FAILURE TO ACCOUNT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 118, 18 April 1934, Page 8

FAILURE TO ACCOUNT

IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED. At' the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., James Robert Mcllraith, 28 years of age, an agent, appeared to answer five charges of failure to account for moneys collected by him, the individual amounts and the business people to whom the moneys were owing being:—£9 4s 5d to S. G. Northey; £2l 13s 6d to H. Christiansen; £lO 0s 2d to J. W. Fisher and Coy.; £2 13s lOd to W. T. Bolt; and £3O 10s 7d to J. R. Wood, Ltd.; making a total of £74 2s 6d. Detective Power appeared for the police and Mr A. M. Ongley for accused. A plea of guilty was entered, accused electing to be dealt with summarily. Detective Power stated that accused had established a collecting agency, subscribers paying an annual subscription, while a charge was made for the collection of debts. Subscribers had latterly experienced difficulty in obtaining statements from accused and he had finally filed, a petition in bankruptcy. At the time there rvas the sum of £1092 17s 10d, involved with 250 clients affected. However, the charges had been confined to five meantime. When accused had commenced operations in Palmerston North he had possessed £34, but he had owed money in Wellington. JNothing was previously known against accused, but reports had disclosed that he had extravagant tastes. His boohs had been well kept and were correct. Counsel said that accused was a man of considerable ability, having worked from the position of office boy to that of manager of a Wellington collecting agency. He had later started business in Palmerston North, leaving £4OO t come to him from the other business, but while lie had taken Court proceedings to recover it, his solicitor had settled the matter out of Court for £l4O, which left him almost £JUU short of the capital accused had expected having for his business. During the time he had been m business he had collected £30,000 in debts and in normal times the commission would have enabled him to live quite comfortably. However, the times were abnormal and accused had been forced to draw on liis general account to keep going. Not one penny had been expended other than for legitimate business purposes, while the books showed that every penny had been accounted for. He had been placed in further difficulty as a result of an employee allegedly embezzling the sum of £250. Accused' had endeavoured to turn his business into a company, but he had been unable, to get the money and as a result of his car being seized he had been prevented from carrying on business. The offence, maintained counsel, had been brought about through a system which was general throughout the Dominion—that of not keeping the amounts collected in a separate trust account. While the Deputy Official Assignee was, looking into accused’s affairs, there were creditors who had refused to prosecute, realising that accused had not squandered the money, hut had lost it through sheer bad luck in business. The meeting of creditors had carried a motion that accused be not granted his discharge in bankruptcy until lie paid 15a in the £l, and counsel asked that accused be granted probation, for if given the opportunity it was well within the powers of accused to make good. It was accused’s first lapse. The Magistrate: The amounts should have been treated as trust money. I must treat it as though he has used trust funds, although I will deal with him as ligntly as possible. He will be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, two months on the first charge, three on the second, two on the third, two on the fourth and three on the fifth.