FORGED VOUCHERS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 92, 12 January 1921, Page 6

FORGED VOUCHERS

TOWN CLERK’S DEFALCATIONS FOURTEEN CHARGES ADMITTED By Tdleeranh.—Snecial Correspondent. Masterton, January 11. Before Mr. S, L. P. Free, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day, James Archer appeared op remand to answer fourteen charges of forging vouchers whilst he ■was in the employ of the Masterton Borough. Council as town clerk and engineer. The defalcations involved in the various charges approximated £7OO, and were committed In the names of Herbert Hill and Co., Murphy Bros., and P. Hudson and Co., all of Wellington. Mr. O. N. C. Pragnell appeared for accused, and Chief-Detective Ward conducted the prosecution on behalf of the police. Chief-Detective Ward said that the charges, against accused extended over a period from May, 1919, to October, 1919. Some years ago the Masterton Borough Council had entered on a drainage extension scheme, and as a result accused had been brought in contact with Wellington firms who supplied the drainage material. Of the fourteen vouchers falsified by 'accused only one had been seen by the persons whose names were on them. In the majority of instances • Archer had cashed the cheques 'himself, giving as his reason that he was going to Wellington and would pay the amounts personally. Accused had admitted the authorship of the fourteen forgeries. Thomas Tucker Denbee, town clerk and treasurer of the Masterton Borough Council, said he had been in the employ of the council since 1913, and on May 7. 1920, he was appointed town clerk and treasurer when those positions had been separated from that of engineer. In 1917 the council had borrowed -£32,000 for drainage extension work, and Murphy Bros, and Hudson and Co., of Wellington, were engaged to supply the pipes. As borough accountant, it was witness’s duty to prepare the vouchers from the invoices and to write the cheques and attach them tp the vouchers after the amounts were passed for payment by the council. Each cheque was signed by two councillors and by (iccused. The morn- , ings after several council meetings he remembered that Archer had come out of his office and instructed witness and Miss King, his assistant, not to post certain cheques. Accused gave ps his reason that he "was going over the hill" and would take them with him. On another occasion accused had asked him to cash a cheque attached to the voucher (produced). .He wfis told that the payee had asked for payment at the train as he was .on his way to the races. Witness cashed the cheque at the Bank of hew South Wales and gave the money to accused, who put it in hid pocket together with the voucher. In M,arch > ness paid into the bank on behalf of the council a sum of approximately £-000. Included in that a cheque which witness could not account for. He suggested that it must have been placed in the cash drawer by accused and an equivalent amount in cash withdrawn. '* Witness went on to relate a similar happening in connection with a bank payment of .£351 16s. 6d. After the case for the prosecution had closed, Mr. Pragnell epid that Archer would plead guilty to all th , e , Accused was committed to the sittings of the Supreme Court at Welling ton for sentence, bail 'bemg allowetl in the sum of £4OO and two sureties of £4OO each. , '