ASHLEY COUNTY COUNCIL

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 May 1945, Page 3

ASHLEY COUNTY COUNCIL

“EVIDENCE OF LAXITY”

CHRISTCHURCH, May 8. A no bill on the indictment of Clifford Allen Belcher on charges of theft as a servant, and forgery, was returned by the grand jury in the Supreme Court to-day. The jury added a rider that there was 'evidence of gross carelessness and laxity in the methods of the Ashley County Council in making payments, and that an investigation should be made. Mr. Justice Northcroft said the observation was a proper one for the grand jury to make, and he would see that representations were made .to the Ashley County Council.

In that portion of his charge to the grand jury dealing with the charges against Belcher, his Honor said Belcher was the clerk of a county council who had left to take other employment. The audit inspection of the council’s books later had revealed the matters now before the Court. Work done on Belcher’s car had been charged to the county council, and other work he had had done for him had been added on to the council accounts. He had said that he used his car a great deal on council business and that, although he received allowances of petrol and money, it was recognised that they were not adequate, and, in effect, that the chairman of the county council had authorised the practices he had adopted. This the chairman denied. That accounted for the charge of theft.

Turning to the forgery charges, his Honor said they concerned travelling allowances due to a councillor. The vouchers for these amounts of £2 and £3 were signed not by the councillor named but by Bel.cher with the councillor’s name. The councillor said he had not received the money. The account Belcher had given was that he was authorised to sign the councillor’s name, and had done so to complete the accounts, and then paid the money to the councillor. If a man had authority to sign another’s name, that was not forgery; even if the initials which were usually put beside the signature in such cases were missing. The councillor, however,.said he had not given that authority. The grand jury’s view of the case should depend on" the reliance they placed on the councillor. It was the same with the theft charge, the grand jury’s finding on which would depend on the view it took of the evidence of the chairman.