JURY DISAGREES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 1 December 1927, Page 4

JURY DISAGREES

SINCLAIR TRIAL FINISHED. ACQUITTED ON TOUR CHARGES. NEW TRIAL ORDERED. After a. retirement of four hours the jury announced at the Supreme Court yesterday that they had been unable to agree in the majority of the charges of embezzlement of moneys belonging to the Taranaki Hospital Board preferred against Thomas Henry Herbert Sinclair, of Opunake. On four of the counts the jury considered that * the allegations had* not been proven, and accused was accordingly acquitted. On the remainder of the charges, numbering 15, a new trial was ordered for next session. After Mr. O’Dea had concluded the case for the defence, Mr. Weston reviewed the evidence in detail. He said that it was not necessary to prove that the accused had intended to permanently deprive the board of moneys, but it would be sufficient for a verdict of guilty if the jury considered tjiat the accused had decided not to account for the moneys but keep them until asked for them, having intended; to retain them permanently if not requested by the board to pay over the amounts. Summing up, the judge said that, however criminally careless a man was, he could not be convicted of theft. The matter for the jury to decide was whether the accused had formed the intention of retaining the moneys during the period that he held them, or was the muddle caused by pure carelessness. He observed that the fact that the accused had occupied an honorary position was no excuse, neither was the fact that he had paid in the, amount involved after invest; gations had been made; also the facts that he had heretofore borne a good character and was in a- sound financial position were no defence, as even the most hardened habitual' criminals had first appeared at court having previously had a good character, and, it was human nature that even when not in necessitous circumstances some people thieved. The question for the jury to decide was what was the accused’s intention in holding moneys. In considering the defence of muddlement it would be necessary to consider the fact that the accused was a trained bookkeeper with a splendid reputation for the efficiency of his secretarial duties. During has accountancy experience lie must have learnt, the absolute necessity of keeping a > proper record of all moneys received. The defence that- he was not aware of a change in the system followed was doubtful, in view of the fact he was in receipt of instructions in addition to being; as a member of the board, in close touch with the secretary. It also seemed strange that a man who had formed the habits of making records should cease to do so iu connection with hospital receipts. Another matter referred to by his Honour was that the accused; had in hi® safe for a period of some two years a large sun; of money which belonged to one of two bodies, and made no' attempt to trace the actual owner. A further point was the fact that when requested by the auditor the accused was, in the spate of a. few hours, able to prepare a. statement of the account. Either he must have had recoi’dis; of receipts which could not now be fully produced, or had retained the record of the transactions in his mind.

Mr. O’Dea pointed out that all were accounted for in notebooks handed in. The accused pointed out the entries, and the judge acknowledged that they were there. Continuing, his Honour reviewed the evidence in each indictment. There was a doubt in the cases of money handed to the nurse, hut in one instance an amount paid by one patient was not recorded, while the wife of the accused was credited with the exact amount for which no cheque was issued.

The jury retired at one o’clock, and shortly after five o’clock returned with the verdict recorded above. The foreman stated that the accused had' been acquitted on the charges which involved moneys handed to the nurse. These were as follows: £1 2-s 6d pa-id by Violet Elvines during November, 1924 ■; £8 15s paid "by Ethel Eva- Briscoe in April, 1925; £1 alleged to have been withheld from £3 paid by Anthony Marshall on June 25, 1925; £1 alleged to have been withheld from- £2 7s 6d paid by Joseph Thomas Front during August, 1925. His Honour regretted that the jury had been unable to agree, and ordered a new trial for next session on the. remaining 15 charges. Of the original 23 counts, four had been withdrawn and a- verdict of not- guilty returned on a: further four. Bail was renewed on the. -same terms as previously: two sureties of £ICKJ and accused in £IOO.