"NOT GUILTY"

Evening Post, Volume 63, Issue 63, 14 March 1924, Page 2

"NOT GUILTY"

VERDICT IN SECOND RE PATRIATION CASE

JUDGE COMMENTS ADVERSELY ON CROWN WITNESS'S EVIDENCE.

(BI T»t,EOEAPIT.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

CHHISTCHURCH, 13th March. Another charge of fraud in connection with the operations of the Wellington District Repatriation Board was heard at the Supreme Court this afternoon. This case had also been removed from Wellington. Accused Was Harry Patrick Hodgins. formerly employed as a clerk in the office of the accountant to the board. Accused was charged that, between 22nd-June. 1920 I, Ith1 th July > 1922> bein S a servant of the Aew Zealand Government, he received from Arthur Joseph Ames various sums amounting to £26 for payment to the Government and fraudulently converted the same to his own use, .thereby committing the crime of theft, lhe case was heard by Mr. Justice Sim Mr. Macassey, Crown Solicitor, Wellington, appeared for the Crown and Mr. H F. O'Leary, of Wellington, for accused. io™"" .Macaas °y slated, thai in June, 1920, Ames applied to the board .for a loan of £50 with which to purchase furniture. Ihis loan was granted during the following month. Ames lived in a "bach" at Thoi-ndon, With three other men, including Hodgins, who was employed in the board's office and had charge of the ledger cards. These cards were supposed to show the repayments made on all loans. Ames would state that he had paid £2 a month to Hodgins at the "bach." At the end of two years he had made- the last payment, and an insurance policy upon the furniture, which had been taken out origlnaliy m the name of the Crown, was transferred to him. In ■" May, ' 1923, . when the affairs of the board were being \vound up, it. was found that the account was in debt to the extent of £26. A claim was made upon Ames, who said he had paid all that he owed. He saw Hodgins, who told ■him that he would fix matters up. Hodgins paid the £26 to Ames, who paid it into the public account at the Post Office. : A HOSTILE WITNESS. Ames, giving evidence, said that he was assistant to the City Valuer at Wellington, ytnd was a returned soldier. It. was true that he had stated in the Lower Court that he liad paid Hodgins £2 3s 4d a month. Since then he had talked the matter over with the other men who lived in the "bach," and he would^say now that he paid 10s a month. Each of the four men was to pay the same. Until he received the demand for the £26 in 1923 he had received no notification that he was in arrears. Mr. Macassey proceeded to • crossexamine the witness, whereupon Mr. O'Leary protested. Mr. Macassey: "The witness's evidence is different from his depositions in the Lower Court, and I am entitled treat, him as hostile." Witness maintained that he had paid only 10s a month. He said he had bought the furniture for use in the "bach." Each of the men in the "bach" was- supposed to pay 10s a month. Hodgins was to collect it and pay it monthly to the board.- In further evidence Ames said' that the total contributions of all the members ol the bitch were £2 a month. As far as witness knew each member-paid'his 10s. Crqss-examined,. witness said the furniture purchased with the loan was put in the liach and used there. Accused had to pay his quota of the ■ repayment. When there were only three men in the bach each paid a third of £2 a month. His Honour: "Have, you no regard for the truth at all? You are a pretty officer to occupy a responsible ■ position in the Wellington City Council when you come here'and give evidence ill this way." Before the Magistrate, his Honour continued, witness had said that the repayments were" £2 3s 4d a month. In the present proqeedings he said .they were 10s, and then, in answer to Mr. O'Leary. he 6aid the repayments were a third of £2. "What were the repayments?" ( asked his Honour. "Will you kindly speak the truth regardless of any attempt to protect Hodgins?"' Witness said the repayments were a third of £2 when there were three in the bach, arid 10s .when, there' were four in the bach. To Mr. O'Leary, witness said he paid £12 10s on account of the loan. Accused was the bach treasurer, and it was in that capacity that witness handed Hodgins the instalments monthly. When Witness spoke to accused about the £26, accused replied that the repayments had got into arrear. The members of the bach did not square up every month. There.was ah amount of £15 owing to Hodgins when he left the bach. JUDGE'S ADVERSE COMMENT. In his summing up, his Honour commented adversely upon the .evidence of the witness Ames. The story told by him in the Lower Court differed from that which he had told in the presentcase. Both under examination and cross-examination' it was obvious that his story had been "edited" by Hodgins between the Lower Court and the present, proceedings.. The jury returned after a'retirement of _20 minutes with, a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. His Honour instructed that tho witness Ames be not paid witnesses' expenses. . ■'■'•..■■ Mr.' Mackssey: "I have already given that instruction to the Registrar your Honour." . ' ' '•