Trial On Five Charges Of Theft Begins

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29754, 22 February 1962, Page 8

Trial On Five Charges Of Theft Begins

Five charges of theft of £523 10s while employed by the South Island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Association as a claims assessor are faced by a 26-year-old man whose trial began before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The accused, Richard Francis Rutledge, is alleged to have stolen the money, in five cheques, between February 2 and August 4 last year. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. The accused is represented by Mr R. G. Blunt. Mr C. M. Roper appears for the Crown. The case was adjourned to today after the claims manager of the association, Rex Dore, had given details of the five cheques paid into the accused’s account which he said should have been paid to the company. Mr Roper, outlining the Crown evidence, said the accused's duties were to consider claims made by insured persons whose vehicles had been damaged, or claims made against persons insured with the company. The accused inspected the vehicles, made estimates for repairs, and recommended whether the claims should be paid. If his recommendation was accepted the cheques were made out and handed to the accused with the file. The accused then settled with the claimant.

The alleged thefts came to light in August last year when another employee, Peter Dick, was dismissed for unsatisfactory work. After his dismissal it was found that Dick had stolen £6OOO from the company by making out false claims files and taking the cheques himself.

All claims files were inspected, and one of the accused’s files was brought into question. This related to a wrecked car which was sold by the association to the Papanui Wrecking Company. There was no record of the cheque being received. Questioned by the claims manager, the accused denied he had been meddling with the company’s money. In a later interview the accused said he had been blackmailed by Dick, who had compelled him to draw cheques in fictitious names, pay them into his own bank account, and pay out the money to Dick, said Mr Roper. It was found that the five cheques which were the subject of the present charges had been paid by the accused into his own account. “Blackmailed Into Thefts’’ When interviewed by the police the accused admitted paying the cheques into his own account, and said • he was under Dick’s domination and was blackmailed into stealing the money, from which he received no benefit. The accused said he had got into this position after Dick had brought in a man claiming him to be the third party in an accident in which his vehicle had suffered about £lOO damage, said Mr Roper. Dick told the accused he had inspected the vehicle, and the accused made out a cheque for £lOO in settlement of the claim, said Mr Roper. He said the accused in his statement to the police said the claimant signed the release but a few minutes later returned with Dick, who said neither he nor the claimant had a bank account to be able to cash the cheque. After discussion, Dick suggested that the accused pay the cheque into his own account and pay out the money. Later, Dick admitted to the accused that it was a “phoney” claim, but said the accused could do nothing about it as the cheque had passed through the accused’s account.

The accused’s statement said Dick told him not to worry about it as he would not be caught. “Dick said that if I did not co-operate in other claims he would let out about the £lOO cheque. I then worked on other files as he told me to,” the accused’s statement said. Mr Roper said the accused’s story was a remarkable one, but it had deficiencies including the fact that the £lOO cheque was not paid into his account. The question of blackmail of the accused by Dick was no defence to any of the five changes which the accused faced, he said.