Of Misuse

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29326, 4 October 1960, Page 16

Of Misuse

the certification given by the overseer, who, as far as he knew, had been a responsible officer. The overseer ta general had been rvoponilble for the dispensation of the private plant and had carried out a detailed supervision of part of it Mr Birks: Did Mr Gilmour (the overseer) have authority to hire just whatever plant he thought necessary? The witness: No. If. he considered a particular machine was required what was the procedure?—lf it was a machine that had not been used before he could point out the necessity at hiring one to. me. The witnaaa said he had to make a formal application to the Wellington district office for plant required and had to wait for authority. If the equipment was required urgently permission could be obtained verbally. The way in which documents

were certified depended on the manner in which plant was der ployed. . ■>' "Some items of plant Tnight be grouped under a leading hand operator or under somebody else deputed by the overseer, and ' the certifying of documents might be similarly deputed.” Unauthorised Plant The witness said he was aware that unauthorised plant had been used at Rongotai during the period, to which the charges related January - November, 1959—but he only recalled payments being made for plant which had been substituted for plant that had been authorised. He could remember one instance only in which the hire charge for substituted machinery was greater than that for original plant He had been told the operator subsequently agreed to charge the original rate. The witness, examining four dockets produced as Crown exhibits, said he had accepted them as being correct and did not think he had any reason to suspect them. Mr Birks: If it now turns out that there were false dockets submitted fa other. cases, what do you sty? The witness: I do not recall that any of those other machines should have had substitutes offered, therefore I do not think I had any occasion to suspect the dockets. Cross-examined by Mr Gazley, the witness said it was his duty to check the dockets, but it was not possible to check every detail on all occasions. Grader Driver’s Evidence Tom Glass Robson, a grader driver, said he operated machines at Rongotai airport tor F. and J. Bognuda, Ltd. Time dockets had been provided by the company, and the Ministry of Works overseer had torn them out when they were completed, leaving carbon copies. The witness said that a docket referring to operation of an International T.D.24 at Rongotai on March 21, 1959, had his name on the bottom of it, but it was not his signature. Part of the writing on the docket was his, but the figures fa the pay-out column had not been written by him. His name was also on the bottom of a time sheet relating to the use of a T.D.24 machine on May 15,1959. The signature was not his. He did not authorise Bennitt to sign his name on time dockets, "except two or three times when I went to Evans Bay and on several other occasions." The hearing will continue tomorrow.