Auctioneers Guilty

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 171, 22 July 1939, Page 6

Auctioneers Guilty

On Seven of Eighteen Charges FALSE ACCOUNT SALES AND THEFT Following a retirement of nearly 5J hours, a jury in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday found John Richards and Arthur Haines, auctioneers, of Palmerston North, guilty on six charges of rendering false accounts and one of theft and not guilty on the remaining II charges of a similar nature. Prisoners were remanded for sentence until next week. In discharging the jury, Hon. Mr. Justice Blair commented that he thought they had come to a very sound decision.

The jury found both accused guilty on six charges that, being auctioneers, they did with intent to defraud render accounts knowing the same to be false in a material particular, to \vit, the selling price, and also on a charge that, . having received £3 8s 3d on terms requiring them to account for or pay same to Wilson’s Nurseries, Limited, did fraudulently omit to account for or pay a part thereof, to wit, 2s 3d, and did thereby commit theft. In summing up to the jury, Mr. Justice Blair said ho would endeavour to clarify the position from the point of view of the mass of figures which had been presented. However, he must point out, first, that tho principle involved must bo the same whether the sum bo sixpence or any greater amount. His Honour also pointed out that tho law allowed a jury to draw commonsense inferences from facts presented. Dealing with the conspiracy charge, he directed attention to the fact that one man could not conspire with himself. It took two people to work a conspiracy, so that both accused had to be either guilty or innocent on that charge; one could not be found guilty and the other innocent. His Honour then pointed out that both accused had admitted carrying out a s}-stematic practice of deducting certain small amounts from the selling prices to meet losses. The amounts were only small ones which might lead the jury to think that there might not be a S3*stem but with small nibbles the accused were in a position of being more likely to get away with it. An auctioneer had no 1 right to send out false account sales to make up for fruit that had gone bad or for people to whom they had to make rebates. That was what tho law did, not permit. The situation would be absolutely chaotic for the' producers if auctioneers were allowed to make the grower who sent in good fruit pay for the one who sent in bad fruit. His Honour also pointed out that the losses on fruit suffered by the firm had been given by a witness at £lO4 19s, whereas the firm’s turnover in tho same period had been iu the vicinity of £40,000. The loss therefore wonted out at something like a halfpenny in the £. Dealing with the six enarges undei the Auctioneers Act, his Honour ruled that Haines was not legally an auctioneer but nevertheless could be guilty of offences under the Auctioneers Act because ho could be regarded as a party to the offences. As far as the thett charges were concerned, the law had got rid of all the fine distinctions that had existed in days when stealing was a capital offence. To-day, if a man retained money that was not his, it was plain theft, no matter how it was done.