CHARGE OF THEFT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 25 October 1940, Page 2

CHARGE OF THEFT

AUCKLAND LAW CLEItK ALLEGED ADMISSION HEAD IN .COURT [United Press Association] AUCKLAND, 24th October. The hearing of theft charges against a law clerk, Phyllis Olive Barnett, aged 31, was continued before Mr Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day. The charges were that on 26th April she stole £996 from her employer, Robert Urquhart; that she stole a cheque for that amount, or that she fraudulently omitted to account for that amount; and there were three similar charges relating to a cheque for £2OO 11s 8d on 28th June. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr V. R. Meredith, conducted the prosecution and Mr Beckerleg and Mr Aekins appeared for accused.

Further evidence relating to entries in his books was given by Robert Urquhai't, when Mr Beckerleg continued his cross-examination. Witness said it was not till July that he was aware a cheque for £996 had not been lodged in his trust account on 26th April. The certified bank slip on 26th April showing that only £54 had been paid in had not attracted his attention nor had his suspicions been aroused by the monthly bank statements for April and May. Re-examined by Mr Meredith, witness said that accused had paid £l5O into his trust account from her own account, being aware that there was a payment of £4OO to be made and that the dishonouring of a cheque for that sum would draw attention to the shortage in the account. His books had been examined by the Law Society, which had refunded the amounts involved from its fidelity account and had exempted witness from liability and his clients had been reimbursed. Witness admitted going to races occasionally. He knew accused was betting and at odd times he had bet on her information, which was good. At one stage he asked her to stop betting and thought she had complied, but he lound out later that she had not.

To his Honour, witness denied that he had agreed to use a sum of £996 for heavy betting. No suggestion of such a proposal was made by either witness or accused.

Detective Slater read a statement made in Mr Beckerleg’s presence, in which accused admitted receiving cheques for banking in Urquhart’s trust account, but said she placed them in her own account. She added that she had no authority to use the cheques and was exceedingly sorry for what she had done. She intended to plead guilty.

1 In his opening address Mr Beckerleg 1 said accused would say that she was never financially embarrased while in Urquhart’s employ. She would say that Urquhart was financially embarrassed and was making improper transfers in his books and he had suggested to her that sums involved should be used on good racing information she had so that shortages could be made up. Accused would also say that it was at Urquhart’s suggestion that cheques were placed to her account so that no trust record account need appear. She had protested against this and had proposed on several occasions that he should get his wife to raise a mortgage on her properties and thus right his difficulties. Counsel said accused’s confession had been made under instructions and that fuller consideration and persuasion of her friends had caused her to change her plea to one of not guilty.

Harry Keeling, an unemployed man, said he had occasionally done messages from Urquhart’s office, and had on two or three occasions banked money. He recalled going to the Bank of New Zealand and the National Bank last April, Urquhart having given him the necessary bank books. Accused was there while Urquhart stood near by. When he handed him Miss Barnett’s book Urquhart said, “Look after this, there’s a big cheque in it.” Witness added that after paying the money in he noticed that the amount entered in the book was over £9OO. He later paid in some notes to Urquhart’s account at the Bank of New Zealand. The hearing was adjourned.