AN ACCOUNTANT’S LAPSE

Evening Star, Issue 19319, 4 August 1926, Page 11

AN ACCOUNTANT’S LAPSE

LARGE SUM INVOLVED [Pee United Peess Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, August 3. Cyril Tonman Mosley, a public accountant, pleaded guilty to-day to charges of failing to account for several sums of money to Seafield, Ltd. The evidence showed that Mosley received cash instalments from purchasers of the company’s sections at Rrooklands, and failed to account for the money. The accused was charged with failing to account for the following sums received from persons mentioned: —W. J. Wilding, £37 3s Id; J. J. Vincent, £SO 15s lid; Waller Hulaton, £l3; E. R Page,. £6O; E. M. Hayward, £33(3; G. I. Johnston, various sums. Ho was also charged with stealing a cheque for £ls 8s 2d, the property of Seafield, Ltd., and with stealing divers suras of money amounting to £29, the* property of Seafield, Ltd. A director of Seafield, Ltd., Mr Valentine Davis Hewer (an accountant), said that the company was formed in July, 1920, and Mosley was appointed secretary on August 8. The company was formed for the purpose of taking over a block of laud and subdividing it into residential sections for re-sale. Mosley was accountable to the company for the money received for the sale of land. The company’s annual balance took place on August 31 of each year, and it was accused duty to hand over the books to witness, who was auditor for the company. At the time of last audit witness had considerable difficulty in getting the. books from Mosley. Without being unreasonaiiio, ho would have expected the books e irly in October, lie made application for them from t!i«r. day .onwards, and Mosley promised frequently to have the birms veiny for handing over for audit by ccrlain dates, but the promises were never fulfilled. At the time accused made Iho excuse that ho was particularly busy. Tins state of affairs »ent on until .lairmjy, 1926, when a Ti.-snlidinn was passed by the company empowering the chairman and directors and witness to seize the books. Witness named those which lie considered to be the property of the company, and they collected a.s many as possible. On that date also Mosley was relieved of his position as secretary to the company. Demands had to bo made from time to time for further books and documents still in accused’s possession. Witness then began an investigation of t he hooks, and found that there had been serious misappropriations; but he could not ascertain the exact amount until he received the other hooks and papers from Mosley. The principal of such documents were the contracts which were the basis of the company’s operations. Some time after witness had received the hooks accused came to him and asked to be allowed to assist in making up the books, and witness said that he had no authority from the directors to allow this at that time. Shortly after the seizure of the books, without any hint from witness as to the position, accused mentioned that the company could make it pretty hot for him. At Mosley’s request witness prepared an approximate statement, which was submitted to accused on May 18, showing that there were defalcations in the vicinity of £1,900. After being given an opportunity to check this statement, accused 'dc exception to only one or two items. A further statement had been prepared since, and the position now was that accused had failed to account to the company for £1,821 6s 10d. Early in the development of the situation accused said repeatedly that all the moneys would lie repaid to the company.” On March 22 last a cheque was received through Mosley’s solicitors for £485, which was duly credited to Lis account.

Detective-sergeant ,T. B. Young.said that ho arrested Mosley on July Id alius office in Hereford, courn. Accused said: “ Surely; Mr Young, they haven’t issued a warrant for me? I have arranged with them to fix the whole i latter up.” Witness saw accused on duly 20 and spoke of further alleged misappropriations, drawing his attention to the fact that receipts were not given by him for a lot of tho money alleged to ho accounted for, but wpre given l,y someone in his office. Mosley said that he would he responsible for the whole of tho amounts which had been paid. Mosley called to see witness on July 2!) regarding further charges. Witness read the charges to accused, who made a statement, in which he admitted that some of the money received had not been accounted for, and that some of it had been converted to his own use.

This concluded the case for the pohcc. Accused had nothing to say. Mosley would plead guilty, said Mr Laseellcs, and ho was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, hail being renewed in £SOO self and two sureties of £250 each.