Supreme Court ACCUSED’S EVIDENCE IN TRIAL ON THEFT CHARGE

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28888, 7 May 1959, Page 10

Supreme Court ACCUSED’S EVIDENCE IN TRIAL ON THEFT CHARGE

Lyttelton watersiders had "black-balled’* the railway bookstall after she had been discharged from her job there, a woman said in the Supreme Court yesterday. The woman, Margaret Mary Frances Millar, aged 39, was on trial before Mr Justice Haggitt and a jury on a charge of stealing £1996 while a servant of Frank Ellis Revell and Doreen Melba Revell,. the proprietors of the bookstall.

Mr W. F. Brown for the accused told his Honour that the deficiency estimated by the defence was £l4l and not £559 as stated in his address to the jury.

Cross-examined by Mr P. T. Mahon, for the Crown, Millar said the bookstall business was successful when it was taken over by the Revells. “And yet eight months later it was insolvent; can you explain that?” he asked. “I don’t know anything about the figures,” Millar replied. The previous proprietors of the stall had paid her £7 5s a week, and the Revells had paid her £9 16s 6d a week, she said. However, they had not paid her for the Saturday work. She did not agree that she was being paid more than the award wage. “The Revells said they would have to pay me £l3 a week under the award and could not employ me at that wage.” Previous Discharge

With her wages, the money given her by her husband and the child allowance she was receiving about £22 16s to run her household and pay her own expenses, she said. She had no trouble keeping up her hire purchase payments. Millar admitted to Mr Mahon that she had got into arrears in payments on a radiogram, but claimed that this was only be-

cause she had not been to Christchurch for some time.

In 1956 the previous proprietor of the bookstall, Mrs Cross, had discharged her from the job, but about a week later she was asked to return. Mrs Cross had intended running the stall on her own but as she lived in RiCcarton she had found it too much for her.

“The watersiders ‘blackballed’ the bookstall while I was away,” she added. Mr Mahon: You were asked to go back then because the watersiders boycotted the bookstall?

: Witness: I had nothing to do with that; I was working in • another position. Accused said she could not say 1 how many times she had taken 5s 1 for lunch from the till at the stall, but she had done so whenever Mrs Revell arrived late to take over the afternoon shift, which was nearly every day. Questioned about her statement, Millar said it contained admissions which she had never made. She had been very distressed during the interview and had merely agreed with suggestions made by the detective because all she wanted to do was get away from the. police station. She had made similar admissions to Mrs Revell because she had been taking the money for lunches and had a conscience about it. Mr Mahon: Why did you offer to pay the money back? Witness: Because it was the most natural thing to do. After speaking to the detective I realised I was not entitled to take the money for my lunches. Accountant’s Evidence Claude Whitey Evans, a public accountant, said that the financial statements prepared by the accountants called by the crown, and showing the deficiency of £1996, were unreliable as the records upon which they were based were incomplete. There were no indications on Mrs Revell’s cheque butts to show whether money was drawn for business purchases or private use. An accountant acting in good faith could, and did, enter up private items as purchases of the business. No attempt was made to reconcile the taking.-: recorded with the bankings; certain payments were made out of the cash register and not replaced. In addi- 1 tion Mrs Revell had drawn personal sums from the register and not replaced them. He had found that a number of invoices had been charged to the business as purchases when in fact they were for the private use of Mr and Mrs Revell.

The effect of the inclusion ot these items was to understate the profit on the business, and to overstate the apparent deficiency. Evans said.

Taking the profit of the bookstall over the nine years before the Revell’s took over as 10 per cent., he estimated that the deficiency was only £l4l 6s 9d. To Mr Mahon, witness agreed that 10 per cent, was a rather low margin of profit, but he believed there were some much bigger businesses with lower margins.

If he was making an estimate of the future profit r' a business he would base it on the past profits and not on conjecture. He would accept the accuracy of the information the prev : ~ s proprietor had given to his accountant. Mr Mahon: How do you account for the fact that the Revells were carrying only half the amount of stock and yet were making about the same sales?

Witness: Cross was carrying a lot of dead stock which was not being turned over.

Evans said he could . ot accep the explanation that someone wai taking money from the till wher Cross had the bookstall as then was no evidence to support it. Counsel will make their fina addresses to the jury this morning.