SENT FOR TRIAL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 12 November 1927, Page 6

SENT FOR TRIAL

OFFICIAL AT OPUNAKE.

HOSPITAL BOARD FUNDS. TWENTY-THREE THEFT CHARGES At the conclusion of lengthy evidence given by 21 witness for the fiolice in the Opunake Court yesterday before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., Thomas Henry Herbert Sinclair was committed to the Supreme Court for trial on 23 charges of theft of moneys belonging to the Taranaki Hospital Board totalling £l7O 2s. Sums enumerated in the list of charges were of various amounts ranging from Os 6d to £l4, while on one information a series of small amounts were grouped in a total of £2B 13s.

The dates of the alleged offences spread over a term of about three and a half years between March 8, 1924, and August 10, 1027, it being alleged that accused had received the sums mentioned in his capacity of honorary secretary of the Opunake committee of tire Hospital Board. The prosecution was conducted by Detective Meiklejohn, and Mr P. O ’Dea appeared for defendant. A feature of the lengthy evidence given by witnesses for the police was the excellent references made under cross-examination as to the integrity of the accused. According to the evidence of the principal witness, the Government auditor, the whole of the moneys referred to in the charges had since been paid by the accused with the exception of £46 12s Id. It was stated by counsel at the conclusion of the evidence that a full answer could be given. Evidence was given by May Pentilow concerning a payment of £9 14s made to accused on February S, 1926; by Mary Thomas of a payment of £6 13s on March 8, 1924; by Barbara Malcolm of, a payment of £2 7s 6d made by her daughter, now deceased, on April 4, 1924, and by Lawrence Stephen Smith, employee of the Opunake Hairy Company, of a payment of £S 2s on November 27, 1926, and an earlier payment of £1 Ss 6d, the receipt of which he cculd not trace.

“MAN OF INTEGRITY. ’’ Answering Mr O ’Dea, witness said he could not swear he paid the £1 8s od. He had known Sinclair for just on three years, the latter being the secretary of the dairy company by which witness was employed. Mr O’Dea: Would you not consider Mr Sinclair a man of the highest integrity? Witness: I would. When witness had received a circular letter from the Taranaki Hospital Board he had mentioned it to accused, who had told witness to make the fullest disclosure to the Hospital Board. Rudolph E. Baeyertz, solocitor of Opunake, deposed to having paid £3 6s 6d by cheque to accused on September 25, 1925, in respect of treatment received by Jas. Simpson. (Cross-examined, witness said he had known Sinclair for six years and regarded him as a man of the highest integrity. Sinclair was a man of importance in the town. He was the secretary of the Opunake Dairy Company, chairman of the Opua Road Dairy Companv, secretary of the Oaonui Irrigation Board, a member of the Opunake Harbour Board, a former councillor of the Egmont Council, a member of the Taranaki Hospital Board, and was connected with other institutions in the town. Arthur Ernest Wiggins, a banker formerly residing at Opunake, gave evidence that in October, 1925, his wife had been a patient at the hospital, the fees amounting to £8 15s being paid by cheque to accused on September 12, 1925.

Under cross-examination witness, also gave the opinion that in his experience of accused, which extended since 1921 he could regard the accused as a man of “the highest integrity.’’ In 1920 he had seen a statement of Sinclair’s financial position and the excess of assets over liabilities amounted to between £4OOO and £SOOO. AY'itness would have been prepared to allow Sinclair an overdraft on his personal bond and without financial security. „ “MUST BE A RECORD.’’

Evidence that on February 27, 1926, lie paid accused £4 15s for which no had received a receipt, which was sun-, sequently lost, but was replaced with a duplicate issued by the accused, was given by Stan. Sorenson, farmer of Opunake. The pavment of £8 15s to defendant on January 23, 1926, of £S 15s by a member of his family on account of treatment received.at the Opunake lies, pital was sworn to by Constable Cloust'on, of Opunake. Replying to Mr 0 ’Dca, the constable said there had never been any question on the part of accused that he had received the amount of the account. The constable had known accused for Id years and could endorse fully the previous opinions as to his integrity. “1 have never known anything jo the detriment of his character, ” said witness. “I have only known him to bo under the influence of liquor om o in 16 years. Mr O’Dea: Well that must be about a record. Rewa Johnson, resident at Opunake, stated that on April 28, 1920, and on May 18, 1926, she had paid sums of £lO and £5 respectively for rent of a house belonging to the Hospital Board and had received receipts (produced). A patient at the Opunake Hospital during April, 1926, Euby Cooke, identified a receipt issued by accused on September 24, 1926, for £S 15s, being the amount of the account. Thomas Pole Hughson, who, in 1926, had been in partnership in the lease of land belonging to the Hospital Board, said that on September 9, 1926, he had posted a cheque dated the same day to accused in payment erf rent. “I have known Sinclair for about seven years and have been connected with him in business affairs and as a member of the school committee, and can bear out what other witnesses have said concerning Sinclair being a man of highest integrity,” said witness in reply to counsel. Evidence concerning another payment of £8 15s to accused on February 2, 1927, in respect of hospital fees was given by Arthur Baynor. Witness did not receive a receipt, but when he subsequently interviewed accused, the latter had' admitted that payment had been made. RECEIPTS WHEN REQUESTED. Mary Langton deposed to having made several payments during October and November to accused in respect of rent of a house belonging to the Hospital Board and occupied by witness. Receipts were not furnished on each occasion, but on November 15 witness

had received a receipt on request for £ll ss, this being nine weeks’ rent to November 30. In 1927 witness received a receipt fob £2 10s for two weeks’ rent to October 24. Following tho luncheon adjournment-, the detective called .John Hickey, jun., who said in evidence that in the latter part of 1925 his wife had received treatment in the Opunake Hospital, witness paying the account of £lO 3s 6d bv cheque to accused on February 21, 1926. He was unable to trace the receipt and could not say l whether he had received one. If ho had been credited with £9 14s on that date it would be incorrect, this being 9s Gd short of the amount paid. To Mr O’Dca, witness said he had known Sinclair for about 20 years. They had owned neighbouring farms and' had been fellow members of the Opunake Power Board, and witness had been a director of the Opunake Dairy Company, of which accused was secretarv. “I have found Sinclair most upright and honourable in all his dealings,’’ concluded witness. Norman Simpson, of Oaonui, said that on February 28, 1924, he paid an account of £l4 12s Cd by cheque to accused and received a receipt, which was produced. Violet Elvines told the court that a few days after November 5, 1924, on which date her infant daughter had been discharged from the hospital, she had paid £1 2s 6d to accused. Joseph Thomas Prout, who had received treatment at the hospital in August, 1925. said the fees came to £2 => 7.s 6d, and about the time of his discharge he paid this amount to Sister MacDonald.

Anthony Marshall, farmer of Pungareliu, said that on June 11 and June 25. of 1925, he had paid sums of £l2 and £3 to Sister MacDonald at the hospital, and on July 11, 1925, he paid £2 to Sister Beswick at the hospital. Tf he were credited with £2 on June 25. he would be. short credited by £l. Ethel Eva Briscoe, of Oaonui, who had been a patient at the hospital from March 16 to April 1, 1925, said she .had paid the fees, amounting to £8 15s, to Sister MacDonald some time in April of the same year. She received a receipt, but it had been lost. Julia Clare said she had paid £8 15s to Sister MacDonald at the hospital on May 6, 1925, for treatment received between that date and April 23, 1925. AUDITOR’S INVESTIGATION. The Government audit inspector stationed at New Plymouth, George Edward Alley, said that on July 14 last he commenced an audit of the books at the Taranaki Hospital, and found that certain fees shown as outstanding had been paid to accused. Such moneys had not then been accounted for to the hoard. AY itness referred to the following amounts: April, 1924, T. Malcolm, £2 7s 6d; March, 1924, G. Thomas, £6 13s; December, 1925, L. Smith, £1 8s 6d ; June, 1925, C. M. Clare, £8 15s; September, 1925, J. Simpson, £3 6s 6d; December, 1925, A. E. Wiggins, £S 15s; January, 1926, G. C. Clouston, £S 15s; February, 1926, C. Sorenson, £4 15s; February, 1926, J. Hickey, junr., 9s 6d; April, 1926, J. J. Johnston, £10; May, 1926, J, J. Johnston, £5; September, 1926, YY r . Cook, £8 15s; November, 1926, L. Smith, £8 2s; February, 1927, A. Ray- ; nor, £8 15s; November, 1924, E. Elvines, £1 2s 6d; February, 1924, J. Simpson, £l4 12s 6d; April, 1925, E. AY*. Briscoe, £8 15s; June, 1925, A. Marshall, £1; August, 1925, J. Prout. £1; February, 1926, S. E. Peacock, £9 14s; on v a riots dates to August 10, 1927, A. Bangton, £39 18s; 1926, Houston and Raynor, £7 12s. Short!v after tho audit commenced, Sinclair' was asked to forward his receipt hooks, hut sent one official receipt hook only. Several requests.were made later asking for all receipt books and records held by Sinclair; also a statement of moneys received to date. Failing any action on the part of the accused, witness and the secretary of the hoard visited him at Opunake on August 12, 1927. On witness insisting that Sinclair held another receipt hook which had not so far been produced for audit, Sinclair had a look round and found the missing hook in a cupboard in his office. Two receipts had been issued from the book, one on February 22, 1926, to J. Hickey for £lO 3s 6ch This had been entered in Sinclair’s cash hook as £9 14s —a short entry of 9s 6d. The other receipt issued was to Airs. AY 7 . Cook for £8 15s on September 24, 1926. This had not been accounted for to the board. Only three receipts had been issued from the receipt hook previously forwarded bv accused. On August 12. Sinclair had stated that the following amounts had been received by him: November 27, 1926, L. Smith, £8 2s; February 2. 1927, A. Raynor, £8 15s. He informed witness that no official receipts had been issued in respect of these payments. There was no record on the hoard’s hooks of those fees. AY T itness again asked Sinclair for all records and to prepare a statement of moneys received.

BUMS ACCOUNTED FOR. On August 31 a statement, was forwarded to tim secretary of the boaid. On the same day £lOl 10s 9d was paid into the board’s bank account at Opunake by accused. This represented fees previously unaccounted for to the board. The refund represented the majority of the amounts referred to by witness in bis earlier evidence. On September 7 witness again interviewed the accused in company with tiic. acting-chairman and also the secretary to the board. Sinclair then admitted having received the following amounts not previously accounted for: Mrs. G. Thomas £6 13s, C. Malcolm £2 7s 6d, and L. Smith £1 8s 6d. On the same day an amount of £lO Os was paid into the board’s account, representing the amounts mentioned. When asked why he had issued un■t i Hie in I receipts after receiving the official books and after lie had received instructions to issue official receipts for all moneys received on behalf or the board, Sinclair replied _ that .lie thought there was-money owing to him by the board, and he was waiting for a final squaring up. In reply to witness’s question as to why certain fees bad been omitted from bis previous cash statements, Sinclair bad stated that such omissions were due “to lnnddlement and carelessness.” At the audit witness found that defendant had failed to account to the hoard for a total sum of £lB2 15s, less a fee of £l2 13s in respect of whic-h no action was taken. The sum of £lO7 12s represented fees and £62 10s represented rent. A total of £46 12s Id was still unaccounted for. On the occasion of the interview on September 7, witness had questioned accused concerning a list of outstanding fees. With the exception of two or three amounts accused stated he was not aware that they had been paid. Witness further asked if all amounts entered as nursing fees in his cash book were collected solely by the sister in charge. ITo said they were, and that he would accept liability for nil amounts received direct by himself.

ANNUAL STATEMENT. It was the duty of accused to supply a statement of receipts and pay-

uienst up to March 31 of each year, out the statement furnished for 1924 did not include two amounts of £6 13s and £l4 12s From the statement for 1925 fees of £1 2s 6d and £2 7s 6d had been omitted, while from the statement for the year ended March, lir’B receipts of sums of £8 15s, £3' 6s 6d £8 15s, £S 15s, £4 15s, 9s 6d, £8 15s, £l, £l, and £9 14s had been omitted. As far as witness was aware, no statement had been supplied concerning the 1926-27 year until requested in August by witness. From this statement sums of £l4 12s 6d, £6 13s, £2 7s 6d, £1 2s 6d, £8 15s, £l, £l, £1 8s 6d, £9 14s had been omitted. On October 10 witness, in company with Detective Meiklejohn, interviewed the accused and asked for a receipt book which had been kept by sister MacDonald. Accused said he did not have the receipt hook, but witness was afterwards given a receipt book which was not ail official one. One or two receipts in respect of payments received on behalf of the hoard had been issued from this hook. . . . At the conclusion of the auditor’s evidence, Mr O’Dca intimated he would not cross-examine at length at that stage, but asked several questions concerning accounts .sent out by the board and by the witness. AY'itness said it was possible there may have been a few terrors. Accused was not paid for his services to the hoard. Mr O’Dea: YY 7 ell, if a Government auditor can admit the likelihood of error, surely there is some excuse for a layman like Sinclair. The secretary of the Taranaki Hospital Board. Edward Thomas Holden, gave evidence that in 1922, when the Opunake cottage hospital had been erected, the Vtcal administration, subject to the board, had boon vested in a committee, of which accused was secretary. Following an audit carried out in 1925 witness had written to accused, and two official receipt books had been forwarded to him and another two to the hospital, with instructions that they be used for all moneys receivocl on "behalf of the hoard. All pccounts against the hoard had to he sent to the hoard’s office for paymentIn Januar — 1926, witness opened an account with tho Bank of New South YY 7 ales at Opunake, into which payments received were to be paid; Under the Act all pnvments received by an official must be lodged within sepan days.

BOARD SECRETARY’S IMPRESSIONS.

When accused had been questioned bv the auditor in company with witness concerning some of the amounts not accounted for, witness took it that the cause was forgetfulness on tup part of accused. Part of accusedjs duty was to, collect the rents of certain property belonging to tho board and to expem die sums on improvements to ths bospita! grounds. Lena Mary MacDonald, nurse, of Jolinsonville. said that on September 1. 1924 she. had commence*.* duty a* sister in charge of the Opunake Hospital Her instructions front the Hospital' Board were that all moneys received on irt behalf by witness were to be paid to the local secretary. In Li)2s the system was altered, _ witness paying amounts dinset into tn-e bank. Accused had. formerly given receipts to witness in a book which was now apparently lost. YY'iitness cjould remember Miss Elvines paying an account for £1 2s 6d, about November o. 1924. AY'itness also remembered receiving payments from Mr Marshal and Mr Prout. Up to the time of the change in the system all amounts received by witness had been paid to acJji evidence. Detective 'Meiklejohn deposed to having interviewed accused iin company with the auditor and < l l,e v ; " tinned him concerning amounts collected but not accounted for by accused. He had stated it might hie possible that payment had been made by the people named. AY'itness also asked concerning four payments made to Sister MacDonald and accused replied that he could not accept responsibility so far as thev were concerned. This concluded the evidence. . Air O’Dea : AY 7 e liavo a complete n,liver to all charges, hut the defence will be reserved. Pleas of not guilty were entered to all charges, and accused was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court at New PlymouthBail was renewed in personal recognisance of £IOO and two sureties for a similar amount.