CHARGES OF THEFT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 118, 2 May 1936, Page 3

CHARGES OF THEFT

Debt-Collectors Before Court COSTS IN QUESTION By Telegraph—Press Association. AUCKLAND, May 1. Percy Prases Hodgson, managing director of the Dominion Mercantile Agency Ltd., and Frederick William Packer, Auckland manager of the same firm, were charged at the Police Court on 36 informations of having received sums totalling £8 19/- requiring them to account to various clients and that they fraudulently omitted to pay pait thereof, thereby committing theft. Mr Spencer Mason appeared for both accused, who pleaded not guilty. Counsel applied for suppression of defendants’ names in the meantime, submitting that the firm's business had been built up over a quarter of a century on integrity, and if publication were made before the conclusion of the case it would be extremely damaging to the flrm. •'Oh, no. I won’t suppress their names,” said Mr F. K. Hunt, H.At. ‘‘There’s nothing in that. If there is nothing in these cases and the charges are dismissed their integrity will not be damaged.” Senior-Detective Hall said that 111 connection with the collection of debts, ths agency had a largo number ol clients, some of whom were subscribers who placed outstanding accounts will) the agency for collection. Legal action was taken by the agency for the recovery of these debts, and Court costs incurred in the issuing of legal processes were charged to the various clients on a monthly statement rendered to them by the agon <7. POLICE INVESTIGATION. “The matter of Court costs disbursed by the agency compared with those charged to certain clients was investigated by the police,” said Senior-De-tective Hall. “It was shown that in certain cases clients were charged with Court costs that were never disbursed to the Court.” In some cases, he said, clients were subscribers to the agency, paying annual subscription of £1 !/■ or £2 2/- and also commission of 5 or 10 per cent, on all moneys collected by the agency or paid to the client as a result of the agency’s efforts, according to whatever agreement was entered into. The agency was empowered to take legal action for the recovery of debts, but in most cases before this was done the matter was referred to the client for authority to take action in the case of each debtor. What was known to members of the agency as “summons fees” had been charged or. the issue of the summonses. It was the practice of the agency to add 5/- to the cost of issuing summonses where the amount sued for was over £3, and 3/- where the amount was £3 or less. There was evidence that both defendants were parties to what were systematic thefts. An overcharge bad been made and concealed under the heading of “court costs.” It was the custom of the tigeney to charge solicitors' fees for entering a plaint and entering judgment where something substantial was recovered from the debtor. “BOGUS FEES.” The Magistrate: What is a “summons fee?” There is no such fee. Mr Hall: No. They are bogus ices. The concealed charges were known to the agency as “summons fees,” added Mr Hall, but not to its clients who were not aware that such charges were made. Lengthy evidence was heard regarding the agreements entered into with (he agency by the firmfe concerned in the charges. Questioned by counsel for defendants one witness said that they had not had any complaints about dealings with defendants. Five witnesses said that they were satisfied with the service rendered, and still employed the agency for debt collecting. After further evidence the hearing was adjourned.