WHARF LABOURERS' CASE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 106, 31 October 1914, Page 3

WHARF LABOURERS' CASE

UNION SECRETARY IN TROUBLE TALK OF A LIBEL ACTION. The hearing of the ten charges of theft against Edward John Jones, secretary of the Wharf Labourers' Union, was, continued before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., after The Post went to press yesterday. The total sum involved is £2 3s. The piosecutor (Thomas Joseph Ladd) was represented by Sir John Findlay and Mr. H. F. O'Leary, while Mr. M. Myers appeared for the defendant. The cross-examination of Ernest Williani Hunt; accountant and auditor, was proceeded with. To Mr Myers : Witness was first instructed to make an investigation of the books by Messrs. Ladd and Radcliffe about ten days ago. He concluded on Thursday night On or before 15th October^ witness did not recommend a prosecution, nor did he make any such recommendation later. If Mr. Ladd said so, it was not true. The books were well kept, but were " a muddled set." He knew that there were several secretaries at work before Mr. Jones took charge. He also knew that . another accountant, Mr. Pilling, had been engaged on the books for four 'months and a-half, and he understood that the cash-book wae not in Jones's possession during that period. During that time Mr. Pilling made entries in the cash-book. It was not very convenient for a. secretary to have his books kept elsewhere, but counsel should remember that the first entries were made in the receipt-books. He did not know that the payments to members of the executive for attending meetings were made out of cash, and that cheques were not drawn. He had been given no vouchee on foolscap showing payments made in connection with executive meetings. He had fieen one voucher for a recent meeting* but he did not know whether that was in Jones's time or not. The entries representing the £9 2s 6d previously mentioned were made by Mr. Pilling. He had seeu no vouchers' for those sums. They were not forthcoming. Pilling ma.y or may not have had vouchtrs. He may have accepted the min-ute-book as such. Witness had made investigation to see what payments other than on 18th April had been made to membprs of the executive during the period 18th April to 6th May. He found no evidence of any. If payments had been made out of cash such would prftbably account for the deficiency of ■£3 19s. It was quite possible that even the 14s member's subscriptions, of which there was no record had been paid out in' petty cash. Witness know that Mr. Ladd was the prosecutor, and that before he laid the information he was threatened with a libef action by Mr. Jones. He also knew that Ladd took the position of secretary when Jones was suspended. He had seen all the receipt books, but did not know whether all the receipts were signed by the defendant or not. Some may have been signed by a \\ . J. Jones who was not related in any way to defendant. He did not know whether Jones was asked for any explanation before the charges were laid.. Fiom the books it appealed to be the piactice to pay monoy out of cash instead of by cheques, and it might be possible for some people to fail to keep a record ot such transactions. Re-examined by Sir John b indlay : A man who was as careless as suggested deseived to lose any position ,he held. The receipt book was the book of first entry in every case, and it was no excuse if the cash book was not in the secretary's hands. Archibald Black, a member of the union, produced his pence-book, signed by Mr. Purdy. On 4th May there was an entry showing a payment of 4s to Mr. Jones. He knew that on the night Mr. Purdey was relieved of office there was a sum of £45 odd in the Safe. This was subsequently handed over to Mr. Jones. ' ' To Mr. Myers : He paid the 4s to Mr. Jones at the office, and at the, same time he left his book at the office for audit. 4n auditor would be able to see immediately that the money had been paid. Witness was not one of those who were directing the pro.-ecution, but it was he who moved a me _>n directing proceedings against all people who had stolen union funds. At this stage the case was adjourned until noon on Tuesday. _____