PUBLIC WORKS FUNDS. ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION.

Evening Post, Volume LX, Issue 119, 16 November 1900, Page 6

PUBLIC WORKS FUNDS. ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION.

The investigation of another case arising out of the alleged misappropriation of Government moneys used in connection with an imprest account for cooperative works Avas begun before Mr. Haselden, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning. Louis Ferdinand Tegner was charged with the theft, on the 3r.d October last, of. £87 3s 9d, moneys belonging to the Crown. Mr. Myers prosecuted, and Mr. Wilford appeared in defence. Mr. Myers, in opening the case, said it was not unlike a case which came before the Court quite recently. Mr. G. L. Cook was Resident Engineer in the Hunterville branch of the Public Works Department, and also had charge of the imprest account. The accused was clerk in the office, and the only person who handled the imprest moneys. The procedure ..was that every month Tegner would make up a list showing the money fc required, and present a cheque which Mr. Cook signed after comparing,' as well as he could, the vouchers presented with the cheque, and seeing that "they were correct. Tegner had been in the office for about three years. Nothing wrong was observed until October of this year. He (Mr. Myers) was unable to say whether the shortage which .Tegner was alleged to have mis-, appropi'iated was or was not a gradual shortage. It was almost impossible to trace the account back, because at the end of each month, in making up statements to be forwarded by the imprestee to the Treasury, there would be "incomplete vouchers." It now turned out that some of these "incomplete vouchers " were not vouchers at all — had no existence, in point of fact. It was consequently impossible to trace them back, so they were compelled to take the month of October alone. When Mr. Webb, the Chief Inspector of Audit, was sent up to audit the account he found there was a shortage of £87 3s Bd. It might happen that an amendment of the information would have to be asked for at a later stage, as it might turn out that the . amount short was £20 above the sum oharged. Tegner's explanation when asked for was that he had lent money to co-operative men, which would be deducted from their wages, but he (Mr. Myers) thought it would be shown that this was not the case. Tegner had himself found that he was over £100 short, and when asked for vouchers said they must be somewhere, as he had not got the money. There were" no vouchers to be found except in the case %f £60, for which they were prepared to give credit, but some £80 or £100 ' Still remained unaccounted for. Evidence was then called in support of the charge. George Leslie Cook, Resident Engineer in the Huntervilie branch of the Publiq' Works Department, said that for some three years he had been imprestee of the Government imprest account at HunterviHe. The wag«s of co-operative labourers,, and travelling and other expenses, was paid out of this account. Accused had been a clerk in the office for about three years, and ,had charge of the imprest account. Th« account was kept at the Bank of N-ew Zealand. Witness was accustomed to look through the vouchers submitted. When a cheque was drawn by Tegner the amounts due to the different parties was put into separate envelopes, and Tegner went up and paid the men. . Out of the balance drawn for change advances were sometimes made to men, and the rest Avas returned and deposited in the safe. Tegner always drew out the cheques for co-operative payments. When a cheque was presented to witness for signature lie also had given him a summary of vouchers, and satisfied himself that they approximately represented the amount required. There was generally an item in his .balance-sheet sexrt to the Treasury for the "incomplete vouchers." When completed these vouchers would pi-o-bably go in with the next return, but in the meantime he would have the assurance of Tegner that the amounts were correct. In response to enquiries made by the Paymaster-General in October Tegner drafted a letter explaining the state of the . accounts, and this witness signed. Witness had not received any money from Tegner for which he had failed to return vouchers. To Mr. Wilford— The bank > book would not show the exact month payments to co-operative labourers, because the cheques were" invariably for more than the amount required. Probably Mr. Wilford would be right when he said that something like £201,000 had gone through Tegner's hands during the time he had had charge of the account. Mr.' Wilford — During the tliree years Tegner has bad charge of this account and passed* this money through has there ever been a Government audit? Witness — No. Mr. Myers— There has been an audit by the Treasury. Mr. Wilford— Do you know where this alleged deficiency comes from? Witness — No. In which month or year? — No. You can't say whether is was a bit one month and a bit another?— No. Is there any possible way of finding out or ear-marking the exact amount? —I don't know. Witness, in answer to another question, said that Tegner had always applied himself fairly well to his work. Mr. Wilford— lsn't it possible that the whole thing is a muddle, and not a "steal" at all?— Witness: It maybe. You would not be prepared to say that Tegner wilfully extracted £87 from moneys entrusted to him? — I have believed in him. Has there been any system in your office by which you and Tegner went through the accounts to see how they stood?— No, I can't say I went into the matter minutely. Witness further said that he remembered Tegner giving away some of the new issue of £5 notes for £1 notes to a Mr. Fraser, who returned the difference when he discovered the mistake. There may have been others who were not quite so honest. The money for payments was usually put into envelopes, and witness was not in the habit of checking the notes. Orders were sometimes given to men for railway fares, instead of money. The orders entitled the men to receive tickets, and they were subsequently returned to the office of the Railway Department for payment, and supplied the place of vouchers. Vouchers came in in driblets. Mi\ Wilford— ls it possible that tho term "incomplete vouchers" in the imprest return might be only approximately correct, because the estimate made for the payment might turn out to be wrong when the actual payment is made? — Witness : I can't quite see my way to admit that. Witness added that he took it that the advances made in these incomplete vouchers were all recoverable. He travelled very little, and perhaps did not make up his travelling allowances for two or three months together. In June last some instructions were given from the Treasury with regard to making up the imprest account. He could not say whether it was possible to comply with those instructions to the 'letter. About the beginning of this year a number of building vouchers were held over for some months. There might have been sums of £50 left in the safe over the time the imprest re-

turn was made, because tho vouchers Aveic not ready. Mr. Webb came up on 31st October. No notice had been seat of his arrival. He recollected Tegner saying that they had some bother Avith ' tne Treasury over the now mode of dealing Avith the imprest. The accounts had never been audited since he had been in Hunterville, but he did not recollect saying so to Mr. Webb._ Tegner was busy preparing the Avages sheet for the month in regard to the men on the Makohinc viaduct. Tegner waj upset Avhen Mr. Webb said there Avas a deiiciercy. and suggested that a voucher had been lost or an over-payment made. Mr. Webb told Tegner to go home, and go to sleep. Mr. Grace helped Tegner to go into matters. Deductions were mado from amounts due to the men for moneys sent to their wives. Those deductions dkl not appear on the imprest. Sometimes payment was made before the Avork Avas measured up. That Avould be at Christmas time. Re-examined — The head men's sheets shoAved the amounts actually paid to the men. though vouchers were incomplete or outstanding, there would be a record of them in the office. Green's voucher, Avhich was lost, Avas replaced by a duplicate. To His Worship — He did not count the cash at the end of each month.. To Mr. Myers— He Avas not an accountant. His Worship — But you are responsible. Peter P. Webb, Chief Inspector of Audit, said he Avent to Hunterville on 31st October, for the purpose of examining the accounts of the office. The first thing he asked for Avas the imprest cashbook, Avhich Tegner" said was not written up subsequent to June. It Avas, hoAvcvcr, Avritten up during the day. It did not help h,im, as the first item was a lump ♦sum, made up of perhaps 50 6r 60 vouchers. Witness next dreAV Tegner's intention to the imprest return for 15th , September, in Avhich was shoAvn an item of £170 is 5d for "incomplete vouchers," and asked how it was made up. Teener replied that he coaild not say, as the. 1 item Avas in part made up of advances in the hands of inspectors and engineers on the works. • They discussed other items, and witness told Tegner that he thought his method of showing the item "incomplete vouchers" was incorrect. Tegner said they had had some corespondence about it. The luncheon adjournment Avas taken at this stage. On resuming, Mr. Webb, continued his evidence. He said he told Tegner that he would begin with his (Tegner's) account of 13th October, 1900, in which a balance Avas shown of £264 5s 6d. and "incomplete • vouchers" £434. Witness told Tegner to produce every voucher he had for money spent, and Tegner produced vouchers for £432 9s Id, and said that Avas all he had, and he Avas not aware that any others Avere missing. There Avas .an item "advances to co-operatiA r e labourers' to be paid,' on testing Attach Avitne^s found sevei^l inaccuracies. Witness made up an ' account which, showed a total deficiency of £101 6s sd, and asked Tegner if he could explain it. Tegner replied that he could not ; that so far as he_ could think he had given everything. Witness pointed out that it was a serious matter, and suggested to Tegner that he should sleep over it and see if he could arrive at any solution of the matter. Tegner said he Avould try again the same night, and Avitness believed he did so. without any satisfactory result. Subsequently he produced a statement with regard to which he said he had taken the figures he had given Avitness, ,and Avould show lioav he wou'd have made out the balance-sheet. On comparing the details, Avitness pointed 01$ errors,' and a deficiency which required explanation. Tegner said that he had put in the figures to make up his account, andL could not account for the shortage of £101 ss, except for incomplete vouchers and advances. (Left sitting.)