CASE FOR PROBATION

Evening Star, Issue 23100, 28 October 1938, Page 16

CASE FOR PROBATION

SWIMMING FEES RETAINED PLEA OF MISUNDERSTANDING [Peb United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Oct. 27. Charges of fraudulently omitting to account to the Auckland City Council for 12 sums amounting to £ls between November 11, 1936, and August 13 1938, were preferred against Malcolm Eadie Champion, former supervisor at the Tepid Baths, when he appeared on summons before Mr C. ROrr Walker. S.M., in the Police Court to-day. The accuesd, who was represented by Mr T. Henry, pleaded not guilty. The accused gave evidence that until 1933 he had a free hand to give pupils instruction in his spare time. An arrangement was then made by which the instruction fees should be paid into the treasury. At the time he had 11 pupils, and was given permission to complete their tuition, although he had always understood that he could continue to instruct 11 pupils of his own. keeping their fees, and paying all the others over to the council. Persons who could swim but wanted to improve were regarded as his own pupils. The accused said that non-swimmers were the pupils he taught on behalf of the council. He had given instruction without payment to many pupils who could not afford it, as well as members of the Royal Life Saving Society, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and the navy. Councillors’ children - were also taught free. After evidence had been heard, counsel said there was strong evidence that the accused had no criminal intent. He honestly believed that he was entitled to retain the fees from , a certain number of pupils and he did so. “The accused held a responsible position and was respected in the community,” counsel said. “He has given splendid service through New Zealand for swimming, having been an Olympic representative, and he is a man looked up to by all sporting bodies. That is a very strong factor against his aking any risk that would mar his honesty, and I submit he has no case to answer." ‘ It is sad to come to a conclusion like that but there it is,” said the magistrate. “I think the explanation is that the accused was pressed for money about that time and was tempted to retain the fees He will be convicted on all the charges.” Counsel pleaded for probation, saying the accused’s reputation was ’very high and it appeared as though he might have been the vicitim of c loose system regarding coaching and instruction fees. In reply to the magistrate Detectivesergeant McHugh said there was nothing known against the accused. He had known him personally for 20 years as a man of good character and one who had given wonderful service o the community. “ It is definitely a case for probation, 1 said the magistrate, who admitted the accused to probation for a year and ordered him to make restitution and pay the costs of the prosecution.