FORGERY AND THEFT.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20905, 12 July 1933, Page 6

FORGERY AND THEFT.

SOLICITOR PLEADS GUILTY. H. R. SAMPSON COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. A Christchurch solicitor, Huddart Richard Sampson, aged. 30, pleaded guilty to charges of theft and forgery in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M. Sampson was charged with stealing £BSO on May 19, 1933, the property of Alice Annie Womersley; that on May IP, 1932, and on dates between April 10. 1931. and June 7. 1933, having received £1345 5s 2d from Alice Annie Womersley and others with a direction that the money should be applied to a certain purpose he fraudulently applied the money to another purpose and committed theft; that on or about May 31. 1933, he forged a cheque d-awn by the Prudential Assurance Co., Ltd.. on May 26, 1933. in favour, of Alice Annie Womersley for the sum of £126 Is lid on the Commercial. Bank of Australia, Ltd., Wellington, by falsely endorsing what purported! to be the signature of Alice Annie Womersley; that on November 29, 1932, he forged an assignment of a life policv No. 1852582 in the Prudential, Assurance Co.. Ltd., of London, held by Alice Annie Womersley. The first charge was withdrawn by leave of the court. Mr J. R. Hampton appeared for the accused. Alice Annie Womersley, a single woman, of St. Elmo Courts, Hereford street, said that in May. 1932, she called on the accused, saying she nad some monev to invest. The money was then in the Post Office Savings Bank. Later in the month witness called on accused, when she was told by accused that he had a first mortgage investment for her. It was to be on a fruit market, of which A. R. Preston was the owner. He said he had arranged for £BSO to be invested for three years at 6 per cent., and witness on the same day withdrew that amount from the post office. Interest raid. Witness produced the receipt she received. The interest had been paid up to date. She did not know Preston. On February 21, 1933, she had a conversation with accused, when no said tha' a Mr C. J. Jacobson, employed by the Christchurch City Council required £l5O immediately, and was prepared to make an assignment of his Prudential life policy. The loan was to be at 8 per cent., with weekly instalments of £l, the balance to be due in December, 1034. She did not know Jacobson. On the same day she drew the amount from the Post Office, and was paid by cheque. Witness produced the receipt given by accused. Interest had been paid to date and she had received £ll of the principal, leaving a balance of £139. Witness had given accused, when he began to hanaie her affairs, a life policy in the Prudential Assurance Co., Ltd., England, for £75. It was to mature on May 1, 1933, and she received notification of this in April. She signed the notice and gave it to accused to collect the money, with the instruction to pay it to her, so that she could pay it into the Post Office. Accused had no authority to convert the money to his own use, and witness did not know he had collected it. The amount she should have received, plus bonuses and exchange, was £126 Is lid She first saw the cheque on July 3, when it was in the possession of the police. The endorsement on the back of the cheque was not her signature. She had received none of the money for the The assignment (produced), dated November 29, 1932, showed that the sum of £SO had been obtained from Messrs Ford and Hadfleld, Ltd.. on an assignment of her life policy. The signature was not hers. The total sum received from her or on her behalf was £1126 Is lid, of which £llls Is lid was not accounted for. Loan on Life Policy. Cyril Edward Hoy, a real estate agent, and a member of the firm of Ford and Hadfield, Ltd., said that on November 28, 1932, the accused called on him stating that Miss Womersley was the holder of a policy in the Prudential Life Assurance Company. The policy expired on May 1, 19-JJ. He told witness that Miss Womersley wanted to obtain a loan of £SO for six months, and that at the close of the six months it would be repaid. Witness agreed to advance the money on the terms previously stated, and on November 28 his firm advanced the sum of £SO by cheque. The assignment produced was the document referring to this amount. After the expiry of the policy Sampson called on witness, v/ho returned the policy to him. Witness was not aware until he saw Detective-Sergeant OBnen on July 1 that the amount had been collected. He did not worry about the matter as Sampson had told him that the policy had to go to England. Sampson had authority to collect the money but none to convert any of it to his own use. Harry Daniel, a plumber, of 94 Riccarton road, said he had known the accused for about five years, and accused had done business for him. In April, 1931, accused asked witness it he had £2OO to invest, saying that he had a client who wanted that amount for a short term on first mortgage. Ten per cent, was offered, the mortgage to mature in September, 1932. On April 10, 1931, he drew a cheque for £2OO and gave it 'to accused, who gave the receipt produced. Interest was paid half-yearly. On February 23 1933, accused paid witness £.l2t, 19s, of which £l6 was interest. The sum of £B7 Is was still owing. Accused had no authority to convert any of that money to his own use. William Robert Dixon, a windowcleaner, said he had had business dealings with the accused in the last five years. In June, 1933, he drew £7o from the Post uffice Savings Bank at the request of the accused for investment. That sum had not been repaid. No details of the investment were given, but the interest was to be 10 per cent. On June 20 accused told witness that he was getting the papers ready and would post them, but witness did not receive the papers.

Auditor's Evidence. Claude Whitney Evans, public accountant, said he was the auditor approved by the Law Society to audit the books of the accused for the year ending March 31. On making the audit he discovered certain irregularities. He found that £126 Is lid of Miss Womersley's money had been used by the accused and not accounted for. He discovered further irregularities. On July 3 he saw the accused, who said he could "bluff" no logger, and that the two of them had better call at the police stationTo Mr Hampton, witness said he thought ah the money would be returned to the clients from the solicitors' guarantee fund, but he was not sure.

Detective-Sergeant E. F. O'Brien said the previous witness and accused called on him at the detective office. Accused said: "I wish to give myself up, Mr O'Brien. I have been stealing money from my clients." Witness took a statement from the accused. In the statement accused described the dealings outlined by the witnesses. He said he had used the money for his own affairs, and that a great part of it had been used to cover previous thefts. He had no money now, but was in debt. He had £3OO book debts, which should realise £l5O. He had been careful to cover up the thefts and had been able to produce the receipts required by the auditors. He had been living somewhat extravagantly and drinking fairly regularly. The money had not been

used for household expenses, and his wife was unaware of what had been going on. Witness said that accused had been quite frank, and gave witness every assistance. Accused pleaded guilty to all charges and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed in the sum of £2OO and one surety of £2OO.