DISHONEST SOLICITOR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17966, 16 December 1921, Page 9

DISHONEST SOLICITOR.

CRACKNELL PLEADS GUILTY.

12 CHARGES PREFERRED.

MONEYS TOTAL £8723.

The theft of clients' money, totalling £8723 10s, was admitted by Arthur Cracknell, member of the late legal linn of Hammond and Crackneil, in the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M. The prosecution was conducted by Chief-Detective Mcllveney, accused being represented by Mr. Mackay. There were 12 charges, covering the period from November, 1919, to July, 1921, and the various sums involved ranged from £223 10s to £3000.

The evidence showed that in the majority of cases the money became available for investment as the result of property deals in which the firm of Hammond and Cracknell acted for , the witnesses. In other cases cl ; euts had been asked by accused if they had money to invest, and they had paid the money into the firm's hands for that purpose. Only one witness stated that he had asked to see the deeds of the property over which the mortgage was supposed to have been held. The first witness, Alan A. Dignan, member of the firm of Mahony, Son, and Dignan, said that last January his firm, acting for a client, paid Hammond and Cracknell £3761 14s 3d, in payment of a mortgage to Oliver Reed. Of that sum £3000 was left for investment. Isaac Burcbill, settler, Cobden Street, said he had had business dealings with the firm of Burton and Hammond, and later with Hammond and Cracknell. Last October accused asked him to invest £500 on first-class security, a farm at Papakura, at 6£ per cent. He handed the monoy to Cracknell, receiving a receipt, .He received interest, but subsequently ascertained that the money was not invested. The firm was indebted to him for £1260. About a fortnight before Mr. Hammond died, accused asked him to lend £1000 on a house, but he refused.

Received Interest On Amount. John Cutler, settler, Minto Road, said £1000 was paid to accused's firm on his behalf in December, 1920. Only £300 had been accounted for. Accused told him the balance, £700, was invested, and be had received interest on that amount. In July, £223 10s was paid into the firm and was supposed to have been lent on a property at Avondale. Arthur E. L. Smith, dentist, Shelly Beach Road, said £300 was placed with the firm on his behalf for investment last December, and £400 in April. He received interest on the first amount, but not on the second. All his dealings were

with accused. , Similar evidence was given by H. C. Smith, dentist, Hobson Street, £250; John G. C. Herrich, bootmaker, Prospect Terrace. £600; Sarah E. Hamer, widow, Hope Street, £700 J William Greenberg, settler, Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, £400, and James Teasdale. baker, Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, £400. Thomas Fitness, buttermaker, Frankton Junction, said he sold a property at Pukekohe in February for £1800. Of that amount £500 ! ' was used to pay off a mortgage, and £1300 was to be invested for him by He received notice that it had been invested in sums of £800 and £500. He later asked the firm for the deeds, but did not receive them.

Accountant's Investigations. I. B. D. Esam, public accountant, said he had made an investigation of the firm's books at the request of the official assignee. His investigation showed that trust moneys to the extent of £47,088 15s 6d received by the firm between January 1, 1914, *nd August, 1921, had not been accounted for. There were no securities representing that amount. The assets of. the firm so far ascertainable were: Book debts, £27,515 17s sd; cash in hand, £116 15s 10d: and office furniture about £200. The book debts might increase slightly on investigation. Cross-examined, witness said there was nothing to indicate that the new firm of Hammond and Cracknell was a continuation of the firm of Burton and Hammond. A now set of books and a new banking account were opened. The new firm carried on the deeds of clients of the old firm. His investigations disclosed that Hammond and Cracknell found funds to supply deficiencies in the firm of Burton and Hammond when the new partnership commenced. The shortage occurred chiefly in the payment of interest on money not invested and overdrawing in the partnership account over profits. The investigation disclosed no hidden assets. Outside the drawings, from the firm accused had not received any material benefit from the money taken. Witness had most difficulty in clearing up matters in which Mv. Hammond had been interested. There was a suggestion in one • case that Mr. Hammond and some clients earned on another business. Most of trust moneys had been used (o accommodate the late Mr. Hammond's clients. The books and papers suggested that each partner had certain clients with whom fie dealt exclusively. A balance, prepared in 1918 by the firm's auditor, snowed a debit balance of £2215 12s 2d. It was not a correct statement of the affairs of the firm. Accused had given very material assistance in clearing up the affairs of the firm. Re-examined, witness said that if he had had the assistance of Mr. Hammond he would probably have had no more difficulty with his accounts than he had had with those of accused. Bail Not Allowed. Detective-Sergeant Hammond said he arrested accused on December 5 on a warrant charging him with the theft of £3000. the money of O'iver Reed. Subsequently accused made the statement produced. In it he said he was a clerk in the employ of the firm of Burton and Hammond before he became a partner in the firm of Hammond and Cracknell in 1914. He admitted that the firm received the various amounts mentioned in the charges fnr investment, had misapplied them, and converted them to the uso of the firm. Accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court lor sentence. Bail was refused.