THEFT CHARGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23339, 6 May 1939, Page 16

THEFT CHARGES

A COMPANY'S FUNDS, TRIAL OF EX-SECRETARY?; CASE. FOR THE DEFENCE VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY The trial of Edgar Percy Middled® aged 37, on 16 charges of theft, volving £396, which he was alleged fvhave taken from Waitemata Fishery"; Limited) while he was secretary of was concluded before Mr. Justice in the Supreme Court yesterday, "Jy charges ranged over a period ft April, 1936, to January of this yea . Mr. G. S. R. Meredith conducted theprosecution, and Mr. Garland for the defence. The Crown case completed on Thursday.

Openitig the defence, Mr. Garland'' said the Crown seemed largely to re|i - on the fact that almost at the staifc4 of the audit the accused made, a bn r •• ried departure for Sydney. I n case, however, -the obvious infers was a wrong one. The accused been offered a position in Sydney; w a man named Sharp, and eventually went to Sydney with him. nately, on account of expense, the defence could not call Sharp. It to be noted that. although accused was told in Octobe:r that the auditor Waa coming in, he waited until February before leaving. VAccused's Evidence

Tho charges amounted to this—that he took £156 wSich' was debited to current account and that he was not authorised to do this, and also that there were mistakes in the*.boots totalling just uncW £240. Counsel illustrated the tyje of book-keeping' the accused was on to do, and how mistakes could occur. These would not be discovered until the books were brought right up to \date. Middleton said the confusion was due to lack of: assistance in the office and to others interfering. A man coUd not be convicted of theft if he hid any "colourof right" to moneys taVen. ; xGiving evidence, the accused said he had never taken any that did not belong to him. He was first engaged by Waitemata Fineries, Lim.. ited, in June, 1934, and Vas paid 3Qj. a week for two days' workV He opened the books, but could not', keep pace with them. It was not tr\.e that he was given all the assistancOe asked for. The office accommmodition was most inadequate. He had to with' tho correspondence as well as'&eep the books. Accounts had to be gent out, weeklv, and he was rarely carry out nis work without inteiruption. Sometimes there was too much l <&sh jn the till owing to the mistakes ofothers. The Government fisheries invesfgatios. of 1937 involved him in a • great deal of work.

Expansion of Business \* % Accused said the business wa a; rapidly-expanding one. The turnoveria the first year was £BOOO, in the second £13,000, the third £22,000,- and in tin last well over £30,000. He estimtted that this year it would be-neusr' £40,000. He was satisfied that the managing-director, Mr. M. A. Devcitk, knew of witness' current account. When - the audit began the books were approamately 12 months behind. He had nets objected to an audit, though he liad pointed out it. would be very expensive. To Mr, Meredith the accused saidie claimed he was definitely overwsia/ aud was to interference fro outside. On quite a number, of occasa he had taken money out of the fe ness and debited it to a current acconit he had opened in liis own name. His Honor's Comment ... John Delenie Lorimer, public accouatant, said he had been 14 or 15 years in the Government audit department and was lecturer in book-keeping at two commercial colleges. He. said the slip system of book-keeping used by the Waitemata Fisheries had certain recognised advantages. He could not see that a shortage of hard cash had yet been established in this case. . :f' Mr. Garland claimed that there to nothing indicative of dishonest against his client. _ ■ Mr. Meredith submitted "that the case was a simple one, and that the aecused's explanations could not be believed. .

His Honor said the sums invoked were alleged to hare been stolen m two groups. The jury had to consider whether it had been proved that th« company had not received thes« moneys. They might think that with Mr. Devcich coming in and taking money up to a certain hour • and then handing over to the accountant that there was such room for error that certain of the charges had not been established. If the Crown sought to chaige .the accused with the bft?den of other people's mistakes in somet cases they might regard all the some suspicion. The Crown had to ptore that there was nc> arrangement such as claimed by the accused that he was to have 5 per.cent of the profits. ( After a retirement of a little over an hour and a-half, the jury returned » verdict of not guilty.