Supreme Court Sixth Day Of Trial On Theft Charges

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29055, 18 November 1959, Page 9

Supreme Court Sixth Day Of Trial On Theft Charges

nU that other emInnnT °* Dominion Builders’ enT?”’ Ltd, had been infiu»ncetiJ?y the chairman of direc- ‘ ’a®? Smi ‘ h Mac Gibbon, hi-* 1 e * a l Be evidence against *£L WaS made ,y Eric Bl ack wnen he was cross-examined in th n, Su . pren ? e Court yesterday, flw u Wh ° is ’tending trial on “v® charges of theft of timber and joinery valued at £l3OO, was m the witness box a total of nine hours.

. T he al , wi M continue today before Mr Justice Macarthur and ? 3 w y ‘ « T - e Crown Prosecutor A T ’ Ma hon, with him Mr p. f. Feenstra, and accused is defended by Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr P. G. S. Penling-

! When he wrote a letter declining an invitation to dine with (the directors at Mac Gibbon’s home and also threatened to reslSn> he felt “sore” said accused »< n ’JP-L ln * evidence, because I Mac Gibbon had let him down by having the auditors make an investigation after having told him to treat himself with joinery the same as the joinery foreman, Cob-den-Cox had been treated by the company.

“Mac Gibbon told me over the (telephone not to be foolish and ito come to the dinner and he i would explain to the rest of the directors about the joinery,” said accused. “He told me not to worry and said: ‘You know what these auditors are. I will fix this up for you.”’ Payment to Company After negotiations between his and the company’s solicitors, he paid £266 to Dominion Builders’ because of a promise to his wife, whose health was suffering under the strain. That money had not been repaid to him. Richardson, the builder, had been paid by him £l4B in cash to buy sterling funds and had withheld an invoice for that amount, said Black. There was no reference in the accounts to £l4B for joinery. He had challenged one account as an overcharge for labour and two days later Richardson admitted an overcharge of £155. Richardson said he would call it square and not claim the £l4B.

“It is a deliberate lie,” said Black when questioned on Richardson’s statement that he (accused) had avoided payment for joinery by manipulating the accounts of a man named Hore.

If he had not gone bondsman for Husband Bros., a substantial building firm, for fulfilment of several big contracts, Dominion Builders would have lost their business, said Black. He had entered into one bond of £lO,OOO and had not yet been released from the bond covering Papanui High School. Black’s evidence-in-chief lasted six hours and a half. ‘ Cash at Home

Cross-examined by Mr Mahon, accused said he and his wife held up to £5OO in cash at times at their home, which sums were not shown in his statements of assets in 1953 and 1959. He owed to Souter and Naylor, upholsterers, a substantial debt for blinds in the Ham road house. The debt was in dispute and was not shown in his statement of accounts. The blinds had been in the house for three years and he had asked the suppliers to take them away. Mr Mahon: I have asked you only two questions about the statements and the statements mention neither?—That is correct.

What did you have the cash in the house for when you and your wife had four bank accounts between you?—lt wasn't the usual thing. We are not penniless.

During the time you were at Dominion Builders’ how did you get on with the directors as a whole?—l got along very well with the directors, excepting MacGibbon.

Did you not get on with him over the whole time or the last two or three years?—The rift between Mac Gibbon and me started when I had him unseated from managing director to chairman of directors.

It sounds more like promotion to me. Am I wrong about that? You say he did not like it? — He did not. Other than that your relationship with the directors was quite satisfactory?—Quite satisfactory. You got on with the office staff quite well?—Yes. What about the outside staff? —They were of a different calibre altogether. “Was the Boss” It would be fair to say that your relationships were satisfactory with the long-term employees?—No. Were there some of those with whom you did not get on? —The yardsman (Bowden), the joiner (Cobden-Cox) and the machinist (Barnes) considered that they had been hired by Mac Gibbon. I considered I was manager of the business. You made it pretty plain that you were the boss there?—l did., You consider the chairman’s report on the cost of repairing roads and bridges to the Okuku mill misleading. What has that to do with the charges of theft against you?—l only answered Mr Young’s questions. And I suppose you will give the same reply on black-market-ing transactions?—l do. Questioned on a document signed by himself, as manager, and Mason, as secretary, certifying £2O 8s 2d for one of the Aynseley Brothers of the Ataura mill, the cheque being passed for payment by Mac Gibbon, Black denied .that he had been compelled to draw up the document by Mac Gibbon. One brother considered, he said, that the timber had been sold too cheaply and Dominion Builders’ agreed to pay a further £2O.

No Receipt Mr Mahon: Why not get a receipt from them?—They would not give me a receipt. Was there any other transaction to which you were a party?— There were several. I can’t tell you exactly what they were at the moment To your knowledge, was there any record other than that of any cash payment to Aynesley Brothers?—Thera possibly may

be. There must be if a payment of £250 was made. Mac Gibbon signed the cheque and there would be no receipt on the files when the auditor signed the books.

Would not the books of the company show that payment to Aynesley as having been made?—They possibly might. What do you mean?—ls it not a public company?—Yes. Buying timber?—That is correct.

What was the possible reason that the transaction was not entered in the company’s books? —The cheque would be drawn under timber purchases. Whether Mason had the name, I do not know.

The company had involved itself in a liability of £l6OO in guaranteeing his principal and interest on the loan to the Whiley and Cron, said accused. Mac Gibbon gave the guarantee but it was not recorded in the company's books. The company had many shareholders and they would not have known of the transaction. Black said there was no use in explaining things to Detective Allom. The detective laughed at everything; he was, however, courteous. Matai Stack Accused was questioned at length by Mr Mahon on the stack of matai for which he claimed he had paid Sweeney £5. Sweeney had also owed him £5O, he said. Mr Mahon: Have you told us the whole truth about the matai transaction?—Yes. Accused said he had an idea, roughly, of how much he was in credit when he sent timber to Dunedin in 1957 and 1958.

Mr Mahon: Then why did you in 1958 pay the company £266? As I have already said, because of my wife’s health which was giving me some concern.

But you had a letter from the company’s solicitors saying you owed the company £266?—1 did not see the letter. Mr Young handled the matter for me. But you say you had a credit at that time with the company? —Yes.

So you paid the cheque, knowing that you were not liable for it, to keep faith with your wife? —That is quite correct, Asked why he had not told the company about timber to Dunedin, accused replied: “I have the right to decide where my timber shall go.”

Mr Mahon: You did not mention your Dunedin timber transactions to anyone until the police saw you?—Yes. Robinson knew 1 was sending timber to Dunedin. You do not know to where the joinery sheets went?—l have no idea. 1 was only informed that the job sheets were missing when I came home from the Coast.

Do you know anything about the missing stock sheets?—No. I do not believe that any stock sheet is missing. A copy of every stock sheet is at the Bank of New Zealand. If we had the stock sheets for the year ended April 30, 1955 and 1954, we would know a lot more about the matai transaction, would we not?—l don’t agree with that.

Evidence Challenged Asked by Mr Mahon if there was any reason why other company employees should give false evidence. Black replied: “Yes. I would say they have been assisted in their evidence by W. S. Mac Gibbon.”

“What would his motive have been?” asked Mr Mahon. ’“He told me over the ’phone that he would drag me, my wife and home through the Courts,” replied Black. “That was the last conversation I had with MacGibbon, when I hung the receiver up jn his ear.”

Was there any effort made to come to a settlement over this matter?—Yes. On our side there was.

When you say the evidence of other witnesses is incorrect, you say they have been influenced by MacGibbon?—Yes. They have been misconstrued. James Roland Smith, a retired master builder, said he calculated that the accused’s Ham road house would take leading hands and journeymen a total of 1960 hour to build. The total of 2630 hours claimed by Richardson was excessive, both in hours and cost.

Wilfred Henry Banks, managing director of the Papanui Timber Company, said his personal opinion was that Black was the best manager Dominion Builders’ had had in 30 years. He was in the box giving technical evidence on timber when the ' Court adjourned.