CASE DISMISSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 272, 29 August 1933, Page 3

CASE DISMISSED

THE DEFENCE NOT CALLED. COUNTY ENGINEER IN COURT. (Special to the “ Guardian.”) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. "Without calling on the defence, Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., yesterday dismissed fifteen charges of theft against Edward Butt, former engineer-clerk to the Selwyn County Council. The hearing was expected to extend over two days, the prosecution having twenty-two witnesses, while forty-five were to he called for the defence. An assortment of goods, horse-feeders, a hydraulic pump, shovels, sack mattresses and other gear were alleged to have been stolen from the council. “I am certainly far from satisfied on the evidence so far that anything in the nature of a theft was committed very far from satisfied,’' said the Magistrate, after evidence had been given by three Selwyn County Councillors. “In fact, the evidence tends the other way. It may be that defendant is amenable t° a civil action for the iecovery of certain articles I say, may be. The evidence has been unsatisfactory. It is hard to imagine members of the County Council, engaged in - a settlement, having a list available at the time, and which would certainly have settled the matter one way or the other, not making sure what was on the list.

“However," added the Magistrate, “that is their look-out and as far as the case has gone there is certainly no case to call on accused to answer; and if the chief-detective as he assures me, has only evidence of a corroborative nature, then it cannot be strengthened in any way.” The Magistrate made an order for the return of the goods to the owner.

“I presume that by the owner you mean Butt," said Chief-Detective Dunlop. “Yes,” said the Magistrate, “the defendant."

Mi- Thomas appeared for Butt, who pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Chairman’s Evidence.

"William Gilmour, chairman of the County Council, said that Butt’s salary was £350 a year, and he supplied his own car. For that an allowance of £l5O a year was made. Six months after he started there was a suggestion that the council should take over the car and that was done in June, 193(k The allowance was then reduced to ,£75, a year to cover the cost of repairs. The resolution concerning Butt’s dismissal was passed on March 6, but no written notice was sent to him then. On March 13 witness received a letter from Butt mentioning four items which he said belonged to him and were used in connection with council work. Butt also said that some tools in use by the council had been lent by him and witness, in reply, told him to take the equivalent or the council would pay for it. There were also two other items. The decision to dispense with Butt’s services was not wholly because of economy, as mentioned in the resolution oi the council. The council had been dissatisfied with the behaviour of Butt six months before his dismissal. Butt carried out work in his own way and not the way the eounpi.l decided on. Witness agreed that Butt should take some goods to replace some of his own lent to the council, but Butt had exceeded that authority. Witness said that at the final meeting, when Butt was present, he produced two lists, one a list of. property from the council yard and the other a list of tools lent, continued witness. Butt said the two lists balanced. “If we had those lists,” . said Mr Thomas, “we would not be troubled with this case another minute.” To Mr Thomas: Butt was not altogether satisfactory. He wanted to be clerk, engineer, council and chairman. Mr Thomas: Perhaps he found it necessary. Witness: Perhaps so. “Exaggerated Importance." Mr Thomas: Is it not a fact that the whole matter has received an exaggerated importance and perfectly simple matters have assumed an air oi suspicion ? Witness: That is not the case. Mr Thomas: On probabilities you are trying to brand tiiis man a thief. Witness stated that the car was transferred from Butt to the council to secure the rebate on the petrol. The Magistrate: it looks awfully bad. for a county council to lend itself to this sort of thing. It is conspiring to defraud the revenue. Mr Thomas, to witness: And you can’t tell us what were in the lists you mentioned before? Witness: No. But you went out to tlie yard and say that this man, this thief, if you like, had taken 13 or 14 tierods, whereas you had said he should take six ? Yes.

And found a lot of posts and stringers missing?—Wo knew there was a lot of timber missing.

And you knew lie said he had taken certain tools?—No, he didn’t say. He told you he was talcing certain tools from the place?—Yes. Well, it has taken a long time to get that. The suggestion was made several times by witness that the . story of the car should be finished. He said that Butt had been driving private passengers in the council’s car.

On Relief Work. Mr Thomas: Mr Gilmour, do you know the meaning of the word “fairness”? You know, don’t you, that this man was using the car on relief work and that it was pointed out that the rebate was not paid on a ear that was being used on that work? Witness said it was a ’bus driver Who had reported Butt. Ho could not say if the passengers carried were relief workers. Returning to the question of tools, witness said it was a funny thing that so many tools walked off. Mr Thomas: I will call men who will say they saw things brought on the job by Butt, which you are charging him with stealing, and those are men

who will probably lose their jobs when they get back, through a vindictive council.

Witness repeated that tools had disappeared.

Thomas Pearson, chairman of the Works Committee of the Selwyn County Council, was the next witness.

The Magistrate (alter witness had given evidence): You say you are a public man and have to protect the ratepayers. You agreed to pay Butt £250 for the car, coming to the conclusion that ‘that was all you owed. -You are accustomed to transacting business?—Yes.

If you did not have that knowledge you acquired it?—Yes. Well, supposing Butt got away with £55 worth of stuff, did you not think it you duty, before you paid him the £250, to say to him: “You owe us £55,” and pay him £l9s?—We took our solicitor’s advice and acted on that. But you are a shrewd business man. You ought to know that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, no matter what your solicitor says.' You ought not, as business men, to have had a settlement before you knew where you were.

Robert H. Johnston, another councillor, said lie did not read the list presented by Butt to the council. / To Mr Thomas: He did not think any of the councillors read the list. - Mr Mosley: It seems a funny thing to me .that no one did. Witness said he understood Butt was to take £lO worth of goods, but he did not look at the list to check it.

At this stage the Magistrate, the Chief-Detective and Mr Thomas retired to consider the case, and it was on their return that the Magistrate made his announcement.