THEFT ALLEGED

Evening Star, Issue 22953, 10 May 1938, Page 16

THEFT ALLEGED

TEA SALESMAN CHARGED SUPREME COURT REARING Further evidence was' heard in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in the case in which William Barron M'Neil was charged that, having received sums of money totalling £52 2s 9d from various persons between July I, 1936, and April 30, .1937, on terms requiring him to account for or pay the money to Forbes (N.Z.) Ltd.,' he fraudulently converted it to his own use, thereby committing theft. Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown, and the accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson. Continuing his evidence, Walter Robert M'Callum, an accountant, and secretary of the Forbes Company, in Christchurch, gave details of correspondence which passed between the accused and the company in the matter of orders, sales, and payments, and between the ■ legal advisers in Dunedin and in Christchurch of the accused and his company. After the return of the motor vehicle to the company by the accused, following on a payment to him of £45 which he had paid for it, the. company found that certain moneys received by the accused on the company’s behalf had not been remitted to the company. Witness was examined with respect to sales to previous witnesses and the amounts paid into the company. Reference to the company’s ledger showed that amounts alleged to have been paid to the accused had not been remitted by him to the company. • Mr Anderson, for the accused, intimated that the defence admitted that the amounts enumerated in the indictment were never sent forward to Forbes (N.Z.) Ltd. Counsel also said that the delivery of tea in the quantities stated, to the persons mentioned in the dockets, was hot disputed. Witness said the accused was entitled to commission amounting to £73 13s 9d. With deductions for car payments, insurance, fidelity guarantee, and commission paid there was a balance of 11s 3d owing to the accused. To Mr Anderson: The company regarded the accused’s engagement as substantially a full-time one, and for 10 months his net earnings were £22. The accused’s returns came in regularly at first, but the quantities sold were very small. Asked why the accused did not get his monthly returns and

commission from witness’s office, witness said the amounts of his commission after the deduction of £6 a month for the car were too small. _ Witness admitted that it was bad business. There was a lack of co-ordination in the firm’s handling, of the whole matter of the accused’s engagement. To Mr Anderson: The proceedings had been brought because the company was endeavouring to recover under the fidelity guarantee bond. Criminal proceedings were brought on the advice of the company’s lawyers. To Mr Adams: Witness did not think that the accused had suffered as a result of the manner in which the company’s activities had been directed. Evidence was also given by Detective J. Russell concerning signed and unsigned statements made to the police by the accused. The Crown Prosecutor, addressing the jury, said that more than one red herring had been drawn across the trail in the case, but the jury actually had a very simple issue to determine. They had to decide whether the accused received money under conditions requiring him to pay them to his employers, and, secondly, whether he paid such money to the company. Counsel jeviewed the evidence of the receipt*! certain payments, and commented on the accused’s own admission that he had received the money, suggesting that there could bo no dispute as to the facts in this respect._ The court then adjourned until this morning