"MISTAKE MADE"

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 38, 13 August 1932, Page 11

"MISTAKE MADE"

CHARGES OF THEFT

ALLEGED CONFESSION

GIRL WINS HEE CASE

. Satisfied that Thelina Jean Adams had been kept in a room of Messrs. J. R. McKenzie's shop after sho had finished work in the evening and ques"tioned by a strange man for a considerable period in connection with alleged thefts, Mr. T. B. McNeil, S.M., ■found it impossible at the Magistrate's Court yesterday to place any reliance on a "confession" subsequently mads ,by. heir. Mr. McNeil held that sho was ' ■not;guilty of the'charges against her, and gave judgment for £2 17s against J. R. McKenzie, Ltd., for wrongful dismissal. He indicated that Miss Adaius should be asked to transfer employee shares held by her to someone nominated by the company. Sho would ■ then bo entitled to tho £5 she claimed •in respect of the shares, together with ■interest at the rate of 10 per cent. In delivering his judgment Mr. • McNeil said he thought the manager • '.-' of the company, Mr. Guscott, had acted * in. a gentlemanly way to Miss Adams, but he did not realise the' experience •r* 'she bad gone through when she signed • 'the confession. "I can't help feeling," said Mr. McNeil, "that a mistake has been made and too much reliance has ' .been placed on the report of Mr. Myer, and too much takSh for granted by tho manager of the firm. . . The defendants were not justified in coming to the ■: conclusion .that she was guilty of ieso "•■ thefts." ' - T The case, which commenced on' Wed- ."■ nesday, was resumed at 4 o'clock yes- ■ terda'y afternoon. The Court adjourned at 6.30 p.m., and resumed again an honr later, continuing until nearly 10 /o'.clock. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. The only witness called *for ; . the de T fence, Thomas i Bryne, Guscqtt, general manager of J. E. McKenzie, Ltd., said , that he had about 330 employees under his charge. Early in March, he said, he received'a representative of Messrs. •Roy Lodge, a £rm operating in Austra- •'"' li'a- which • carried put internal auditing ■.■•: -and furnished reports on staff effi- . ; ciency and shop displays. They entered into a contract with witness to carry out an investigation of McKenzie's ; shops.. Contracts had also been made 'with six other, firms in Wellington and r other parts of New Zealand. The con- ' tract, was. that Lodge and Company sjjduld be paid £2: 10s for each shop assistant.' .If any dishonesty was discovered by them and money was iefunded to MeKenzie's they. were to get half the money refunded.^ Through^ rout New Zealand it was found that in ' the region of £800 had been stolon from the defendant firm's shops: Under £-10 of this amount had been recovered. '. *' '" """' ■■'-' ■ " ~ ■:. Witness said that the auditing firm also supplied written reports on every assistant, as to how they greeted ciisAomer's, how they assisted them in tnak- ..! ing purchases,, e^c. . INTERVIEWS WITH MJEE., „',._. Witness said, that ho arrived at the .;,Cuba street shop about 5 o'clock on the evening of 23rd March. . Miss Adams .li£d an interview with' Mr. Myer, lastr ing.foi* about twenty minutes. As the ;''■ jrcsult of what Mr. Myer then told him, lie' weni to ■ Miss • Adams on the first , floor.- She was not overwhelmed, and 'appeared- fairly ■ normal—she might liave been a little agitated, but nothing much. *■"■ ; '•'. ivC- jS.he'Vaid td!witness O'' Mr. 'Gtiscotti "t am innocent," and witness replied: "''Miss Adams,'from information I have ieeeived;,it is .quite definite that you are.not telling the truth." ; .■ "" ', "Tsuggested to her," continued wit"ness, "that it would be better to tell , the truth and' have the matter cleared up. Slle still .maintained that she was innocent." " " ' " .''!. -.'Witness./said' tliat 'his attitude to the '.plaintiff was one of sympathy. She was . .'a good girl—an' efficient ond—and wit."."iaesa was sorry for her. His conver-. •~ satiori. with Her; lasted about ten minutes, and during that time she showed . jio sign of tears or.'.of collapse. If she J:3iad,'witness would have had a chair "for her to sit on. •It was then quite Jight, and it had since been ascertained that on the. night in question automobiles' were not! required; to light up until 6.28 p.m. Witness denied that he lad threatened Miss Adams, but said 'he had told her. that, she would have to take the consequences. then left. Miss Adams, and Myer had another conversation with '•'■* Jier^—not in witness's - presence. He :''" thougnf they were together for another ten minutes.- Myer and Mis 3 Adams "thgn;. went down to the ground floor, .' and went along towards the office. They wore then- together ' for about twenty minutes. ' * SIGNING OF CONFESSION. "Mr."Myerthen came down to me and asked me to go to the office," said 'witness. "In the office Mr. Myer said f to Miss Adams:- ■*'Are .you satisfied, Cjuliss Adams, that what you h'av'o written'here is correct in every detail?" She replied, "Yes, Mr. Myer." He then said'he wanted • her to read it over ; to me... Miss Adams did so. Before she-signed the document Mr. Myer ■ asked her if sh_e was sure that what she had said in'it was correct or whether she wished to alter it. She replied tliat she did not. Miss Adams was able to stand up and write the document at a,desk. , , . _ ' , When Mr. Myer left the office wit- " ness turned to Miss Adams and said: "I am very sorry for the position you find yourself in. Whatever have you done with the, money?" ~_<• 'That, said witness, was the first time' " lie noticed'any emotion in the plaintiff, fehe replied: -"I don't know, Mr. Guscott. I must just have frittered it , away." Witness told her that it was ~ very unfortunate for her, and the firm would, expect her. to make restitution. He suggested that she should tell her ..people, and come and see him the following morning, and she saia, "Thank you."': Witness also fancied that she liad said, "Thank.you," to Mr. Myer. When she signed the document, wit- ' ness thought; "she was perfectly eo.pable ,• of doing so. After signing the docu- ,. ,ment she walked from the office to the '/front .door of tho shop by herself, and . .did not make any complaint of having been ill-treated. •"' Counsel'to witness: What timo did you leave MeKenzie's office that night? r —"Previous to a quarter to seven. . . . Miss Anderson would have left between v ' twenty . and twenty-five minutes to seven. ■ ' .; , MR..LAMB'S VISIT. Witness said that Mr. Lamb called at his homo tho same evening and told him that if the chargo of theft against Miss Adams was true ho would break off liis engagement with her. Witness asked him not to be hard on her and . .to forgive her, but Lamb said "No. .'lfit is .true'l am finished with her. .." . Lamb said that Miss Adams bad come home very upset, but ho made no statement, that she had been badly treated. •Miss Adams went to see witness tho 'following day as arranged, but made no' suggestion then that Mr. Myer or . himself had ill-treated her. She again protested her innocence, and when witness asked her why sho had signed the t-confession she said she did not know. The first intimation that witness had of any allSgati,on of . ill-treatment was '.•".vheri he received a lawyer's letter on ISth April. Witness then referred to the working of the cash, register used. hy_ the

firm, and said that it would ring up to. 7s lljd. Counsel for tho plaintiff to witness: You led jthe witness Lamb to believe, that, apart from tho 'evidence that Myer and his party of business-expovts obtained, you had dockets from tho cash register, that would prove the guilt of Miss Adams?— Only the documents I have hero . (reports by Mr. Myor and his assistants, which Mr. McNeil had ruled to be inadmissible in theso proceedings). Did you not lead him and wish him to believe that the documents you had we're something independent of Myer and his party?— No. ...,-■ Counsel then questioned witness about the firm of Lodge and Company, Myer's employers. Witness said that the firm was a reputable one and was employed by many of tho big business houses in Melbourne and Sydney. Counsel: These methods they adopt are simply American methods, are they not?— They may be. Have you ever heard of a reputable firm of auditors in this country going through company's books to discover defalcations and then claiming a fiftyfifty share of moneys recovered? —I have never. Apart from tho confession, tho documents and the interview you had that night with. Miss Adams, you have no evidence of against her? — That is so. A BOY'S UNDERTAKING. -' Cross-examined in connection with a boy, aged 20, who was alleged to have signed a 'confession to stealing £50 from McKenzie 's, witness said that the boy and his mother had undertaken to repay £1 5s per month, and witness had abandoned tho intention of going to the police. Mr. Myer and his party got a con-, fession to the extent of £50?— That is so. ' Did you cheek that amount apart from what Mr. Myer'told you?—No, except. that, the boy told me ho had stolen £50. Were!you satisfied.on other evidence than, what tho boy and Mr. Myer told you that £50 had been stolen? —I have no direct means of checking except by taking stock. .- And you did not take it?— No. And you did not do it iii Miss Adams's case? —No. Witness said that as the boy was going to pay back .the mpney the amount to be. repaid had been reduced to £30. He had received a letter from the boy's mother thanking him for tho consideration that had been shown to her son. .'.. ■' " "MR. MYER'S SHARE. ' Counsel: flf; the £30 is paid in this ease Mr; Myer will get £15, and £15 will go to J. R. McKenzie's?—That is so. •■"••:"■' •.'■.' Witness said that, bo did not have full knowledge of what Myer was saying tp'-the girl when she was in the upstairs office. ■ . : . Lamb told you he wanted proof of her guilt, and you would .not give it to him?— No. ; ' '■ Apart from' what you got from Myer, what he told you, and this confession 'got by Myer, you "had' nothing to make you believe that she was'anything but honest ?-r-No, except that • she told me she-had frittered the money. away. Witness said he had not approached the police in connection with the matter, because-of sympathy for the girl. Counsel: Yon knew that the day after the incident occurred Lamb was going "to fight you?—He threatened to. ': Do you honestly believe that this girl'took £18 10s in money?—l do. ; , On what basis? —On her own admission and on the fact that sho had said, "I have frittered it away, Mr. Guscott." . JUDGMENT DELIVERED. After counsel for both sides- had addressed the' Court, Mi-. McNeil delivered jiis' judgment. In, ir'&e'aM'g'with': the first .part ofl'tb'e claim foir£2 7s^6d as wage's due .in lieu of notice,.Mr. McNeil said he wnsxsatisfied that tta plaintiff had been 'dismissed. As all parties would agree, however, there was much more involved in the case than the question,, whether the plaintiff or the defendant should have judgment ' for tVp amount:' The duty that was thrust upon him", was to say if' the plaintiff was guilty of the thefts of 'which'the defendant said sho was guilty and for which, if sho was guilty, the defendant would undoubtedly be justified in summarily ';..dismissing her. There had been' a discussion by counsel as to whether the onus of proving theft lay upon the defendant or the onus lay on tho; plaintiff to prove her finnocenee. In"-tnis1 case:he thought he had to look back to when the • defendant was put in" the position of being the judge of his.employee. ; ."I feel, arid am firmly of the opinion, that tho. onus was at that date to be satisfied beyond all doubt; in fact, it had to be an absolute- fact,- that tho plaintiff had been guilty of theft," said Mr. McNeil. Ho had to decide what proof tho defendant company hart at the date they., dismissed tho plaintiff that sho was guilty of theft. Mr. Guscott had the confession the plaintiff had written out.and signed, and when he expressed' his sympathy with her sho told' him she had frittered the money away. In addition to that Mr. Guscott had before him the reports of Myer's -assistants, which, however, could not be placed beforo the Court owing to : tho rules of evidence. Mr. McNeil then referred to the terms of the arrangement under which Myer .worked for. tho. defendant. FORCED TO CONCLUSION. - Mr. McNeil said he believed that Mr. Guscott, on the evening of 23rd March, was honestly forced to the conclusion that Miss: Adams had committed theft. Mr. Guseott did not see, at any rate for the whole of the time, tho methods adopted by Mye'r as tho result of which the plaintiff,came to bo'in the state of mind in which she made the confession. The plaintiff was a girl of 22 or 23, and she had been working all day. Sho was then taken to a room and interrogated at any rate for an hour and a half by a strange man. "I am satisfied: that her state of mind at tho end of that time was not that of tho normal person whom Mr. Guseott thought her to be." The Magistrate- stated that ho was struck by, to him, tho honest way in which the plaintiff had given her evidences She had stood up to the crossfixamination of a very able counsel. That might be consistent with her being a woman of the world. Ho had come to tho conclusion that there was another answer, to that, and that was thatshe was telling the truth. SEVERE ORDEAL. The plaintiff had undoubtedly gone through a severe ordeal, and it did not seem right that at the end of a day's work she should bo taken into what was more or less a lumber-room and questioned by a strange man, wno, sho aaid, had almost half mesmerised her: Mr. Myer's business was to got from har what he at any rato would benefit by, and that was that she had been dishonest' and had stolen gums of money. . On the question whether the evidence of Mr. Myer and his assistants might have been made available for the Court Mr. McNeil said that the summons had been served about ton days before Mr. Myer and his party left New Zealand. There was special provision under which a witness residing at a distanco might have his evidence taken in writing." ' As the matter had turned out ho thought that tho evidence should have been before .the Court. It was possible that its absence had placed tho defendants at a disadvantage, but he did not say it did. Costs amounting to £4 8s Gd were awarded against the defendant. On tho application of counsel. Icavr for appeal was fixed at tho amount of the judgment and costs, plua £7 7s.