THE ASHBURION BUILDING SOCIETY CASE.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10756, 8 September 1900, Page 5

THE ASHBURION BUILDING SOCIETY CASE.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

At the Ashburton Court yesterday, before Messrs D: Williamson; Geo. Coleman, D. Thomas, and W. H. Rule, J's.P., Edward Stephens was brought up on remand, charged with having, while in the employ of the Ashburton Permanent Building and Investment Society as manager and secretary, at divers times since the year 1893 and up to August Bth, 1900, stolen various large sums of money belonging to tho Society, amounting to £4441 13s 7d. Mr C. W. Purnell appeared for the Building Society, Mr Marriott Watson for the accused. Mr Watson raised an objection to the form in which the information was laid, and:asked that specific sums and specific dates should be mentioned. Mr Purnell said this objection had been raked at the last sitting of the Court, and over-ruled by the Stipendiary Magistrate. The Bench decided to go on with the case as it was laid. THE HISTORY OF THE CASE. Mr Purnell, in opening the case, said accused had been manager of the Society for about- eleven years, and during that "time he had had the fidl conUdeuce of the directors and their clients, and they were astonished when the defalcations were disclosed, and at the admissions of accused, ! who had during the past seven years been j guilty of a roost systematic system of defal- ■ cation. The moneys taken li'ad been mostly j sums which had been placed on deposit and j subscriptions which had been paid in ad- j vance, together with several sums which had j been placed in the savings bank department j of the Society. The business of the So- ]

ciety had not required a large staff in the office, and as private books had been kept in connection with the sums which had been appropriated, tbe auditors had not been able to detect anything irregular, not having anything before'them but the regular books in which no record had been made of the moneys which had been taken. A circumstance had recently arisen which made one of the auditory Mr Albert Roberta, suspect that there was something wrong, and on his making enquiries, and subsequently speaking to Stephens, the latter had admitted defalcations to the amount named in the indictment. Stephens had kept a private set of deposit receipt books, and also private letter books. He had since assisted the directors in tracing the defalcations and in preparing a statement. Stephens professed to have snsnt the' money which he had taken, but could not tell what he had done with it. , THE AD_ffSSIONS OF ACCUSED. Dr. J. "E. Trevor, Chairman of Directors !of tha Ashburton Permanent Building and Investment Society, said accused had been manager since March, 1889. As manager accused had full charge of the Society's books and papers, and it was part of his duty to receive all moneys paid into the Society and to make payments on account of the Society. Accused had to countersign all cheques, a_d no cheque would have been paid without his signature. Accused had to sign all receipts given to depositors. The office staff had consisted of accused- and an assistant clerk. On Friday, August 24th, Mr Albert •Boberts. one of the auditors, made a communication to him about the affairs of the ! Society, and later on witness saw accused ia • of ? ce - A de i> oss t receipt for £150 10s od in favour of Mr Herring was lying on the table, and on asking accused to "explain what it meant, he after some hesitation said ha had appropriated .the money, or words to that effect. Accused then admitted

to naving taken a further sum of £200, anc after some further hesitation said there wer< other cases. Witness told accused he wai suspended, that a meeting of the directors would ba called, and if he wished to make a statement he could do ro before thorn Accused came to him just before the direcremarked— g ' Urn a statement and supSw » r * jt is very much worse than y° x v? & i h f statei »enfc contained■■■'* M tS tf -v d ? fioienci «s. and that he shoulc plead guilty to any charge which might b< xnade against him. Accused was called be fore a meeting of the directors on the following Monday, and asked if he wero in b position to make anr restitution, and h< replied, that he had nothing but a few mining shares. Accused said he did no! know what he had done with the money, but be had not got any of it deft. HOW THE DEFALCATIONS WERE DISCOVERED. Albert Roberts, accountant, deposed that A 3B - 0 ? 6 of the audi tora to the Society, and food been so for over five years Accused had full charge of th© Society's books and moneys. On August 9th last? witness wrote to Mr E. Herring, of Alford Forest, '*%£ x ™ enoe »»a dleposit made in trust with the Society, and received a letter back from him in accused's handwriting, enclosing two new deposit receipts, together with a cheque which had been sent for interest due. The cheque was one of accused's own; accused having stated in his letter that his directors were absent, andl that he was own cheque. The deposit receipt forms iretmrne- by Mr Herring had not be«n taken from the Society's book. One receipt had been given out of the Society's books in favour of EKza Myra McGregor dated-6th September, 1898, for £100, the receipt being,endorsed by accused. After making this discovery, witness saw accused in the Society's board-room, and showed _im Mr Herring's (receipt, os well as th« onei" drawn in favour of Mrs McGregor. Neither of the amounts for which, the receipts had been given, had been entered in the Society's books, and witness remarked, after soma conversation with accused. "Stephens, you may as well own up." Ha aeked him where be pot Herring's receipt from, and accused replied—"Out oi a duplicate book." Witness then said. "What do you mean?" whereupon accused went into the stroug-room and produced a duplicate deposit receipt book, containing fac similes of th_ Society's deposit receipt' forms. A number of butts were missine, and accused said he had burnt thes*. Witness told accused a cheque, (on-e of the Society's) for £150 10s 6d had been cashed over the counter at the Bank of New South Wales, this being tho amount of Mr Herring's trust deposit. He asked accusfd if the £150.10----6 d appeared on the credit side in the Society's books, and accused -.plied, "No; I have taken it "

Witness here explained the usual form which was gone through when a customer deposited money.

Continuing, he said the chemte for £150 10s 6d had) been drawn on January 3rd, 1900, and cashed on the Bth of the same month, and debited to the Society. It was such a cheque as would be given if a depositor was withdrawing money. Tho Society's books showed that the £150 10s od had been withdrawn, and the account closed, and according to the books nothing was owing ;to Mr Herring's trust deposit. The en- j I tries in the books were in accused's handwriting. Dr. Trevor's evidence agreed with what took place when accused was questioned with reference to iibe £150 10s 6d. Accused was called into tbe board-room before the directors on the Monday afternoon, and handed a statement {prod'ueed) to witness to peruse. Accused said he had spent the moneys taken," and in reply to the chairman of directors, stated Ire had more dluplicata books, and iplaoad. onei .on the table. Since then witness had several conversations with accused, and had #one through the list of defalcations with him. Witness had made a strict investigation into the whole matter, and found that th© items specified in the statement had been stolen from the Society.

THE EXTENT OF THE DEFALCATIONS.

The following is the statement mentioned, which shows that the sums mentioned had been misappropriated: —F. J U( Jd £300. Jennie Judd £14. D. N. Inwood £100, Mrs E. J. Owen £85, do £40, E. Lancaster £240 3s Bd, J. G. Jones £192 19a 4d do £140. W: M. Honeywell £194 17s, w' M Bruce £150, J. T. 'Manjrin £100. Miss E* Cowper £300, Rerrine's Trust £150 10s 6d" G. McLean £200. J. Hawkins £415, T Eve £304, P. Stewart £500. do £104 15s T ■ Eve £15, Mrs M. ONeil £200: total" £4246 5s 6d. Sundries: T. Stevens £40 do' £51 16s 7d, J. J. Lewis £1918s 6d, subscriptions paid ia advance £56, R. Terris £28 grand total £4441 I3_ 7_. To this state' Djent was attached a declaration that accused believed this, to, bo the, total annj*t„ of his. de_cenci<?a.

Witness was examined with reference to each item, and deposed that though the moneys had been paid into the Society and the various depositors held accused's receipts, none of the amounts had been entered injihe books of the Society. Mr Watson crose-examined witness in order to show that one of the deposit receipts was not m order according to the rules of the Society, ar.d that it had been passed by the auditors, v ; EVIDENCE OF VARIOUS DEPOSITORS. Edward Herring, residing at Alford station, gave evidence that a considerable time ago he deposited a sum of money. £119 16s Bd, m trust for Miss Mary Woodruff He took the trust over from Mr Geo. Jameson, and arranged the transfer with Mr Stephens. Tho deposit was allowed to accumulate with interest year after year In December last he arranged with accused by letter to continue the deposit. About the 3rd January last he received a letter from tX r?l u 'S ether w >th a deposit receipt for £150 10s 6d. Ha had not withdrawn any part of the deposit, which was still owing Peter Stewart, farmer, Wakanui, said'he was a trustee for a Mr Gluts. Tavior. In 1891 he deposited for Mr Tavior "with the Society a sum of £300, to "be placed at interest. He paid the money to Mr Stephens, who gave him a deposit receipt. £200 was received up to 21st July, 1898, paying the money to Mr Stephens, and receiving a deposit receipt for £500, this including two amounts which had been paid in on deposit. It had been renewed twice since then. The £500 was still owing. Th© interest was drawn, but at other times allowed to accumulate. In July last the accumulated interest amounted to £102 os od, which was redenosited. accuser! giv-

ing him a receipt. This amount was also still owing. Miss Elizabeth Cowp?r. Timvald, said «» a «« Au S ust 2nd, 1898. she deposited £300 with the Society, paving the money

to Mr Stephens, and receiving a deposit receipt. It was removed in 1899 and again ' last month, Mr Stephens giving her a renewal receipt. The interest had been withdrawn from time to time. The £300 was still owtmg. Thomas Eve, Mount Somers, said that about six or seven years ago he deposited money with the Society, paving it to accused. The interest had be"en allowed to j accumulate, renewing the deposit from year to year, always seeing accused. He" arranged for the deposit to be renewed with the interest added. Mr Stephens told him it amounted to £804. Later on accused sent him a letter, together with a deposit receipt. In July last witness deposited a further sum of £13. The moneys were stiH owing to hdm. James Hawkins, labourer, livino- at Longbeach, said that on 18th May, 1895, ho deposited £100 with the Society, giving the money to accused. Since then, the next year, lis paid in a further £240. The deposits had been renewed from year to year, the interest being allowed' to" accumulate, witness always seeing accused himself. When ho arranged with accused by letter on June Ist last, he arranged' for a renewal of the deposit, receiving a receipt for a total of £415, which was still owing to him. Frederick Judd, farmer, living at Tinwald, said that in 1897 he deposited £300 with the Society, paying the money to accused. It had been renewed from time to time. The £300, together with the interest, was still due, Mrs Jennie Judd, wife of last witness, deposed to having deposited £14 with the Society last year, accused giving her a de* * posit receipt. The £14 was still owing. John Thomas Mangin, station manager, Methven, deposed that about the end cf February last he wrote to the manager of the Society with reference to depositing some money, and on March 26th he sent

£100, receiving a letter and a deposit receipt signed by E. Stephens. The amount waa sent by cheque, which, has since been paid. The amount was still owing to him. William M. Brace, farmer, Tinwald, deposed to having deposited in January last £150 with the Society. He saw accused, and arranged- that it should; be deposited from thelst February. He gave accused a cheque for £150, which cheque had been j paid. Accused, gave him a deposit receipt. Witness was ahio the custodian of a deposit; of Gilbert McLean's for £200, dated 3rd April, 1900. . Elizabeth G. Owen, of deposed to depositing with the Society in September, 1898, the sum of £50. In September, 1899, witness deposited a further sum of £33, which with £2 interest made £85 in all. The amount was still owing to her. On 3rd November, 1899, a further sum of £40, was deposited for nine months, which was also still owing. Wn_ Honeywell, labourer, Maronan, deposed to having deposited various sums amounting to £74 15s. In addition to these sums he had in the Society £194 17s. Receipts were sent him by post from accused. The £19417s was still owing to him. Thomas Stevens, shepherd, living at Long-; beach, deposed to haying lodged moneys in the savings bank department of the Building Society. The sum of £51 16a 7d was still owing to him. Did not owe the Society £40 on a loan, and had never-bor-rowed such a sum from the Society. Constable E. Eds deposed to having arrested accused on August .28th. He had nothing to say. Accused, who had nothing to say, was then committed! to take his trial at the Supreme Court, at the next sitting, on September 18th, at Timaru. Bail was allowed, accused in £1000, and; two sureties of £500 each. Bail was forthcoming, the bondsmen being Mr Hy. Davis and Mr J. Sealyv