CHARGES OF THEFT

Evening Post, Issue 15, 17 July 1936, Page 11

CHARGES OF THEFT

A COMPANY AFFAIR

TWO MEN PLEAD GUILTY

Eleven charges of theft were preferred against Leslie George Oliver, a salesman, aged 44, and six against Albert George Haines, a clerk, aged 48, in the Magistrate's Court today before Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M. Both of the accused pleaded guilty. Sentence was reserved pending a report by the Probation Officer.

Oliver's offences were all of a similar nature, and related to the thefts of various sums of money totalling £62 5s sd, by failing to account for them, having received them from Thomas James Gosson. These occurred on various dates between November 18 of last year and February 1, 1936.

Four of Haines's offences related to the thefts on December 16, December 17, March 5, and March 9 respectively of certain materials and slippers of a total value of £43 6s Id, the property of William Henry Nankervis, receiver for the debenture holder of Amalgamated Slippers, Ltd. The other two concerned the thefts on December 24, 1935, of £18 4s 4d, and on April 4 of £15, the property of the same person.

In the case of Oliver .Detective-Ser-geant L. B. Revell said the accused was a salesman who worked on commission. Between November and February he was selling for Amalgamated Slippers, Ltd., and sold a number of things to Gosson, of a total value of £62 5s sd. He failed to account for the money he received as a result of the sales, and the police were so far in doubt as to why he committed the thefts. He could not do so without the connivance of Haines. COUNSEL'S STATEMENT. Mr. R. Hardie Boys, who appeared for the accused, said that his client had decided to plead guilty after giving the matter most careful consideration. He was not on commission as was ordinarily the case. His name had been associated with the boot and slipper trade in New Zealand for many years, and he was a shareholder of Amalgamated Slippers, Ltd. This company was formed- out of the company for which the accused had been working for two years, and gave a debenture to one of the holding companies of a moneylending institution. The two men concerned drew commissions for themselves in advance of anticipated sales. Within three months the debenture holder put in a receiver, and as soon as this was done their chances were spoiled. The accused claimed he had'a right to receive a total of £69 5s 7d as brokerage on shares, commissions earned by him, etc. The way he went about trying to reclaim this money landed him in the dock. He took the law into his own hands, being aggrieved. at the attitude of the company, and sold slippers to Gosson, retaining the money for himself. At the time he was in debt and was being pressed by creditors. He was also experiencing domestic trouble,, and was being pressed for maintenance. He had never been, before the Court for dishonesty, and his brothers had promised to repay the money. "Instead of taking the matter before a jury," said Mr. Boys, "he has elected to throw himself on the mercy of the Court/ He asked for a term of probation conditional on the money being repaid. Haines, said Detective-Sergeant Revell, was secretary of the Cash Drapery and Amalgamated Agencies since its formation in 1930./ This organisation advanced money to the Leslie Slipper Company,v and when the latter company failed Amalgamated Slippers was formed to take over the debentures. The accused was a director, and when the receiver went in, his services were retained as secretary. Investigations were were made by Detective H. E.Campin and Mr. Nankervis. The accused's method was to instruct the storeman to pack up and deliver the goods, the sale of which had previously been arranged "He would keep the money for his own use and suppress invoices. The only record found by the investigators in the books was one of £15j All other records had been destroyed .either by the accused or by someone else. FULL INQUIRY NOT POSSIBLE. "The inquiry has been taken as far as possible," concluded the detectivesergeant. "There may be other moneys involved', but we cannot trace them. The accused was in a position of trust, and there is no doubt that he abused it." - Mr. A. J. Mazengarb, who appeared for the accused, said that, both Oliver and Haines were'directors of the company, and Haines received £ 1 a week as secretary. On March 15 the receiver took over the company. As the company was still in existence, the accused claimed he had a credit of £52 in wages. He also claimed £53 as brokerage, £15 as bonus on the sale of the' factory for the debenture holder, and £5 travelling expenses, a total credit of £125. Mr. Mazengarb said he had advised his client, as Mr. Boys had advised Oliver, that he had a claim on the company. The charge of £15 was made out to the accused's account in the Books and he claimed to have paid £18 4s 4d and £6 11s 3d to Oliver's account but he admitted retaining the other items. They had great expectations of sales concluded Mr. Mazengarb, and the action of the debenture holder in putting in a receiver spoiled their : chances. They committed the thefts i under.a belief that they had a right. His client had never been before the Court before. Detective-Sergeant Revell said that there was no justification for • the accused's claims, and that the £15 was shown as still outstanding. ' Called in evidence, William Henry Nankervis, public accountant, said that when he took over, the accused was working for him' under the C.D.A. He was really working for witness to do what was required, and had never at any time asked witness for commission or brokerage. ; Cross-examined by Mr. Mazengarb, ; the witness admitted that in the articles of association there was a right to brokerage.

Detective-Sergeant Revell: The accused would come under the category of an ordinary creditor, and would have no justification in theft?

Witness: That is so. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.

"I have given consideration to the report of the Probation Officer," said the Magistrate this afternoon, "and the conclusion I come to is that there is rather more to be said in Oliver's favour than in the case of Haines. In saying this I do, not wish to minimise the seriousness of the offences for which the accused are before the Court. I think each is deserving of some opportunity of re-establishing himself."

Each of the accused was convicted and'fined £10 on one of the charges against him, and convicted and discharged on the others. They were admitted to probation for a period of two years, a condition being that they should repay the money stolen.

For casting offensive matter, Charles Emms was fined 10s and costs by Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court today.