NOT THEFT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 97, 27 April 1933, Page 8

NOT THEFT.

"BORROWED" SALARY.

RAILWAY MAN'S DISMISSAL

COURT DISMISSES CHARGE.

"This man has been guilty of nothing more than committing an irregularity in borrowing money," said Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court this morning, when he dismissed a charge of theft against John Patrick Martin, a middle-aged man, who had been an officer of the Railways Department for 29 years. ■■■ j ' Martin, rorwhom Mr. E. J. Wright appeared, was charged with the theft of £11 12/3, the property of the New Zealand Government Railways, on March 17 last. , . He pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Charles F> Hughes,- senior audit inspector for the railways in the North Island, that while examining a system of accounts in the goods office at the Auckland railway station,, where Martin was employed, he discovered a shortage of £12 5/. Several amounts which had 1 'been paid to accused on March 17 were still Bhown as outstanding on March 20. He also found that several originals of, consignment notes were missing. Witness and the goods agent at Auckland later interviewed Martin, who admitted taking a sum of £9 17/9, on March 17 and putting in the till a slip known as a "W.G.S. 7," which was really an 1.0. U. for that sum. The sum represented accused's wages for two weeks. Other amounts which had not been accounted for on the day they were paid to accused were later paid in by him. Martin had no right to take money and pay it back again. One Sum Banked Twice. Cross-examined by Mr. Wright, witness admitted that the difference between £9 17/9 and £11 12/3 had not been taken, but was money which Martin had failed to collect. Witness also said that Martin had banked two sums twice. The sum of £1 14/6 represented money which he had failed to collect or had been short collected from consignees. , Douglas St. George, goods agent at Auckland, said that if the W.G.5.7 form had been placed in the till on March 17 it should have been paid in with the cash that night. In any case, such a form or 1.0. U. would not be accepted, as the Railways Department did not recognise it. Martin had no right to advance himself money. On previous occasions he had taken sums up to £10.

Detective Gillum produced a statement which Martin had made and signed. In this he said he had been 29 years in the service of the Railways Department, but was now unemployed, having been dismissed from the service. He said he always gave_ receipts for money collected. He admitted that on March 17 he borrowed £9 17/9 for his own private use. Breach of Regulations. Mr. Wright said Martin had certainly committed a breach of the railway regulations, but submitted that never at any time did Martin intend to commit theft. The 1.0. U. was in the till for everybody to see. It was also admitted that he had undercharged and had not collected amounts from.persons consigning goods. In two instances amounts had been banked twice. That was the result of bad bookkeeping and nothing more. Martin then gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement. He added that he had held executive positions for many of the 29 years he had been in the service, and had been a stationmaster for 12 years. Never before had anything been suggested against him. " Carelessness." The magistrate said that in order to establish a charge of theft it had to be shown that an accused person intended to permanently deprive the owner of his goods or money. Martin had been guilty of carelessness and a breach of the regulations, and nothing more. That he was careless was shown by his paying two accounts into the bank twice. "No doubt he has been very foolish, but I am convinced that he intended to pay the money back after leaving the 1.0. U. The charge will therefore be dismissed," said Mr. McKean.