knew Gustafson through his having booked at the hotel, but did not know who he was till he told her he "was Captain Gustafson. On one occasion he had endorsed a cheque at her request, but said it was not necessary.
Annie Hook, daughter of the licensee of the Commercial Hotel at Hawera, said Gustafson had boarded at the hotel for some time. She had cashed cheques for him.
E. B. Bohen, teller at the Bank of Australasia, Hawera, and William W. Wrightson, accountant, gave evidence as to i the account of the Mounted Rifles Regiment. The teller said he had cashed cheques fdr Gustafson. The latter had also paid in two sums amounting to £l2. Detective Culloty, who arrested Gustafson at Palmerston on December 13, said accused made no reply to the charge. He asked to be recommended to a solicitor, and Mr. Ongley was secured. In the presence of his solicitor accused said he would plead guilty to the charge. This concluded the case for the Crown. THE DEFENCE. Accused’s evidence was to the effect that prior to taking the position of adjutant to the Second West Coast Mounted Rifles he was relieving officer in the Otago district, and prior to that chief infantry instructor at Trentham. He arrived in Hawera about the middle of April, and his office was a small room in the show buildings at Hawera. A number of people had access to the office. When he took over he found the books in a chaotic condition, and the maintenance account had not been audited for three years. He also took over the maintenance grant, which really, in accordance with the practice followed in other regiments, should nave been kept by the officer commanding. When his financial year was up he forwarded his books to the audit inspector in New Plymouth, and they were returned as correct. This was in June.
When witness took over control the Strength of the regiment was 200, but during his term it had increased more than double. The area of the district was a wide one. and the work necessitated his visiting nearly all the centres The custom in regard to cheques was for him to send a statement with the cheques, which were forwarded to the commanding officer (Colonel Munro) for signature. They were then sent back to witness to pay them out. In July he attended a camp at Wanganui, and there were a number of payments to make on account of expenses incurfed in connection with the camp. He did not think there were receipts in the office for any of these, but the accounts must have been paid. When in Wanganui he received a cheque for £5O for payment to Buckley for the Wanganui Band. It was a Sunday, and witness tried to get in touch with Buckley? but did not find him. The cheque was not paid over. The next day was a bank holiday, and witness cashed the cheque at the hotv . He did not find Buckley, and returned to IHa wera with the money. He wrote to . Buckley, saying he would be down in I a few days. Opportuni y did not present itself, however, and in the meantime a i iun'ber of accounts came in. Witness decided to pay these. When next in Wanganui he told Munro i.:at the position of the funds would not warrant paying the band £5O. He also informed Buckley of this, and promised that they might be able to make a small gr H at the end of the year. A second £">o cheque was made up for the purpose of securing gymnasium equipment. Witness, however, had to pay some expenses, for cartage, he thought, and -hed the cheque instead of payin" the money out of his own pocket. When he got back to Hawera he received a circular stating that certain equipment was to be procured through the ordnance department in the future. He, therefore, spent the rest of the cheque in paying small accounts. At that time the department might have been indebted to him for .a few pounds, or he might have ow; 1 them something:
he was not sure. Before he left Hawera io go into the instructional camp at Trentham in November he knew the account was nearly overdrawn, and told the bank manager to let him know so that he could pay in the difference. INTERVIEWS AT PALMERSTON. Gustafson detailed the subsequent events leading up to his being called to headquarters at Palmerston North to explain the position of the maintenance account. He told Colonel White that he could not explain then, but would do so if thev allowed himzto go back to Hawera. ' He told them that there must foe i receipts for other accounts which had been paid. He absolutely contradicted the evidence of Colonel White and Captain Goss concerning the interview at Palmerston, when witness was alleged to have admitted that he had misappropriated the moneys. Neither had he made anv admission to the detective or his solicitor (Mr. Ongley). When he was allowed to investigate he pointed out that the inspecting officers had not produced receipts for various amounts which must, have been paid, these ineluding typist £B, stamps over £lO. and other trading accounts. The a ae expenditure for six months m the previous year was £206. He estimated l.is expenditure for the six months was £2BO. although the number of the regiment was double. He did ■»s h«l”«d the Defence
Department more than £5, at the most, but he had never had an oppor t unity of making up his petty cash. He had a fund with his solicitor, and was quite, prepared to make up any deficiency. At any rate it would be small: it was not a case of the regiment financing him, but rather of his financing the regiment. He remarked that while he was in the camp at Trentham a new order came out about expenditure, ard it was a topic of conversation among all the officers. They wanted to get back home to expend their balance before the new order came in. He told them oper\ly that the department would not get much from him, as he had only a small credit. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. The Crown Prosecutor cross-examined accused at some length. Among other things Gustafson was asked to explain why, when he was at the Rutland in July, he booked a room for the following September. He said he did not recollect the occasion, but admitted being at the races in September in company with Colonel Melville. Regarding monetary matters he said: “Never have I paid one hotel bill or one account of my own with regimental cheques.” The Crown Prosecutor pointed, out the coincidence that on three occasions cheques were cashed at the hotel on the same day as he paid his bill.
His Honor: Have you got anything approximating an account of the missing money?—No. Have you an account for, say a tenth part of it? —Yes. Asked to produce a statement, Gustafson said he nad left most of the enquiries to his solicitor. The Crown Prosecutor asked if accused suggested that the department had not given him facilities for investigation. ‘’No,” he replied, “but 1 think they acted rather hastily and are trying to go through with it.”
Questioned by His Honor regarding witness’ statements to the effect that he had said it would foe a disgrace to his family, Gustafson said he had probably said something to this effect on account of the awkward predicament in which they had placed him.
In his address on behalf of the defence, Mr. O’Dea suggested that the case was one of muddlement rather than of criminality, namely, that Gustafson was a muddler rather than a criminal. He was not a thief, because he omitted to get Receipts. The question might be asked why Gustafson had not fossicked up receipts, but counsel pointed out that there were probably a large number of small items which it was hardly possible to get hold of. The department produced receipts for sums amounting to £6O, but was it possible for Gustafson to have run the regiment on £6O? The outstanding accounts were only £29 ISs 7d and some of these were disputed, so the money expended by Gustafson must have gone in the payment of regimental expenses. He thought the department had not adopted a fair attitude to Gustafson in the enquiries. JUDGE SUMS UP. Summing up, His Honor pointed out to the jury that the real charge arising out of the lengthy list of indictments was whether accused’s acts in failing to account for the money were dishonest. Was accused’s conduct dishonest. or was it capable of being explained consistent with honest dealing’ It had been contended that the affair was due to muddlement rather than dishonesty, and also that some of the troubles occurred through the fact that he was working in a small rooip, but it had to be remembered that Gustafson never suggested any of those things to the officers with whom he was brought in contact. He did not rely on it in his very serious interviews with the officers of the regiment and it was brought up in G( art apparently for the first
Giving accused the maximum of allowance for muddling, was it reasonable that in a few months the small account of £243 got into such a, st’te that it could not be accounted for, and to no substantial degree could accused, by any effort of memory, or by the efforts of ’his solicitors recall any other payment? His Honor was quite sur/» that if the jury could find that the lotions were consistent with honest dealing they would do so: but could thev? He recalled Colonel \ hite’s intervit w with Gustafson and other officers and pointed out that it had not been suggested that these witnesses were biassed against accused or had any reason to make statements against him. Touching on Gustafson’s evidence, His Honor remarked that Gustafson in the box was very voluble and had a ready answer for everything. Whether tho'e answers were sound or not was for the jury to see. They must consider whether the interview with Colonel White was not making a clean breast of it. admitting that he had received these various sums and cashed, them at hotels in itself an improper practice—and made away with the money. Of course Gustafson denied this, but His Honor was sure everybody would be glad if the jury
could find something else, consistent with honesty, that could be attributed to that interview. Regarding the responsibility of the commanding officer, it might have been that Colonel Munro was somewhat slipshod in his methods, but he certainly trusted accused. Touching on the evidence His 'onor confessed that he failed to make much of the statement given by accused. I. he probability of all the money having gone without an explanation being available was for the jury to consider. If there was an honest doubt that accused was rot guilty then of course they could
not convict. After a two hours’ retirement th. jury brought in a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19220217.2.56
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1922, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,070NOT GUILTY. Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1922, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.