ALLEGED THEFT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4208, 17 November 1900, Page 6

ALLEGED THEFT.

THE CONTROL OP AX IMPREST AGOOUXT. NO AX'I ITT FOR THREE YEARS. Louis Ferdinand Tegner was charged before Mr AA'. li. Haselden, SAP, yesterday. (hat nh the fil'd October, ai Runn-i-ville, be uid commit theft of CSV 3s (Id. moneys of her -Majesty the Queen. Air Alyers conducted the prosecution, and Air Tf Ilford appeared for the defence.

George Leslie Cook, a civil engineer residing at Hurtervillo. and employed by the Public Works Department, said bo was the imprestee of a Government account, out of which co-operative labourers were paid. Accused kept the pressed-ktter books, which contained copies of vouchers, and others in which were kept ‘'head men's” sheets. It was customary at times to draw from the bank a sum slightly in excess of that actually required, in order that change might he in hand to enable the men to easily divide up the money. A sum was sometimes left with an officer to hold in the event o£ a man leaving before next pay-day. and requiring to be paid off. The change would be returned to the office safe. Witness ami Tegner each bad keys of the safe. No one save Tegner had to do with the cashing of cheques for co-operahve work. As a result of inquiries instituted by the Paymaster-General in October, Tegner drafted a teply as to the state of accounts, and this reply witness signed AVitness had net received any moneys from Tegner for which he had failed to return vouchers. To Air AA’ilford; So far as accounts were concerned, Tegner had sole control. As a fact, the bank-book would be no record a a to the exact amount paid to co-operative labourers. It was a fact that the Government Auditor had not been up to audit the accounts of Tegner during the three and a halt years which he had been in the office. During that time Tegner might have paid away £150,000. It was quite possible that the trouble was ouly a matter of muddle, and not of dishonesty. He remembered something about Tegner paying away £5 notes in mistake for £1 notes to a Mr Fraser, who returned them. Very small sums were at times paiu to the stationmaster at Hunterville as fares for co-operative workmen. Dm not think that any men coming to gang;; under witness railed to turn up alter such fares were paid to them. The receipts from" the railway station master would be his vouchers. Recollected about £l2 in vouchers being lost—vouchers in comic -mu with firewood cut by a man named Green. A r ouchers at times did not v.;:ne in promptly. Mr WiKord: is it possible that the term incomplete- voucher in the imprest return might he only approximately correct, Lv-ca.uso the estimate made for the payment might turn out to be wrong wh.-ii the actual payment was made!

Witness : I air. not quite prepared to admit Unit. To the Magl-.trate : An incomplete vouchor means r.hat a sum of money was either pai.:: to a man or forwarded to him, hut the receipt not returned. To Mr Wilfor-'A: He took it that all sums of money rut were either recoverable in casi. or vouchers. Ho drew travelling allowr.r.ces from Tegner. He travelled very little; it was • possible that ho let tho sum accumulate for a few months aim then signed a voucher. Tegner entered each amount in the hook and witness initialled 'the entries. He remembered sums of £oo or so being left in the sate over the time that vouchers were ■ reaoy. He could not how they wore s-teated. It was on the 31st October that Air Webb, of the Audit Department, came up to. inspect the books. Witness beard Tegper say; that they had had some trouble over the imprest vouchor l : with the Audit l)e-! pertinent. When Mr Webb taxed accused with having a shortage the latter, said there most be a voucher miss-’ ing somewhere- In the matter' of payments. advances had been made at Christina!. time; £6OO had hern advanced before measurements were made. These were always on the,

! To Mr Myers: In the event of incomplete vouchers or outstanding ones, ' there would be files in the office bearing statements thereof. Tne vouchers of the man named Green were replaced by duplicates ».*• soon as the Joss was discovered. . Peter Parvis Webb, chief inspector of audit, deposed that on the hist October lie went to liuntorville and in-' speeded the imprest account. Inspected Tcgner’s impress cash-book. It bad not been written up since June. Told him to write it up: When it was made up witness found it of small help; each four weekly period began with a lump sum of £d() or r;o, made up of a number of incomplete vouchers. Asked 1 ognev if he coaid shoe,' now a certain sum of £l7O was arrived at. He said be could not ; but addon that, the item was in part made up of advances in the bands 1 of engineers on the co-operative works. After consulting; ins pocket-book *hc accounted for £3l 2s 4d out of a total, of £3l 8s on on.o entry.

I Witness asked. Tegner to produce , every voucher which he bad in Ills possession. His accounts showed a balance iof £2G4, and incomplete vouchers representing £434- He produced vouchers representing £432 9s Id, and said lie I was unaware of any missing vouchers. ‘There were discrepancies in other ac--1 counts, making in all a deficiency of |£lol bs. He asked accused if be could account for the deficiency. He said, I‘‘No, I can’t think of anything; 1 believe I have given you everything.” Hater on he suggested that money orders he had sent away lind been paid over to the men and not deducted from their pay. Winiess instituted inquiries, as a result of which ho failed to find that any moneys had been applied in the manner suggested by accused. Subsequently' accused produced a statement of accounts. It was drawn up in an erroneous manner. As a general rule, accounts wr.ro not audited by the department at the places where disbursements were made. Unless there were any attempts at concealment the audit could be just as well made at the head office. To Mr Wilford: 1 would say that not more than £IGG,OOO had been put through the Huntervillo Office in the last three .years. Considered Tegner understood accounts. Air Cook was re-

sponsible for the deficiency, ami v/itnes; called on him -as impresteo) to make good the money. Ua answered that under the carcinnstances lie did not feel called npun to make the amount up. T'-gner said he to”Id r.ot. Ft was possible that the deficiency mb-ht have been cause- by over-payment—on the supposition that “everything is possible.” Alexander Fraser, an in-pector in the Public Works .Department, employed at Hunt; rviiie, said that in October last be bad in band tls bd. winch be bad received from accused. \v it ness always obtained vouchers for any moneys _tbat iie paid away. These vouelica he cither posted to the oSiCe or eke peivonady returned.

| i'e Mr AA’iiford : Knew oi genuine ini--it-ik--: made b.- 'J\gner when tin* new iC-'j notes v. ere tir.-i i-se.v-.1. lie paid on r 0- him hve tin-p,.imd nci.-' and five 1- a- ;■ -nai ol CIO. .In-I ah-'-ui I lie j Ml-ne time it as r poMi d i.i him I hat an over]i;,\meat i.i 1 1 ;iii been made by Tegner to a bead man. I To Mr >l et ;- : The-e eveitis happened about rigbt’-en mouths ago. I Vf id:::m Arihibakl .’cl!'. an a--i- taut jengiuecr in Public V, ork- Deparliment, -,ia?inned at Aiangaweka. deposed I’liar be hail in hand in October £OO, l.viiieb he lad receiv'd from .leeu-ed to dlstriinoe :. lining :!■<. men cinpleied on ico-operr.t ; vv works. lie always 1:<-pt a --urn of nteiiey in h ind wiiii v. Ideh. to ipay iio-ii who might i.-ave the works ••uiltlenly. lie aiv.ays -mil in touchers 1 > aearn ed.

To Mr Wiiteni : lie always goj vouchtrs; lhon;:lil be ice-M -we:;r positively tl.at he bad never me ed Ding one. At line's he bad a- much a fa I easli in band above ihe amount dti" to i lie men. Ho once got £1(10 in bank-notes from Tegner wit!) which to pay men for work which, was not cnondotid. lie always took tip more money than was leally required. He jiosted Ihe vouchers to Mr Tegner; a week was the longest (erm he might have retained (hem. Had no knowledge of voucher.- being lost. Fortescue Rowley, clerk in the Labour Department, said that since .Line of this'yenr the department had been paying flip fares of all co-operative workmen. AA Imn the department inadh advances for fares, the amounts thereof were deducted from tho men’s earning-. Accused, made a statement to (he Court. He said : 1 do not admit thatI have taken one penny of Government money beyond my salary and (ravelling cxnen.ses. I have passed more than £IOO,OOO through my hands, and have undertaken single-handed practically the whole of the distribution of that sum. I can only say that the loss of £B7 must he due either to omissions t<A deduct amounts for cash advances and money orders from the beau men of the workmen’s gangs, which amounts do not appear on the face of the vouchers, or to an over-payment, or perhaps through the loss of vouchers or cash. Mr Tlaselden formally committed accused for trial, bail being allowed in ( wo sureties of £SO and accrued . dam recognisances of £IOO.