CLERK'S DEFENCE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 281, 26 October 1940, Page 8

CLERK'S DEFENCE.

CASE AT AUCKLAND. REFERENCES TO BETTING. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Oct. 25. A plot by herself and her employer whereby she could cover up shortages in his trust account and gambling lasses by accepting the responsibility for the theft of sums of ±;990 and £220 lis 8d was the defence disclosed in the Supreme Court, to-day, by Phyllis Olive Barnett, a law clerk, aged 28, in tiie course of her trial on charges of the theft of these sums from her employer, Robert Urquhart, a solicitor. In evidence accused said that at no time did she keep the hooks herself. Urquhart would often draw a cheque on the trust account without entering it against the name of any particular client until the end of the month, when he would tell her to enter the name or names in the lees journal. The only banking authority she had was to uplift used cheques and make deposits. She typed the auditor's monthly balance as compiled by Urquhart. In April a client paid £54 in notes, and a cheque for £996 i.u a property transaction. Prior to that the guarantee of Urquhart's general account had been stopped and, knowing witness had a bunk account at Morrinsvilie, he suggested that she transfer the money to the National Bank at Auckland and either guarantee his account or lend him another £IOO. She had lent him £IOO and £25 before, and her wages were behind so she could not advance him any money. On April 20 Urquhart told her this monev ■ had come in, and he had given only a general receipt. He referred to the shortages in the trust account and discussed racing with her, and asked her it she could use some of the money to advantage. She told him not to do that, but go to his wife and arrange to meet his trust account shortages. He said there were races the next day, and if the worst came to the worst he would then go to his wife. "Witness said she reminded him that racing was risky, but eventually she agreed. Urquhart was present when she made out the deposit slips to put £•34 in notes in his trust account in the Bank of New Zealand and a cheque for £990 in her private account at the National Bank. He dispatched a messenger to the banks with deposit slips. He later discussed with her the question of racing, and it was decided to put £2OO on a race on information she had. The money was made up of a cheque for. £194 and of £8 credit she had with a bookmaker. Witness detailed the number of cheques drawn in her name and stated i they were used by herself and Urqu-I hart for betting, including £l5O drawn on June 29 for commissions on thoj Wellington races in July and £75 drawn on July 0 for witness to attend j the Wellington races. Accused said that on July 2 Urquhart was very distressed because clients had asked for three cheques that he could not meet. She told him he would have to ask Mrs Urquhart to put up some money. When certain cheques were dishonoured about tins time and the clients made trouble Urquhart said to witness: "This means gaol for us." They discussed the shortages and Urquhart suggested that she 1 should-go to the Trcntham races and make one more effort to get in casltj to meet the cheques. They had already

sent £l5O to Wellington lor the Trentham races.

Witness continued: "It was agreed that we should stick together." She said later that Urquhart told her she was going, to Wellington "with the full concurrence of the Auckland Law Society." Mr Beckerleg: And did you bring back the bacon ?—No. After that, witness added, her National Bank account slowly petered out until there was only Is 5d in it. AVhen she first interviewed her solicitor about this matter witness said she placed restrictions regarding two people, one of whom was Urquhart, that they were not to be hurt or harmed in any way. She had promised to plead guilty in order to shield Urquhart and to refrain from disclosing that he was responsible for the defalcations. It was out of regard for his wife and family. Mr Beckerleg: What other considerations moved you to change your plea to one of "not guilty?"

"Witness: I also have a son. Witness described a meeting in the office with Urquhart and Mr A. M. Warnock when they put before her a statement admitting liability and she refused to 6ign it. If trust cash came in. it was the habit of Urquhart. she said, "to take it for any purpose he might need it for and show it as petty cash disbursements." Called by the Crown, Alexander Martin Warnock, a member of the legal firm of Alexander, Bennett and Warnock, said the Law Society bad been inquiring into this matter and he interviewed accused on July 16. He suggested that she should consult an independent solicitor, and she said she could not or would not disclose the whole business to an outside solicitor. Witness said be had prepared a statement of the position which accused did not dispute and she told him she did not allege that Urquhart was responsible for the defalcations. She said the £llsO was all gone and that she had paid off some debts. The hcaiing was adjourned.