Alleged Theft

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 234, 10 September 1924, Page 5

Alleged Theft

A Hastings Case BRANCH MANAGER'S DEFALCAt TIONS. COURT PROCEEDINGS. At the Hastings Magistrate’s Court to-day before Mr. R. W- Byer, S,M. t Claud Charles Brinsley was charged with, on divers dates between February lUlh, 1924. and August 4 th, 1924, at Hastings, that being a servant in the employ of the Scoullar Co., Ltd., he did steal divers sums of money amounting to £395 16/3, the property of the Scoullar Co. Detective-Sergeant Butler conducted the prosecution and Mr. A. L. Rogers appeared for the defence. Detective-Sergeant Butler, in statin# th facts, said that accused wag branes manager at Hastings for Scoullar and Co. for 15 months. During that timt be received several sums for the firm which on his own written confessioD accused had converted to his own use. Alfred George Graham, farmer, Kaipoi road, Hastings, deposed to puis chasing goods from Scoullar and Co. <4 February 16th. paying £lO2 and receiving accused’s receipt. Alfred Osborne, motor garage assistant, Hastings, in his evidence, said he bougEt goods to the value of £6 8/10 from the firm on March 22nd, receiving a receipt signed L. Tayior, an employee at Scoullar’s. Hingist Grevelle, farm manage r, Twyford, swore that on March 25th hr bought goods to the gmount of £34 from the shop, receiving a receipt signed G. L. Taylor, the person who supplied him. Mrs. Jane Guthrie, Havelock North, gave evidence that on April Bth she forwarded a cheque, by letter, for £5 18/11 to the firm for goods purchased. She did not receive the receipt, for which she twice asked accused. Accused told her on each occasion that he would send it along. To Mr. Rogers: She was not billed again for the goods.

Edward John Diamond, retired, Duke street. Hastings, deposed that, on April 17th he personally paid 4 cheque for £l4 at the shop for goods supplied. He was supplied by Me. Taylor who gave him the receipt. Frederick Charles Toogood, farmer. Twyford. said that, on May 21st, hd paid, £l2 4/6 at the shop for goods, receiving accused’s receipt. Hugh A. Thompson, farmer, Kahnranaki, said that, on May 30th, hit wife sent an “order” cheque for £2 15/- to the firm for goods. It was endorsed for the firm by accused, and the cheque was paid by the bank. George McClatchie, retired, Tara» dale, said that, on July 25th be pai l £l4O by cheque to the firm for goods, receiving a receipt signed by accused. The chequt was honoured.

George Leonard Tavlor, upholsterer, employed by Scoullar’s, Ltd., Hastings. deposed that he sometime! acted as salesman and received moneys for sales that he made. He would band the moneys to accused or, if be was absent he would place the money In the drawer with a note explaining what it was for. He issued the jfeceipts mentioned and he accounted for all the amounts.

A. 8. Tonkin, solicitor, Hastings, stated that he paid a/ cheque for £l9 15s 10CL to bcouhars on behalf of the HaWkA’s Bay creditors, on or about August 20hd, ana he received a receipt from aceused. Korman H. G. Mclarlaue, sectotaa-y for Bcoullar and Co. Ltd., Wellington, deposed that he visited Hastings iu vuiy last, regarding Outstanding accounts, and he saw the branch manage with reference to them. As a result, accused submitted to Witness a statement prepared by him, showing that he had a sum oi £127 9s 9d to nund. lie undercook to bank that amount forthwith and to forward the statement and the bank slip to Wellington. Keither the statement nor the bank receipt arrived, and in due course, witness ascertained that the bank had not received it. Witness returned t« xxastiugs un August Ist, and inter vxhv--uu accused, at the firm's office, in orde? to get an explanation. Accused Mud ihat he had casned several cheques foe three friends who had ashed him to hold them over for a day or two. He gave the amounts oi the cheques which aggregated £39 7». Witness enurge of the cash he had in hand (£B9) and examined his receipt book. Ho found that, apparently, money had beau received and not accounted for in thu statement referred to. He told accused to put matters right, and to give Witness a full statement of the poait|ou that evening. baw him again next cay, but the position was not fully explained and it was postponed until the tollowing day. Witness gave accused a list of all the amounts owing by Hastings clients to the company, and requested him to give a complete list of all the moneys not accounted for Oi- August 4th accused handed him u letter with a list of the moneys he had not accounted for. The list of unuccounted moneys, amounted to £4od 15s 2d. The letter said that, wtesn he arrived in Hastings, he was hard ap, and ho and his wife had hardly sufficient to pay rent. {They eeuld however get on all right, but he got into a fast set, and the money was spool which should have gone to defray household expenses. His wife kneW nothing of this. He worried about the state of affairs, and ho could not unless he was drugged, and then only for a few hours. Ho hoped every to receive money that he expected tfroin England, but it did not arrive. Ma mislaid £63 he had received from a cheat, and that was the commencement, as he was afraid to report the loss to the head office. He was greatly worried and only for his family he would have asked to be relieved ot his duties men ths ago. He offered no excuse ftr what he had done, and he accepted tho whole blame. The money would be re paid at the rate of £1 a week. His private debts amounted to £34, and his ts sets were nil Witness continuing said that the amount in the infofmatidn represented the net amounts received by accused, after deducting discounts. One of the explanations made by accused was that he charged customers at a reuuced price for goods sold and debited ,himself with the correct price. He had no authority to do that To Mr Rogers: Accused, ultimately, made full disclosures to .witness. He suggested that the firm might assist him, as he would be willing to go back co the bench agaih as an upholster Ur. Witness said he would remit his suggestion to Wellington. Witness presumed that the way he intended to pay back the amount of his defalcations was at £1 a week out of his wages. The portion was considered by the directors fully and it was decided to refer the matter to the police. No communication was sent direct to accused. As far as witness knew, jthe first notification accused received was the warrant for his arrest. There was no independent audit held at the branch offices. The bocks were kept at the head office. The returns were sent from the branch ofAcs to the headquarters at Wellington, where an official audit w’as held monthly. Accused giving evidence on bis own behalf, said he disclosed the full position of the company’s accounts th Hastings, to Mr. Macfarlane, the company’s secretary. He could not account for the whole amount but some of it was accounted for by the difference between prices at which he sold some articles and the company’s regular prices. In remitting the moneys tq