FRAUD ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 35, 10 August 1921, Page 6

FRAUD ALLEGED

TIME AND PAY SHEETS'

WATERFRONT CASE CONCLUDED.

.The hearing. of evidence against George Churchill' and Alexander Joseph Chisholm, timekeeper and assistanttimekeeper respectively in the employ of the Union,..' Steam Ship Company, was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. It is alleged , that Churchill and Chisholm defrauded the company ,of £165 by falsifying the records showing the time worked by waterside labourers by adding the names of two men, "T. A. Wells" and "E. N. Walkes." Mr. Justice Reed was on the Bench/Mr i P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, Mr. H. F. O'Leary for .Churchill, and Mr. A. 8., Sievwright.for Chisholm. Mr. W. Gardiner was foreman of the jury. ■ .' :' ' • Detective Nuttall detailed, as in the lower Court, the statements'made by the two accused men, and, certain formal evidence having been tendered, the, case for the Crown was closed. No evidence was 'called for the defence, but counsel addressed the jury. Mr, Sievwright claimed/that the evidence was far from complete, and far from sufficient to induce the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. There was not evidence strong enough to show that the accused had conspired together tj> defraud the Union Steam Ship Com-

pany. The evidence was by no means inconsistent with the innocence of Chis- - holm, and, therefore, there was only the one course-open-'to-the jury—to find Chisholm not guilty. The , statement made by Chisholm showed that he was anxious and willing to assist any investigation. / It was quite possible that two lion-members of the union hadt assumed the names of /Walker and Wells. He reminded, the jury that if it believed that conspiracy had taken place, it -need riot, necessarily find both the accused guilty. Chisholm was merely the transcribing clerk, who had to write up his t'poks in accordance with information supplied to him. He had no knowledge of what went on outside. i'Mr. O'Leary emphasised the fact that it was not for Chisholm and Churchill to prove their innocence—it was for the Crown to prove them guilty. This, the Crown had not done. He relied on the explanation given by Churchill when approached by the • detectives. Churchill mentioned that he had put on two men ivho gave their names as Wells aiid Walker, but who he now knew were riot the Wells and Walker who had been produced.by the Court.| This story was Home" 6u"t "by the" fact that men ' purporting to be Wells'and Walker presented themselves at. the offices of the Em- ' ploymemV Association and received payment." From"the'evidence of the coal foremen,' it. was ■quite apparent that it was probable' that.;two scuh;men. had 1 teen employed on,odd jobs without coming under the coal foremen at all. Alternativelyit i was 1 probable that two/men had been engaged, and had not worked, but had collected their pay. ,That would be carelessness on the part of the man responsible for making out the paysheet, -but it .would not be criminal. Mistakes, as had been shown in evidence, were of frequent-occurrence. Mr. O'Leary commented on.the fact that the name *oL.Wells .disappeared ty fortnight Before ChttTchjUrwent^off on"acconnt of sjcknessrand-that Wells, applied, for pay-, ment for work done a week before Churchill returned to duty. That showed that there must have been flesh arid blood men working as Wells" and Walker. The .whole, transaction, he ;argued, was genuine. He reminded the jury,, too,' that, the genuine""T." AT Wells liad received a letter, addressed to "T. A. Wells" on the wharf, which was not for him—further proof of a flesh and blood man. Churchill diU'nofc ask for mercy— what he wanted was, mere justice. The Court then-adjourned until .this morning. After his Honour's . summing-up tms morning, the jury retired at 11.5 a.m., and, after considering the case "for an hour and a-half, brought in a verdict of not guilty on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. , • , i' ' , CHARGES AGAINST A THIRD OFFICIAL. The Court then jproceedeA to consider' the charges laid against a.third official of*'tlie company, Andrew Gibson Taylor, a'-'time-keeper in the'cargo department. It"'is"alleged by the Crown" .that .the prisoner conspired with persons unknown on Ist September, 1920, and on divers dates thereafter ;.ip till 2nd March,' 1920, to defraud the company of sums totalling £154 18s Id. V , Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defence. Mr. A. L. Terris was foreman of the jury. ' t The practice followed by Taylor, the :Crown alleges, was similar to that said "to have been.adopted by- Churchill and . Chisholm; except that four .fictitious names—"R. Hall, G. Hall/W. Holmes, and E. fT. Walker,." —were entered on the :time: slips." No men of those names, the Crown says, have been, engaged on cargo work by the Union Company recently. The Crown Prosecutor is'calling evidence to-day similar to that placed befors the Magistrate. , (Proceeding.)