"EDITED" EVIDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume 55, Issue 63, 14 March 1924, Page 9

"EDITED" EVIDENCE.

JUDGE REBUKES WITNESS. SECOND REPATRIATION TRMX. HODGINS FOUND NOT GUILTY. (By Telegraph.-Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday. The trial of another charge of fraud relatin" to the operations of the Wellington District Repatriation Board was heard at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Sim, the case having been removed from Wellington. Accused was Harry Patrick Hodgins, who formerly WHS 'employed as a clerk in the office of the accountant to the board. He was charged that, between June 22, 1020 and July 4. 1022, being a Government Ecrvant, he received from Arthur Jo=eph Ames various s.ums amounting t0~£26 for payment to the Government, and fraudulently converted the same to his own use, thereby committing theft. Mr Macassey, Crown Solicitor in Wellington "appeared for the Crown, and Mr. H. F OToarv (Wellington), for the accused. Mr. Macassey stated that in June, 19-->0 \mes applied to the board for a loan' of £50. with which to purchase furniture. This loan was granted in the following month. Ames lived in a "bach" at Thorndon with three other men, including Hodgins, who was crnploved in the hoard's office, and had charge of the ledger cards. These cards were supposed to show the repayments nrnde on all loans. Ames would state that he paid £2 a month to Hodgins at the "bach."' At the end of two years he had made the last payment, and an insurance policy upon the furniture, which had been taken out originally in the name of the Crown, was transferred, to him. In May, 1923, when the affairs of the board were being wound up, it wffs found that the account was in debit to the extent of £2(5. A claim was made upon Ames, who said that he had paid all that he owed. He saw Hodgins, who told him that he would " fix matters up." Hodgins paid £20 to Ames, who paid it into the public account at the post office. Variation in Evidence. Ames, in giving evidence, said that he was assistant to "the city valuer in Wellington, and was a returned soldier. It was true that he had stated in the Lower Court that he had paid Hodgins '■£2 3/4 a month. Since then he had talked the matter over with other men who lived in the "bach," and would say now that he paid 10/ a month. Each of the four men was to pay the same. Until he received the demand for £26 in 1923 he had received no notificatiou that he was in arrears. Mr. Macassey proceeded to crossexamine witness, whereupon Mr. O'Leary protested. Mr,. Macassey: The witness' evidence is different from his depositions in the Lower Court and I am entitled to treat him as hostile. The witness maintained that he had paid only 10/ a month. He said that he had bought the furniture for use in the "bach." Each of' the men in the "bach" was supposed to pay 10/ a month. Hodgins was to collect it and pay it monthly to the hoard. In further evidence Ames said that the total contributions of all the memibers of the "each" were f 2 a month. As far as witness knew each member paid his 10/. Cross-examined, witness said that the furniture purchased with the loan was put in the "bach" and used there. The accused had paid his quota to the repayment. When there were only three men in the "bach"' each paid a third of the £2 a month. Rebuked by the Judge. His Honor: Have you no regard for the truth at all? >"ou are a pretty officer to occupy a responsible position in the Wellington City Council when you come here and give evidence in this way. Before the magistrate, his Honor continued, witness had said that the repayments were £2 3/4 a month- In the present proceedings he said they were 10/, and then in answer to Mr. O'Leary he said the repayments were a third of £2. "What were the repayments? Will you kindly speak the truth regardless of any attempt to protect Hodgins?" asked his Honor. Witness said that the repayments were a third of £2 when there were three in the "bach" and 10/ when, there were four there. To Mr. O'Leary witness said that he paid £12 10/ on account of the loan. Accused was "bach" treasurer, and it was in that capacity that witness handed Hodgins the monthly instalment. When witness »poke to accused about the £2C accused replied that the repayments had got into arrears. The members of the "bach" did not square up every month. There was £13 owing to Hodgins when he left. Verdict of "Not Guilty." In summing up the judge commented adversely upon the evidence of Ames. The story told by him in the Lowei Court, his Honor said, differed from that which he had told in the present ease both under examination and cross examination. It was obvious that his story had been "edited" by Hodgins hetween the Lower Court and the pre sent proceedings. The jury returned, after a retiremenl of 20 minutes, with a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged His Honor instructed that the witness iAmes be not paid witness' expenses. Mr. Macassey: I have already giver that instruction to the registrar, youi Honor.