STOLE TRUST FUNDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 127, 1 June 1931, Page 3

STOLE TRUST FUNDS.

SOLICITOR AND CLERK. DEFALCATIONS OVER £ 12,000. EACH BLAMES THE OTHER. (By Telegraph,—Own Correspondent.) NEW PLYMOUTH, Sunday. Harold John Moule Thomson, solicitor, of Inglewood, and Samuel Robert Darlow, his clerk, were found guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday on 57 counts involving the theft of trust moneys totalling about £8000. They were remanded for sentence. Ernest Roy Coutts, secretary of the Ingelwood Bacon Company, said he had worked in Thomson's office with Darlow as fellow clerk and had no reason not to trust him. It was a frequent habit for Thomson to sign bank trust account cheques before going away. When Thomson was on drinking bouts he spent money freely. On one occasion he went to Wanganui on a golfing trip which cost him £70 or £SO. Darlow was not extravagant. "Robbed Peter to Pay Paul." Clinton Henry Wynyard, public accountant, Xew Plymouth, stated that on February 6, under authority of the Taranaki District Law Society, he w T cnt to Inglewood and took over from Darlow books and receipt butts and books relating to trust account and office accounts. Witness said the trust account now stood in credit of £59 14/6, and the amount to be met in connection with the charges in the indictment was between £7000 and £8000. His Honor: Does that represent the whole of defalcations you discovered '! Witness: Xo. I estimate the amount at between £12,000 and £14,000. "Can't Account For It." Thomson, giving evidence, said his trust account books were kept by Darlow and he handled the dealings in connection with the account. He (Thomson) had had nothing to do with the trust account following his return from the war. Darlow ran the business in his absence. Accused went over the charges in detail, denying knowledge of deficiencies in the trust account. His Honor: What was your net income for the past few years?— That is hard to say. I know 1 had to pay income tax each year. His Honor: What did they assess you at?— Something like £.500 over the £300 exemption. Counsel: Can you tell me how you account for the deficiency of £12,000?— I don't admit it as £12,000. Counsel: Well, the amount involved in these charges?— Well, there has been interest to pay, but it is hard to say and I can't account for the money disappearing. I do deny that I took the money. Counsel: Did you know the trust account was in this state? —Xo. Darlow also gave evidence, to the effect that the trust account transactions were under the direction of Thomson, who was aware of what was going on. At various times he had tried to pull Thomson up and had even pleaded with him. He did not leave Thomson when he became aware of the state of affairs because he (Darlow) had to consider his own position and that of his dependants, and also he was assured by Thomson that the money would be forthcoming from him. On that promise he had always relied

j His Honor's Summing Up. In summing up, his Honor said that each of the accused had endeavoured to I throw practically the whole of the i responsibility on to the other. The jury had to consider if in his position in a i two-man oflice it did not point to the I fact that Thomson had a knowledge of | the trust account and the defalcations j taking place. As for Darlow he. was no fool. The evklonee had shown that he had been a man of personality and character, occupying prominent positions. The question was whether he had done any act for the purpose of aiding Thomson in any of the offences, continued the Judge. Darlow very frankly had admitted that lie did. Darlow's only defence was that he was acting at the instructions of Thomson, J and that was no defence at all. AnyI thing short of duress or force was no j excuse. There might be a difference, I however, in dealing with the punish- - j ment. I His Honor recommended the jury not j | to convict on three counts concerning j a personal loan to Thomson. I The jury, after a retirement of half an hour, returned a verdict of guilty on I all counts, except the three mentioned ! by the Judge.