M'ARTHUR CASE

Evening Star, Issue 22383, 6 July 1936, Page 8

M'ARTHUR CASE

THREE CHARGES OF THEFT EVIDENCE ON ACCUSED'S POWER OF ATTORNEY [Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 6. Three charges of theft were preferred against John Wm. Shaw M'Arthur before Mr Mosley, S.M., to-day. They were:— (a) On or about September 10, 1932, at Auckland, he committed the theft of £350 of the moneys of Sterling InVestments Company (N.Z.) Ltd,: , (b) On or about the same date, at Auckland, he committed the theft of £4OO of the moneys of this company. (c) On or about October 20, 1932, at Auckland, he committed the theft of £325' of the moneys of the company. Formal evidence concerning the certificate of incorporation and articles of Association of the Sterling Company was given by Mr M'Kay, Assistant Registrar of Companies, Wellington. . Kenneth C. Aekins, solicitor, of Auckland, and chairman of directors of the Sterling companies until liquidation, gave evidence regarding the power of attorney in favour of the managing director of the Investment Trust Company, the reason for it being requested being to furnish collateral security for debentures held by the Investment Trust. It remained operative • till revoked on December 6, 1932, when at the same time another power of attorney was granted in favour of C. G. Alcorn. Witness was not aware of any resolution being passed that Alcorn should operate on a separate account of the company. Under the first power of attorney M'Arthur requested witness to arrange for the opening of a separate account at the National Bank, to be called the Sterling Company Investments account, and to be operated upon by M'Arthur. Witness said that at no time during his period as director was he informed that M'Arthur was drawing cheques on the investments account and depositing them in his private account, and witness had no knowledge that he was doing so. In further evidence witness said the accused was not a shareholder of the company, nor at any time a cwreclor or servant. His only capacity was that of attorney. He had no authority to make personal drawings from the investment account. As far as witness knew, the company never granted any loans to M'Arthur to witness’s knowledge, and there was no reference in the minutes book to any loans to accused since the power of attorney. The company did grant _ loans in the ordinary course of business, and those of which he was aware were given upon some form of security. John Leslie Guinness, of the National Bank of New Zealand, Auckland, said that M'Arthur, as. attorney for the company, operated on the company’s account and no one else. The three cheques, the subject of the charges, were drawn by M'Arthur from the account in the National Bank. M'Arthur’s private account was in another bank. .

After evidence had been given by Hector Bishop Gauntlett, of the Commercial Bank, Auckland, he said in cross-examination that the three amounts which were the subject of the charges were paid into M'Arthur’s private account. Witness said there was a complete record of the dealings with these amounts in the Commercial Bank and the National Bank.

Mr O’Leary: Somewhat an unusual thief, is he not? There’s a complete record left by the man himself.

Witness: ,Yes. Evidence was also given by Madge Gregory, formerly secretary for the Sterling Company. The next witness was, John Leslie Griffin, one of the four inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of the companies named in the Special Investigations Act. Mr Evans-Scott’s questions trespassed on ground subsequent to the dates of the charges, and this line had to be abandoned. His questions related to amounts figuring in the names of T. R. M'Arthur and J. W. S. M‘Arthur. Cross-examination was devoted to obtaining an acknowledgement from witness that if the amounts w'ere all actually J. W. S. M'Arthur he had the right to operate them, and if there was a credit there could not be theft.