TEA SALES

Evening Star, Issue 22952, 9 May 1938, Page 10

TEA SALES

AGENT CHARGED WITH THEFT MISAPPROPRIATION ALLEGED The trial was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning of William Barron McNeill on a charge that, .having received sums of money totulliug£l2l 18s lOd from various persous between July 1, 1936, and April 30,, 1937, on terms requiring him to account for or pay the money, to Forbes (New Zealand) Ltd., he fraudulently converted it to his own use, thereby committing theft. Mr Justice Kennedy presided, Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for -the tlrdwh; The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson.

Outlining the case for the prosecution, Mr Adams said that M'Neill was employed at the end of June, 1936, by Forbes (New Zealand) Ltd., selling tea on a commission basis. He was provided with a' van, and subsequently, when the engagement was terminated, a dispute arose as to whether it had been bought Outright or acquired on a hire-purchase agreement; Jn the end the course was adopted of the van being regarded as being purchased by the accused, who was to be entitled to refunds on the purchase price which had been deducted from his commissions. Counsel reviewed in detail the terms of the accused’s contract of engagement with-the company, a fundamental clause being that he undertook to remit the full money he received to the company without delay, and should not hold back any money or' reduce the payments without the consent of the company. The case for the Crown was. that he did receive money which he was bound to forward to the company, and which was not his in any sense, and failed to send it on. It would not be disputed that he did not hold money back, the suggestion being that he helped himself to commission he considered due and to money for running expenses. Mr Adams also referred to the negotiations for a settlement of the affairs between the company' and the accused* and pointed out that the settlement of civil liability did not exonerate the accused from criminal responsibility. Nor did anyone who stole his employer’s money have any defence on, the groundsthat the employer had been guilty of irregularity. The plain fact of the matter was that M‘Neill misapplied the money, paying it away for other purposes than was proper under the circumstances.

Evidence concerning the purchase of varying quantities'of tea from the accused was given by John Limond Ath(ield. Frank Ayson, Robert Bews, Sydney C, Brundell, Frederick Herbert Blundell. Gilbert Alexander Barnett, Heaton M. Bunell, Margaret Isabella Caradus. William Perkins Chapman, John Colquhoun, AVilliam James Walter Goughian. John Henry Dockrill, Peter Dow. David Hannah, James Henry, William Hammond Lanes. William Leask, Alexander Lindsay. Henry Begg Miller, Alexander M‘Gregor. Patrick William Oscar Otto. Victor Parker, Ethel Shadwol 1 !. William Alexander Steel, David Wilkinson. James Bertie Wootton, and Francis Matthew Wright. Walter Robert M'Callum, an accountant, and secretary of the Forbes Company in Christchurch, produced a lengthy letter concerning the instructions issued to the accused upon his appointment, and the contract of engagement. The luncheon adjournment was taken at this stage.