Alleged False Pretences

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 203, 11 August 1927, Page 7

Alleged False Pretences

CHARGES AGAINST SAWMILLERS. A LENCTHY HEARING. Yesterday afternoon, before Mt A. M. Mowlem, S.M., the hearing was continued of the case in which Krank Burge and Oliver Burge, of Hastings, sawmillers, were charged that, between March 4 and April 1, 1927, at Hastings, with intent to obtain from C. and A. Odlin, merchants, Wellington, £199 2/3, by false pretences, to wit by falsely representing that they supplied them with 47,350 feet of timber to the value of £648 1/10, whereas they only supplied 35,262 feet to the value of £448 19/7. Detective Fitzgibbon conducted the prosecution and Mr. C. Duff appeared for the defence-

Mr. E. Commm watched the proceedings on behalf of C. and A. Odlin.

Adrian Poppelwell, manager of Odlin’s Hastings branch, deposed that defendants were sawmillers at Puketitiri. Frank lived in Avenue road, about 100 yards from their (Oddn’s) yards, and Oliver lived in Market street. Odliiis had a contract with defendants for the supply of timber. On one or two occasions loads were delivered without dockets and Burge Bros, wero written to about it. Witness had written to Burge Bros, complaining of the dockets not being sent and he wrote afterwards on the same subject. A letter was written regarding a shortage in docket 616 M after endorsement by the yardman. The Burges were often in witness’ office and could see where the dockets were kept- The office was a flimsy structure and could easily be entered. The office was locked every night, up to April last. The lock could be opened without a key very easily. They changed the lock about the second week in April. There was a shortage of'9o pieces in docket 616 M. Frank came to see witness about March 21, regarding the shortage. Witness checked the load and went through it with him. Burge was satisfied of (b .■ shortage, which he bamed on the mill. On asking him for a credit jor this, he said he would see his brother. They had no response and witness wrote later saying they were debiting them with the shortage. They replied denying their liability in connection with this (letter produced). After that, witness went on his holidays, about April 4th or sth. Seven days were usually allowed in the trade for checking timber. In connection with their denial of liability, the Burges also said no claim could bo recognised after the lapse of three days. Witness returned to Hastings from his unexpired holidays, on April 11th, on account of a letter received from his clerk- The dockets submitted contained specifications of timber contained on loads delivered to Odlins, between March 4th and 31st. itness inspected these dockets on his return and it was apparent that they had heen added to by alteration of figures and by the addition of other figures. Each docket contained a certificate from th© yardsman who checked the timber. Docket 616, showing a shortage of 90 pieces, taking Nicholls’ book as a basis, disclosed that there were 90 more pieces of 6 x 1 rimu than were originally on the docket. To His Worship: 1 mean that the docket had been altered. A LTER ED DOCKETS. Continuing, witness said that docket 620 showed that 107 pieces had been added to the docket, as against the number in Nicholls’ not© book. Docket 621 showed that 167 pieces had been added, docket 622, showed that 106 pieces had been added, docket 623 showed 180 pieces had been added; docket 624 showed 301 added, docket 625, 250 pieces added, 626, 106 pieces added, 627, 113 added, 628, 199 added, 629, 73 added, 630. 98 added.

His Worship: Have these figures been added after Nicholls’ certificate had been placed on (he dockets?— Yes.

Then the front of the docket did not agree with the endorsement?— No.

These alterations witness knew, occurred after Nicholls had certified to the dockets, because his books showed that that must be so. In docket 616 the figure one had been added to nine in column 8, making 19. In column 9. 2 was placed before a 9. In column 10., 1 was turned into a 2, making a 16 £6. In column 13, a 2 had been added, making it read 22, instead of 2- In 620 witness saw a 5 had heen added, and in column 9, a figure had been added where there was no figure before. In 621, column 10, a 4 was added. In column 14, a 1 had been placed before a nine. In column 8. a 4 was added, and in column 9, a 6 was added. In column 10, a 12 has been added. In docket 622, the bottom had been written in in pencil, while the top was in carbon. Witness could see an addition in columns 16, 17 and 18, of 4, 1 and 1, respectively. Docket 624 was partly in pencil, The total in 624 showed 4,902 superficial feet. EXPERIENCE IN LOADING. He had much experience in loading lorries. It was apparent that such a load could not come down in one lot. Such a load should contain 2600 to 2800 feet. The Government basis of weights of New Zealand sawn timber for loading in railway trucks was based on 450 feet to the ton. Witness recited many other instances of additions to dockets and docket 626 was written in pencil, but he was unable to say if any alterations had been made- His firm had been getting supplies of timber from Burge BrotlierbK for the past three years and they sent in their accounts monthly. At the end of the month Odlins got an invoice showing the number of the docket. The invoice was checked with Odlin’s company, and if certified to, it was passed on to the head office for payment. In invoice 425, referring to docket 624, was a charge of 4,996 feet of timber, allegd to have come down in one load.

At this stage Detective Fitzgibbon submitted to Mr. Duff dockets in the year 1921, which he proposed handing

Mr. Duff strongly objected to those dockets being introduced. He drew attention to the fact that the present charges only referred to March to April, 1927, and Detective Fitzgibbon was now submitting dockets of 1924, which were quite irrelevant. Detective Fitzgibbon explained that he was not using these dockets as documents but merely as figures for

the purpose of comparison with the figures of those who wrote the figures in the present case. His Worship, to Mr. Duff: Why are they irrelevant? Mr. Duff: These charges of fraud are confined to this year and documents of three years earlier are not permissable in evidence. His Worship ruled the evidence permissible and Mr Duff asked that his objection be noted, which accordingly was doneHANDWRITING ON DOCKETS. Witness, continuing his evidence said that the figures on invoice produced (November, 1924) were those o-f Oliver Burge. The handwriting in the body was in the handwriting of Oliver Burge, excepting the extensions and prices. Invoices 421 to 433 were in the handwriting of Frank Burge, with the exception of extensions and prices. After investiga ting these dockets witness wroce to Burge Bros, in connection with it and he received no reply. Later he saw Frank Burge and asked for an explanation and he said he had nothing Ito explain. He wrote again on the same subject and later Mr Oliver Burge called on witness, saying he had heard of serious statements nmue by witness concerning his brother Frank. Witness showed him the altered dockets and put the position before him. Burge asked if. it would be any use if he went to Wellington to interview the head office, but witness told him he was unable to commit his principals in the matter. He asked Burge to produce his butt copies but he said that as their office had been burnt down their records were destroyed. At his invitation, witness went to the office and saw some books charred described as the books destroyed. He picked up one and noticed the date was 1923, Witness said that was not w-hat he wanted, but records of recent supplies. Burge replied that they had beenburn t. When examining the books, witness said to Burge that he had better maise a clean breast of the matter, and throw himself on the mercy of the principals, but Burge said he would do no such thing. Frank Burge also spoke to witness. He said he had nothing to explain. Witness said they had reason to suspect a falsification of the dockets affid that Collins, their clerk had written witness staling that Frank Burge had offered him a bribe for the purpose of altering the docketp, but F. Burge denied Collins's statements, and said he knew' nothing about the dockets. Witness remembered the fire in Burge’s office. That was after these conversations had heen held about the dockets. A nook submitted was a book used by Burge Bros, as their delivery docket hook, for supplies sent to Odlin. The docket 1008' was addressed to Odlins, but neither the docket nor the timber had ever been receiv’d by thru. *rh date was May 3, 1927, and it contained several entries which corresponded with certain altered entries in docket 624 N. Another similar book, covering rhe period April to October .1926 was submitted. Mr Duff- objected, but the evidence was allowed and Mr Duff’s objection noted. COPIES OF DOCKETS. Witness, continuing, said the Look showed copies of each docket. Witness checked his copies with the book and they corresponded. The amount of timber represented in dockets 616 to 630, from March 4, 1927 to April 1. 1927*, totalled 47,350 feet, valued at £648 Is lOd alleged to have been delivered to Odlins between those dates. Taking Nicholl’a book as a basis and between the same dates, the added timber amounted to 12,088 feet, and the value £199 2s 3d. The average supply of timber for 3 months, January-March ’ in .1926 amounted to 2661 superficial feet per load. For the same period in 1927 the average load shown on the dockets was 3525 feet.

NO PERSONAL ANTAGONISM. Mr Duff: You are not very friendly with the Burges?—lt’s the first I have heard of it. I feel no personal antagonism towards either defendant, Prior to these Mappings have you had any disagreements with Frank Burge?—Yes, mostly in connection with classification of timber. Did Frank ever put you out of his office in connection with an account o-f a man named Taylor?—Yes, about two years ago. He laid his hand on my shoulder and asked me to go out, and as 1 knew 1 had been wrong about the account I went out.

Burge had sold out to Odlin, and Taylor came to pay an account?’

His Worship: What does all this lead to? Mr Dutf: I want to show that the rupture was more serious. His Worship: Witness has admitted dissagreement with Burge. Isn’t witness’s admission that he was put out of Burge’s office enough? Mr Duff; Very well, Your Worship, I’ll adopt your suggestion. Mr Duff: Tell exactly what occurred when you were speaking to Oliver Burge in his yard?-—Oliver Burge said to me “ Would it be any use in my going to Wellington to see the principals.” The suggestion came from Burge. If Oliver Burge says that you made the suggestion?—The suggestion came first from him.

Who took delivery of the dockets? —either the yardman or else it was delievered at the office; in most cases to the yardman. Continuing, witness said that if the dockets were taken in the office they would be filed and afterwards given to the yardman -for checking. The records from Mills were, as a rule, dependable. Odlins seldom, if ever, made mistakes; they were too careful in their checking. Weren’t Burge Bros, constantly complaining about the delay in the checking?—No, only once.

Would the timber be checked on delivery?—No, it would sometimes remain from one to 14 days without being checked. What happened about invoice 1008? —When Thompson brought the timber listed in invoice 1008 he told me that it was a docket for timber lying* at Burges’ yard, representing timber that had .been charged for and not delivered, but witness would not take delivery. How many people have access to your office in working hours?—Every body.

From the actual writing in the alterations, could you say who made thorn?—l couldn’t do so from the writ ing. Witness said the Burges were anti lied rejects immediately they were rejected, and Burges could take «mi away in the working hours. He refused to take the delivery of the timber in invoice JOOB, which was after this present matter was in the hands of the police for investigation. At this stage the court rose until this morning.