£10,000 THEFT ALLEGED

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25328, 30 October 1947, Page 4

£10,000 THEFT ALLEGED

RESERVE BANK CLERK ON TRIAL

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTANT

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 29. The case for the Crown was continued ! to-day in the trial of Peter Edward Mil- . lett, aged 24, a Reserve Bank clerk, on ' charges of forgery and uttering, and theft from the Reserve Bank of Government Stock certificates valued at £ 10,000. Cross-examined by Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, W. R. Eggers, chief accountant for the bank, said there were about 240 employees of the Reserve Bank. About 15 i were in the room in which Millett worked ; and about four in the neighbouring room I where Miss Talbut worked. In the course of a day about 30 or 40 documents might be handed over the counter of the room lin which Millett worked. Several of the i officers of the transfer room would have I attended that counter. The typewriter which was allegedly used to type the memorandum of transfer was kept in the record room. He never knew Millett to use that typewriter. There was no typewriter in the transfer room, but there was one in Miss Talbut’s room. Witness did not know if Millett ever used that typewriter. He could see no occasion on which Millett would be expected to use a typewriter. . .. Eggers said accused had access to the strongroom. During the day when the re- | gisters were out and all the trolleys were I out there was normally nothing in the ' strongroom except lockers. Witness did , not know what would induce a clerk to Igo into the strongroom during the day ; if all the records were out. Dr. Mazengarb: Would not a clerk go- ■ ing into the strongroom if he had no business excite the attention of the head of I the section? . . Witness: If«i»e had no business there, but I don’t think he would question anyone , in the section going into the strongroom at that time of the day. The-strongroom is regarded as part of the office. If the clerk came out of the Strongroom with some of those bonds would it not excite attention immediately?—Yes, if it was not the clerk who was dealing with them. , . Did Millett have any business in the strongroom?—No. M. E. Digby, an officer of the Bank of New Zealand, Auckland, said Miss Jessie Munro Murchie had an account at that bank. He produced a specimen signature of Miss Murchie’s. The signatures on i the memorandum of transfer and the notification of change of address in the i present case were definitely not Miss i Murchie’s signatures. , x ! The hearing will be continued to- : morrow.