THEFT OF BENEVOLENT FUNDS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 28, 2 February 1907, Page 5

THEFT OF BENEVOLENT FUNDS.

. « THE CASE AGAINST W. PURVIS, PRISONER BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. TWELVE MONTHS' IMPRISON^ MENT. Alexander Watt Purvis, late secretory and master of the Wellington Benevolo* Institution, appeared in tho dock at t-hs iSupiome Court this morning to be iSfn.. tenccd on twelve charges of theft and fakeT pretences. The amounts involved weie:— £8 and, £41 10s on 30th June, 1905 j £8 19s 6d on 4th January, 1906; £33 12u on sth January ; £22 12s oh 2nd April; and £21 13s on 26th July. -Mr. C. P. Skerrett, counsel for prisoner, vM he desired to call two wit-i-.csues before sentence of the court wsn passed. *b }>-•. Hislop stated that ho had been prisoKCi'ii medical attendant for i/htee years. Prisoner had bsen subject to s-e--cuiront attacks of fainting, which weia sometimes p.ttended with s considorablß paiu. These att'ieks affected prisoner's general. health. He hnd been sulfmng iw. this way for « numbeV Oi yearn- and it would bo difficult to euy if he would recover. Rev. James Kennedy Elliott said he had beea a trustee of the -Wellington Benevolent Institution. Witness testified! lo the excellent manner 5n which prisoner' had conducted the Ohiro Home. He had never had any lohson to doubt prfsoffer's honesty up to the time tlie charges were brought. In answer to Mr. Bell, witness eaid ho had since become fcwiire that nil the vouclior3 of the ii'srttution antecedent to the prej?nt charge, had been destroyed. 'Mr. SkeiTctt itdh fh'e case w&e one involviug- come fii>ccia' 1 circumstance?, and lie was going to a<sk hiu Honour to admit piisoner to probation or pass a lenient Poritonce. Prisoner htxi been appointed to the position of secretary and treasurer <md master of the Ohiro Homo some ieven years ago, and the e^rpanditare at that time was £7000 or £7500 per year and the institution wac £1000 in 'debt. ' The year after prisoner was appointed to Eia position the debt cf £1000 was wholly paid off, and tile institution was £300 in credit. In addition, to this, notwithstanding the fact that the requirements of the institution had grown with the inciease of population, the expenses nad been gicatly reduced, an dthere was a. ciedit of £1000 at the bank. This result was .largely duo tb the eneTgy and assiduity of tho prison&r a£ the bsr. It was satisfactory to know -that the frfatlity of ti? services ho had i:'endrt:ed «ie institution bad been appreciated by t3/6se who were in a. poeitibn to judge of his work. Counßel admitted' thafc ho had appiopriated funds, by what was iquivfeWt to fDlsa pretences. During the period of one, year and six niontns to whion tne documents covering the fcharge's .applied, a critical examination showed that the amount involved totalled £136 Is -ZJ. It was true that the vouchers of the iMftution for the period prior to the eighteen jaonths mentioned had, been destroyed, bat counsel submitted that there w» no reason to suspect any criminal act had been committed , previously tiy prisontir. Council further desired to point out that tho 6um of £150 had been paid by prieoner in trust to make good any'def6lcalions vrfiich had occuVred. Op to Wia prkoiKi- had borne a high chifacter, and the fact that he had lost his character, and that it would be necessary ( for him to go elsswhcre to seek eaipidyment, would bo a heavy punishment. Ho Ifad pleaded guilty, and had so ««*od tfhe Crown going to expanse, and be ia\l ftrads restitution. Counsel appealed to th« court to pass a ltoient sentence. Mr. Bell said he felt ,botmd to ■gaj in regard to the case that prisoner was the sole officer of the board, and tljat the moneys were obtained by aa ingsnious system qf fraud. Mr. Skerrett : There I join in issue T nay it is as clumsy -and palpable' a fraud as your Honour will see. "Directly the books were examined it was discovered. f His Honour: It was a system of fraud Which was not discovered tihtil an examination was made 'of th« books'. Mr. Skerrett : No doubt. His Honour said in his opinion tho case did "not come within the First Offenders' Probation Act. He could not hold otherwiso without ignoring not only a judgment he had himself given in a similar case, but also a judgment by Mr. Justice Edwards. In those cases the judgments were given after consultation with all the othe* judges. They came to the conclusion that where there was a series of -embezzlements, not really constituting ona, theft but separate thefts entending ove» a lengthened . period of time, snch a case was not \vithin the First Offendera Probation Act, because it showed that the offender had an established criminaF intention, that being evidenced by th* continuity of his acts, and the fact that they extended over a considerable period of time, and were each separata offences, though of the same class. H« could not, therefore, allow probation m this case. It was, his Honour went! on to say, always exceedingly difficult to know what to do with of theft or embezzlement. Thero were cases i« which the circumstances justified tho court in dealing severely, although the maximum penalty was the samo in all cases of this description. But he could not avoid saying in this case that tha piisoner was in a position of frrhst r and that ho h»d, for some unaccOuht« able reason which had not been bx« plained, abused that trust and em. bozzlcd the public funds, although nofc lo a very large amount, so far as tha investigation showed. Still, there had) been no explanation whatever given him. He asked the Rev. Mr. Elliott for some information as to whether tlwi prisoner v.as under any financial stress or strain or anything of that kind, because, while financial stress or strain did not in any way excuse an offence of this description, it might palliate lc. The extraordinary feature in this case seemed to be that tho prisoner was j. man of means. He said himself tliat if the defalcations amounted to a thousand pounds he was prepared to find that amount. His own explanation wasi that he svecumbod to temptation whlcb was offered him by two other pcrsonr concerned. Ho (his Honour) would take into consideration the prisoner'?, good character, and the fact th&t he had, except for these defalcations, beep a satisfactory managsr of the Home, and that a good deal of its present pros* perous condition ,was apparently duo to his exertions. He should also take into consideration the fact that he had offered restitution and placed a s'nvn of money in the hands of his solicitor for the purpose. . But he must pass a sentence of imprisonment, and although he would be as lenient as possible, in the public interest tho sentence must .be something more than merely nominal. '"I think I err ou the side of leniency, 1 ' said his Honour, "when I sentence you lo twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour."