Accountant cross-examined

Press, 18 June 1980, Page 4

Accountant cross-examined

An accountant, accused of theft and fraud, admitted in the witness box in the High Court yesterday that a sec-| ond mortgage for 8 per cent for six years drawn up in April last year on his home for money advanced by a client was certainly not a proper rate of interest. The admission was made by Reginald Terence Ryder, aged 38, during cross-exam-ination by Mr G. K. Panckhurst. Ryder added that the client who was a personal friend was a very generous man but he denied that he could get the client to sign anything. Ryder has pleaded not guilty to three charges of theft of $60,457 by misappropriation and 14 charges of the fraudulent use •of cheques to the value of $7573. Ryder spent all day under cross-examination.

Mr Justice Casey is presiding and it is now not expected that The jury will consider its verdict until tomorrow.

The Crown alleges that Ryder used his position as a partner in Gilfillan, Morris and Company, accountants, to use money belonging to Mr R. D. C. Nicholls, a client of the firm, for his own purposes. Messrs Panckhurst and B, M. Stanaway appear for the

Crown, and Messrs P. G. S. Penlington, Q.C., and J. G. Matthews appear for Ryder. To Mr Panckhurst, Ryder agreed that he was a qualified accountant with 15 years’ practical experience and had been a junior partner in a national accountancy firm. He strongly denied a comment that Mr Nicholls was almost the complete “yes” man. Mr Nicholls was fairly intelligent and astute. Ryder agreed that he had been acting both for the building partnerships as their financial adviser and for Mr Nicholls as his accountant in the property deals. Ryder agreed that he had acted erroneously and had made mistakes. He was appalled by the mistakes he had made.

Ryder admitted that he had said he had earned $90,000 in fees the last year he was in the partnership, but he conceded that those earnings were part of a time effort with the persons under him.

At the meeting in May, 1979, Ryder agreed that he had been questioned about how payments had been made for alterations to his home in Chepstow Avenue and that he had said that he would have to think about it.

Questioned about how Mr Nicholls came to pay a deposit of $lOO for the spiral staircase for the games room at Ryder’s home accused said that he had told

Mr Nicholls that he. would have to use a ladder as access for some time. Mr Nicholls said jokingly and seriously that he would only be too happy to pay for the deposit and came to his office the next day and confirmed that arrangement. When told that Mr Nicholls was quite emphatic that he had never mentioned

about paying that deposit Ryder said that hejwas just as emphatic that he had and in addition Mr Nicholls had signed the authority for the payment. ■ ’ "

Ryder agreed that the $lOO cheque was dated November 15, 1976, and that Mr Quinn had only started the job in that month and that the job would not be far advanced at that stage. “I put it to you that it does not just add up that Mr Nicholls would have discussed access to the games room so early?” Mr Penlington said. Ryder replied that he had. Ryder refused to concede that it was irregular for Mr Nicholls to be asked to pay for liabilities incurred by the

building partnerships. The contract price had been $44,000 and adjustments would be made when the final accounts had been produced.

It was disputed by Ryder that Mr Nicholls had made an overpayment of $14,000 on one contract. There had

been extras of $5600. The letter about those extras had been prepared on details supplied by Mr Quinn, .the builder. ' - When it was pointed outf

to Ryder that Mr’ Quinn had said in evidence that Ryder had prepared the letter! detailing the. extras Ryder said that Mr Quinn was wrong when he said that ho ;had never supplied the figure of $5600. Ryder said ha had not discovered the overpayment until he got around to doing the cashbook. ‘ Ryder agreed that Gilfih

lan, Morris and Company, had stringent, rules about! partners obtaining money from clients and good rea-< sons behind them, but he said that he had obtained

written authority from., Mr Nicholls for them. He. denied that those authorities had been obtained some time after the loans were actually made. Asked why; he had ex* eluded some payments which had passed through the ledger sheet Ryder replied that! he had listed the general payments — the ones Mfl Nicholls would most likely want to know the details of. The schedule of paynients had been prepared by ' his typist and it must have been she who missed the odd item out.

“That’s about the twelfth time today that you have tried to blame someone else for these errors,” Mr Panckhurst said.

Ryder replied that he was

not a typist and that if be had prepared the schedule it would have been .hand* written.