Verdict Of Guilty On Charge Of Theft Of £352

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27443, 1 September 1954, Page 9

Verdict Of Guilty On Charge Of Theft Of £352

_ a retirement of two hours and zP minutes, a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Walter Hope Thomson, aged 35, formerly assistant secretary of the Christchurch Returned services Association, guilty on a charge that between August 1 and September 4, 1951, he stole £352 2s property of the association. , The jury added to their verdict a strong recommendation to mercy. Mr Justice Adams remanded Thomtence 11 custody 1111111 for sen“Mr foreman and gentlemen, I need hardly say that judges are always anxious to give effect to such recommendations by a jury,’’ said his Honour. “I will consider it with care and give such effect to it as may be proper.. There is no harm perhaps in my saying that when I have to consider it I will have to consider other matters than those placed before you today.” r^le hearing began on Monday, when th Sgis ase * or the Crown was presented. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) appeared for the Crown, and Mr G. S. Brockett for Thomson, who pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given for the Crown yesterday by Constable J. E. S. Drain and Hetective-Sergeant E. G. Ward. His Honour Said he would not amend the indictment as requested by the Crown.

..sft ? rock ett outlined the case for the defence and called five witnesses. John Francis Hocking, a war pensioner, said he had been a member of the executive of the Christchurch slx y ears - On February 11, 1954, a sub-committee met at 7.30 p.m. in the R.S.A. rooms and it ended about 9.30 p.m. When witness left the building Mr McKenzie, the secretary, was still in the committee room. Mr McKenzie took the minutes of the meeting that night. Peter Valentine Hilary Maxwell, a storekeeper, of Homai, near Auckland, said he was president of the Christchurch R.S.A. for part of 1951 and part of 1952. The accused had asked for additional office staff in November, 1951. The finance committee was adamant at the time that the office was over-staffed and the staff was reduced subsequently by °ne. The finance committee agreed that part-time assistance be obtained for the office in December, 1951. The treasurer received a report from the auditors just before Christmas, 1951, and witness passed it on to the accused. He was sure he would draw the attention of the accused to his negligence in banking. He remembered ordering him to clear the buffet till each night or morning and take stock of the buffet once a week. In January, 1952, the accused absented himself from, the office without permission, but l}e gave witness to understand he was absent for purely personal reasons. The auditors’ report was placed before the finance committee early in February, 1952. “I am under the impression I was left to ask the accused what explanation he could give regarding the laxity,” said Maxwell. “But I am speaking from memory. The minutes would be a-correct record.” Explanation Sought Witness read an extract from the minutes which said the committee decided that the auditors’ letter be handed to the accused and that the latter be asked to make a written explanation in seven days. From the minute book of the Christchurch R.S.A. produced the records of meetings from January 21, 1952, to April 2, 1952, were missing. His Honour: Is this one of the books mutilated on the night of February 1112? Mr Brockett: Yes, your Honour. It is. Witness said that after he spoke to the accused about the laxity, the books seemed to be kept fairly regularly. Joyce Margaret Olsson, a clerk employed by the Christchurch R.S.A., said she mainly received the cash paid over the counter in the office. If the £358 Is 4d from the Riccarton branch

was received by her she would have written the receipt. She could not remember writing such a receipt. At the end of each day she balanced the cash with the receipts, and put the money in a bag together with a slip showing how the money was made up. She put the bag in the strongroom. The accused made up the money for banking. The money would be taken from the bag and counted and a bank slip would be made out. She was not sure whether the accused checked the money with the receipt books. She had helped the accused at times to write up the cash book. She had one key to the office door, but she had no key to the strongroom. Desmond Morrow Wilson, a public accountant, said he had heard the evidence given by the witness CaygiU regarding the reconstruction of the R.S.A. books for June, July and August, 1951. The normal procedure adopted by an auditor in such circumstances was detailed by witness. Enough records remained to reveal the defalcations. Agnes June Peace Thomson, wife of the accused, said that her husband was at home between 5 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on February 11, 1954, and then went fishing about 7.30 p.m. He returned about 11 p.m. and did not leave home until about 8.45 a.m. the following day. Addresses by Counsel

The Crown said that the body of the cheque was in the writing of the accused. It was, but as they had heard the previous day, Thomson wrote out nearly all the cheques for the R.S.A., said Mr Brockett addressing the jury. There was no evidence to show whether the cheque was signed before or after it was filled in. The Crown said the banking was done that day by the accused in a deliberate attempt to cover up the defalcation. That cheque was banked in the R.S.A. general account, where it was easily traced. The auditors only did a reconstruction from the records available and not an audit. The jury had heard described the banking system followed by the accused. At times his banking was a good way behind. It meant that there were many bags of money in the R.S.A. strongroom at one time. His banking at that time was irregular. The accused might at times have been lax, perhaps even negligent, but there was no evidence that he had taken the money. The Crown case was circumstantial. The Crown said the books were mutilated on the night of February 11 by the accused to cover up the defalcations. The books and records that remained enabled a reconstruction to be made. The evidence was that the accused had a good understanding of books of account. If he had been guilty of mutilating the books, would he hgve left sufficient records for the reconstruction to be made? The building was under repair at that time in February, and anyone could have gained access to it. Mr Brown said that, while he was listening to the case for the defence, he felt he had slipped down the rabbit hole and was* with Alice in Wonderland. Some things had been advanced which were not evidence. They were in the realms of romance. There seemed to be suggestions, in the line the defence had taken, that someone else could have been responsible for the theft. That suggestion had no foundation in fact. The witness Maxwell was in a new business at Homai near Auckland, and it might suffer serious harm through his being brought to Christchurch for three days to give evidence which could have been.given by a dozen others resident in Christchurch. The Crown would have made the minute books available to the defence without hesitation if it had been asked. “Was bringing Maxwell here a move to suggest that he was involved? If that was the suggestion, it was a dastardly thing to do,’’ said Mr Brown.

His Honour summed up and the jury retired at 1.15 p.m., returning at 3.55 p.m. with their verdict.