TOWN CLERK ACQUITTED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18630, 11 February 1924, Page 9

TOWN CLERK ACQUITTED

NOT GUILTY OF THEFT. DEVONPORT BOROUGH FUNDS MISSING MONEY NOT TRACED. The trial of James Wilson (Mr. A. H. Johnstone), town clerk of Devonport, on a charge of stealing £768 ss, the property of the Borough Council, was concluded before Mr. Justice Herdmsn in the Supreme Court on Saturday. The jury,, after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict of not guilty. Greta Tui Ingham Faulbaum, cashier to the borough, continuing her evidence, stated that on four occasions, when Wilson was absent from the office, she banked money, at his request, to his private account. It was generally a sum of £20, and she took the money from the borough funds. Wilson had redeemed some of his cheques, which were held in the cash in May last, but since then they had accumulated. In December, Wilson gave her a cheque for £266 in replacement of various cheques, 1.0.U.'5, and bank lodgings she held. At that time he gave her an additional cheque for £40, receiving that amount for it. On at least two occasions he had asked her to send money to his home; once she sent £20, and once £10. She could not be sure of the amounts. Wilson had asked her not to mention the matter to other members' of the staff.

Wilson held the key to the money drawer in the counter, In May, Wilson redeemed several of his cheques by a new cheque for £85, which she banked. He , told her she should not have paid it in,, and asked her if she could lend him some money. She lent him £30 out of the borough funds, and she thought he went to town that afternoon. The keys entrusted to her hung on a ring in the drawer of the counter during the day, and anybody in the office would, in her absence, be able to receive money and give change. She first knew there was a shortage in October ; she did not then speak to Wilson about it, because she had not checked the figures. At that time she held Wilson's cheques to the extent of about £100. No Gratuity or Reward. Witness described her evening visit to the office, at the invitation of Wilson, on January 9. Wilson, she said, then redeemed his cheques for £266 and £40. When she went into the office Wilson pulled down the blind, and only nut on the light in the strong room. He said he expected a shortage, and remarked that lie anticipated it would lead to his resignation. He handed her at that time an additional £100 to cover any other shortage. Wilson told her not to tell the auditor she had lent him anv money or that he had put money into the draver. Mr. Paterson : What was Wilson's attitude to yon in regard to money matters in 1923? — He did not seem to wish to be bothered with them at all. Witness, continuing, said phe had no idea of what became of the missing monev. Wilson had never offered her any gratuity or reward. Cross-examined bv Mr. Johnstone, witness said she had been pretty well educated. Counsel : One might say you are a pretty clever girl ? Witness did not dissent. Continuing, she stated that whenever Wilson cot monev from her she received some kind of acknowledgement. When he came to the office on January 9 he clearly intended to pay up all he owed. Witness and Wilson had checked matters sufficiently to show that the auditor's figures were correct. She knew that Wilson had sold his house. When Wilson handed her the extra £100 he told her not to say he had given it to her. The loss by her of two sums (10s and £20) was mentioned by witness. Replying to Mr. Paterson, she said she had half a sovereign among her silver and just before Christmas it disappeared from the safe. Other people had access to the safe. As to the £20, witness said she had made up the notes into a bundle ready for 'anking and they disappeared from her money bag. To His Honor witness said she thought someone else might have used the notes to give change. Edith Mead, a typist© in the Borough Council office, said she had occasionally received money and given change in Miss Faulbaum's absence. She could not explain the shortage. Statements by Accused. Detective Robertson produced Wilson's three statements. In the first accused stated that he received a salary of £450 a year and £34 for other duties. He had no other income. He considered Miss Faulbaum efficient and quite competent to look after the cash. At any time she might have banked his cheques and they would have been honoured, but at his request- she had withheld them. Some of the money he wanted from Miss Faulbaum might- have been in connection with gambling. Sometimes he returned from Auckland by the midnight boat or the morning launch, or earlier. He did not know who got the amount missing from' the cash, neither did he know of any duplicate key to the c«,sb. drawers in the safe or counter.

In a second statement. Wilson said that if Miss Faulbaum had paid in the £266 cheque he would have taken steps to have had it met. He desired to accept responsibility for Miss Faulbaum cashing h'.s cheques and holding some of them. In a third statement Wilson said he obtained £350 from his brother to redeem cheques with, and £250 from another source. He thought that £600 would meet his obligations on January 8. > The Cashier Exonerated. Witness stated that he inquired about MissAulbaun-V way of living. Mr. Johnstone : There .'s nothiig suggested against Miss Faulbaum. His Honor: I shall tell the jury there is no ground for believing thai the girl took anything. I shall say the girl has nothing whatever to do with it Witness, continuing, taid that Wilson was reticent about gambling or where he got the money. For the rest he was frank. Cyril G. Collins, Government .auditor, recalled, said there h?d been consistent irregularity in banking. Cash received up to a certain date would not be banked for days, and as long as a month after date of receipt. Money entered as banked on a certain date would include cheques received on subsequent dates To His Honor witness said that if Wilson's cheque for £266 had been presented in December it could not have been met. There was a lodgment of £350 on January 8. Mr. Johnstone said the statements taken by the detective were so clear that he did not think he could add anything by calling accused to give evidence. Address for the Defence. In his address to the jury Mr. Johnstone said that accused absolutely denied stealing any money whatever from the borough. The real question was whether there was a fraudulent, taking of money, and whether it was taken with intent, not only to deprive the owners of it temporarily, but with the intention to deprive them of it permanently. It was admitted that accused had taken £306, which amount had been put back, but there was no evidence that he intended to deprive the borough permanently of it. As to the money which was simply missing, and in regard to which the auditor had said, " That is what we are all trying to find out about," he urged that there was no evidence to connect Wilson, or anybody else, with it. It was admitted that, other people had access to the money, and it would be improper to suggest that Wilson was responsible for every peculation or loss. It was no part of accused's duty to receive or bank money.

There was no suggestion of falsification or of giving false receipts, continued counsel. It was wrong that accused should take money in exchange for his cheques, and it put Miss Faulbaum in a wrong position; but the question was: Was it theft ? The practice of Wilson was not a good one, but scores of people took money out of the till for temporary purposes, putting in records of tk* transaction. It

could not be said to be.theft unless they came to the conclusion that he intended to deprive the borough permanently of its money. Accused's bank account would not show all his assets, and who was to say that that was the whole of his property ? There was no doubt Wilson believed he was always in a position to get sufficient to redeem what was owing to the cash. The office was very carelessly run, and largo sunn of money were left there. Everybody seemed "to have had access to them. It was not for counsel to suggest theories and prove that someone else took it. There were elements of suspicion in the case, but no man should be condemned on suspicion alone. His Honor, in summing up, said the fact that a man, restored goods he had taken did not exculpate him generally. The return of goods could be considered merelv as evidence of his intention when he took them. They must make up their minds as to what accused intended to do when he got money from the girl. Of the money, £356 5s had disappeared. There had been a muddle in the management of the office and there had been grave irregularity. His Honor was bound to say there was little evidence that accused got possession of that missing money. There had been originally a shortage of £768 ss, but £412 had been accounted for. He would advise them to concentrate their attention on the cheques given by Wilson for the sums handed to him by the girl. His cheques, which the girl held, if they had been presented, would not have been honoured by his bank. The Crown suggested that they were worthless documents. He appeared to have made what use he pleased of the borough funds, treating the borough cashbox as his banking institution. Did accused, when he got the sums of money, intend to appropriate them to his own use ? continued his Honor. Did he intend permanently to deprive the council of this money, or did he take it as a loan ? If thev thought that accused honestly intended to pay back the money, and that it was only a temporary helping of himself they would come to the conclusion that he was innocent, and he would be entitled to an acquittal/ They might think it remarkable and significant that he took no steps to pay back the money till the auditor appeared on the scene, and all possibility of avoiding detection had disappeared. Was he honest in his mind when he took the money ? It was a pure matter of inference as to whether he had anv criminal intent.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.