OPUNAKE HOSPITAL FUNDS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 29 November 1927, Page 8

OPUNAKE HOSPITAL FUNDS

CHARGES OF JEMBEZZLEME^T. THE SINCLAIR TRIAL. CONTINUATION OF HEARING. The hearing ot evidence for the Crown in the trial 01 Thomas Henry Herbert Sinclair on 23 changes of embezzlement of funds of the Opunake Cottage Hospital, of which he was secretary, was continued at the New Plymouth' Supreme Court yesterday afternoon and. was not completed when the Court rose. Hie case is "being continued to-day. The Government j.ud!t inspector. George Ed ward Al'ey, said that he. had commenced the audit of the Taranaki Hospital Hoard’s books on July 14 last, and as was customary ,-requested tne accused to supply all receipt books and records but onlv one official receipt book came to hand- Further requests ware mad? by telephone' without iresult, and on August 12. in company with the hoard secretary, witness visited the accused at Opunake and requested the reeciot hook not forwarded. The accused had first said he did not have a second receipt book, but later discovered it in a cupboard in his office. Later that day the accused stated hr* had received two amounts in addition to those mentioned in the receipt books. Witness then requested ,accusvhl to prepare a statement of amounts collected .and not accounted for. On August 31 the accused Rewarded a statement of such amounts to the secretary, accompanied l by a. bank receipt for £lOl 9s. This was only the third deposit made since the opening of the account in January, 1920. The investigations of witness showed that the statement forwarded by the accused did not completely dear up the matter, and on September 7, in company with the acting-chairman of the board, witness again interviewed the accused concerning amounts not accounted for, and he had admitted not accounting for the following: Mrs G. Thomas £0 13s, C. Malcolm £2 7s 6d, and L. Smith £l 8s 6d.

The accused had that day -deposited £lO 9« to the credit of the board. Witness had asked the accused why lie had issued unofficial receipts contrary to instructions and had received the rei-Vv which witness considered to be unsatisfactory, that accused had been under the' impression that theiie was money owing to him and he was waiting for a final squaring up. To His Honour, witness- said that •t the end of March last the accused had shown in his- cash, book that his disbursements made on the board’s behalf bad exceeded the amounts received by £9.

Further, to Mr Weston, the audit inspector said that accused had stated that his omissions lia.d been due to “muddlement and carelessness.” Witness bad made up a list of outstanding fees after accused bad made his statement and submitted it to accused, asking him whether lie was aware that any had been paid. With the exception ot two or three amounts, the 'accused had said that he was aware that the-,- had been paid. The accused had said tbi t all amounts enteqsd as nursing fees had lveen collected by the nurse in charge of the hospital He had consented to accept liability for all amounts received direct by himself. On October 10. in company with Detective Meiklejohn, witness had searched the office of accused for books and papers- When witness commenced liis audit lie bad sent out circulars- to persons against whom were outstanding. The total amount "unaccounted for at the time of -the aud t vas £l6B 2s 6d, but since the ipaympnh made, bv the accused there was .still

-P ' '2< 7d outstanding after allowance had been made for adjustments ct amounts due- to the accused. Witness dealt in detail with the individual amounts not accounted for. in the course of cross-examination, Mr O’Dea stated that various amounts included in the nurse's book oorreesiiidec! with those credited in the accused cash book, which accounted for some of’the missing amounts. His Honour pointed out that in the case: of some of the amounts the acmsed had admitted not accounting for them, and had included them in his further payment. Mr 'O’Dea contended that the accused had paid twice in some instances, ile submitted that instead of the accused being indebted to the board lie was in credit to the extent of 15s.

Continuing Iris evidence to Mr O’Dea, the audit officer said lie had conducted the previous audit of the books in December. 1925, up to the oloste of the near ended March. 1925. Some of the thefts alleged in the present cases had therefore taken place prior to the audit and had not then been discovered. Witness said lie had seen the (accused on numerous occasions since the commencement of the audit, but had not intimated to the accused the probability of a charge of theft being laid. The hearing was adjourned at 5 p.m. until to-day.

SOME CHARGES WITHDRAWN. TO-D AY ’ SEVIDENCE. By Telegraph—From Our Own Reporter. NEW PLYMOUTH, Nov. 29. When the Supreme Court resumed this morning in the trial of Thomas Henry Herbert Sinclair, Mr. O’Dea continued the cross examination of the Government audit inspector, who admitted that the records produced indicated that the accused had paid in the amounts referred to in the first two indictments. Witness had sent out demands in respect of all old accounts, some of which had been written off. Failing a reply peremptory demands threatening action had been issued to ensure receipt 'of a letter stating whether the account Avas correct or not. The witness admitted that there was evidence of laxity in the control ol the books at NeAv Plymouth. When witness saw the accused lie refused to allow the latter to see a list of outstanding accounts, although,he was aware that it was probable that a criminal charge would be laid. Prior to March, 1924 no fees 1 register for Opunake Cottage Hospital rvas kept at the board’s office. On August 12, the accused handed to Avitnessi a bundle of vouchers, tAVO of which the accused had omitted to enter in the cash book. .Re-oxa mined by Mr. Weston, the witness said that since he had had an opportunity to {jo through the nurse’s cash book, he had satisfied himself that the charges in respect to the folloAving accounts: Mary Thomas, £6 13s, Barbara. Malcolm £2 7s 6d, N. Simpson £l4 12s 6d Aver© groundless l . Mr. Weston .accordingly asked leave to- withdraAV indictments in respect to these, ialso an indictment in respect to the account, Mary Jane Longtou £2 l(b The secretary of the Taranaki Jjdspi tal Board, Edward Thomas Hold re n, stated that at the Opunake Cottage Hospital in 1922 and until 1925 Ava.s managed entirely by 'oral committee, which collected all fees. In April 1925, the system was 'altered so that nil accounts Aver© sent from the board’s office, to which the secretary of the committee required to account. Later the system Avas further altered, an account at the Bank of New South Wales being opened at Opunake, inv< Avliich the accused Avas

required to pay all accounts collected, receipts for which were to bo issued oil official forms supplied. Wore the accused to pay amounts col-eeted lor the iiospital in to bis own account he would be acting contrary to nis instructions. After the commencement, of this system it became unnecessary mr file no cusod to kcep C'cisli taooic, wlut L accordingly forwarded to the office, supposedly balanced to March 31, 1926. This showed a balance of £9 owing to the accused, who made no suggestion that he claimed no further monies. To the date of the conclusion of the cash book five amounts totalling £35 had apparently not been acocuuted for. Subsequent to April last, the funds of the Opunake Hospital were iso low that it was necessary for three deposits of £IOO to be made. It had been known for some time that the Opunake Hospital was not paying its way and reference -to this had been made at board meetings, but the accused at no time suggested that he should pay over the accounts belonging to the board and held by him.' . ,