DIRECTOR GUILTY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21562, 5 August 1933, Page 13

DIRECTOR GUILTY

TOTAL OF U CHARGES CASE OF M. HOUSTON REMANDED FOR SENTENCE END OF LONG TRIAL A trial that has occupied the Supreme Court since last Monday morning, that of James Milward Houston, company director, aged 44 (Mr. Haigh), on charges of fraudulently failing to account for money and of theft, ended last evening. The jury, after a lengthy retirement, found Houston guilty on 54 of the charges against him, and acquitted him on six. He was remanded for sentence on Monday morning. It was alleged that between October, 1928, and February' 1933, the accused had omitted to account for £1755, which he had received on behalf of John Burns and Company, Limited; v and that he stole' various sums from Hobart-Berkel (N.Z.), Limited. * The trial was conducted by Mr. Justice Herdman, and the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Meredith, with him Mr. McCarthy appeared for the Crown. When the hearing was resumed yesterday morning accused, under crossexamination by Mr. Meredith, said he did not understand that all the machines he was dealing with were consignment stock. The only reason why he stated to Burns and Company that he had not sold a machine which he had sold was that he was not at the time in a position to pay for it. He sent in false sheets so as not to disclose that he owed Burns and Company money. "I did not wish to be disagreeable," said witness. "You preferred to be dishonest rather than to be disagreeable?" asked His Honor. Accountant Recalled Accused said he had a private book at home in which he kept corfect returns. He had thrown cheque-book butts into the wastepaper basket". The' returns he gave, to Burns and Company in April,' 1932, was an incorrect statement of his assets as at March 31, 1932. At the request of the jury Herbert, Tiarks, accountant, was recalled and asked why, when he saw payments in the cashbooks, ho did not question tho fact that these payments were nob made over to Burns and Company. Witness said the only answer he could offer was that the amounts were paid out intermittently and not regularly.. He did not check up to see that Burnn and Company had been notified of all sales and paid for them. He did nol} consider that his duty. Mr. Haigh put it to the jury tha«> the crux of the case lay in the answer just given by Mr. Tiarks. He contended that this was a commercial transaction between Burns and Company and the accused, and that it was not a matter for criminal action at all. It was one that should be settled in the civil Courts. It was quite clear that accused did not have to account to Bums and Company for money received, but' that there was a debtor and creditor, account between them. Comment by Judge Mr. Meredith said the position in. the case was only too painfully clear.,-! If the accused received these goods on' terms requiring him to account for part of the proceeds to Burns and Company, and he fraudulently omitted to do so, then he committed theft. It was idle to suggest that these machines were not received by the Jiccused on consignment. It would be hard to imagine a case that more absolutely reeked of fraud..

His Honor pointed out there was ample evidence from which the jury was entitled to infer that accused received these articles on consignment and was in a sense a trustee, s.nd obliged to account for the proceeds of the sale. His Honor invited them to take a broad view of the evidence und ask themselves whether this man was honest in his 'dealings with Burns and Company, or was he fraudulent. Why should he deliberately falsify the statement that he was obliged to make to Burns and Company? With respect to 45 charges the Crown had submilitedi evidence that the accused received these moneys, that he failed to ;ao! count for them, and that he fraiud-j ulently converted them to his 'Dwu use. The Jury's Verdict After an absence of three and tbr«e-i quarter hours the jury returned to say, that they had found the accused guilty on all the first 45 counts and on nine others which they specified..; On six they acquitted him. The first] 45 counts were charges of receiving' sums of money upon terms requiring, him to account for them to Johni Burns and Company and having fraudulently omitted to do bo. The other charges of which he was found 1 guilty were of thefts ftrom HobartBerkel, Limited, failure to enter certain items in the books of the company with intent to defraud, and as an cer of a company making a false' 7 statement of stock with intent to deceive a creditor. He was acquitted on three charges of theft and three of failing to make proper entries. The jury added the following rider: —"The jury strongly recommends the accused to mercy on account of the laxity of control of Burns and Company, we being of opinion that, the defalcations should have been discovered in their initial stages." ' ' . His Honor remsAided accused for sentence on Monday morning. Mr. Haigh asked whether, in reference to the first 45 charges, the legal question whether the accused was required to account for these moneys might be reserv&d for the Court of Appeal. , His Honor said, that seemed to be a! question for"the jury, but' if Mr. 1 Haigh cared to raise the question on Monday it could be discussed then. v