ALLEGATION OF THEFT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19808, 1 December 1927, Page 14

ALLEGATION OF THEFT.

HOSPITAL BOARD FUNDS. SEVERAL CHARGES FAIL. DISAGREEMENT UPON OTHERS. [BY TELEGRAPH OWN CORRESPONDENT.] NEW PLYMOUTH. Wednesday. The hearing of charges of the theft of funds of the Taranaki Hospital Board amounting to £l6B 2s 6d, between February, 1924, and February, 1927, against Thomas Henry Herbert Sinclair, of Opunake, a member of the board and hon. secretary of the Opunake Cottage Hospital Committee, was concluded in the Supreme Court this afternoon, when the jury, after four hours' retirement, brought in a verdict of not guilty on four charges, but disagreed on the remainder, a now trial being ordered at the next sitting in February. There were originally 23 charges., but four were withdrawn. In the course of the trial discrepancies in the moneys collected by the accused at .Opunake were disclosed in the audit begun in July last and subsequently accused had refunded in two amounts sums totalling £lll 19s. The defence was that the accused's position was the outcome of carelessness and muddlement and a gopd deal of evidence was brought to emphasise tho high standing the accused had previously held in the district. in summing up, Mr. Justice Ostler said it was not necessary to tell any jury that no man, however careless or criminally careless, could be convicted for theft on account of his carelessness. There was no doubt in tho caso that tho accused had moneys and had retained them for somo time. The matter was quite clear, although there had been some clouding by a mass of figures and tho inordinate length of the evidence. The first question to be asked was: — Did the accused intend to retain tho rnonovs for himself or' was tho whole thing the outcome of muddlement and carelessness'! •It had been pointed out that ho had been acting in a gratuitous position, but that was no defence. Whether a man was paid for what he did or not, the same degree of honesty was required in both cases. They need not trouble themselves about what he did after the matter was found out. The fact that he paid it back when found out was ot no importance. The fact that the accused had previously borne a good character was no defence. Every man who was tried + 'aced his trial with a presumption of innocence and of good character. The most hardened criminal in gaol who had perhaps 50 convictions faced his first trial with a presumption of good character, so that there was c nothing in that pointContinuing, the Judge said it' was no defence that he was in a good financial position. Men who were in very good positions and web provided for sometimes gave way to temptation to steal. Any jury must try to find out what was in his mind and what he was thinking about. The only way to do that was to judge by his actions or general conduct. The question of his business ability and his integrity went rather against the accused than in his favour, as it tended to dispose of the suggestion of muddling and carelessness. Accused was allowed bail in self £IOO and two sureties of £IOO.