Stealing Government Money.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXI, Issue 6505, 14 March 1896, Page 1

Stealing Government Money.

BY TELEGRAPH. Auckland, March 12. At the criminal session of the Supreme Court yesterday Gavin M'lntyre Park, a middle-aged man, was charged that, on February 7, 1896, at Taupo, lie stole L 442 6s 4d, the said money being in his possession as an officer of the Government. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr M. M'Gregor, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner, said that at the time the offence was committed prisoner was post and telegraph officer at Taupo. He had been over 30 years in the employ of the Government. He had received a gratuity of L2OO from the House of Representatives. Prisoner had a wife and seven children. His Honor called Mr Duncan Camming, assistant inspector, who stated in answer to questions that prisoner's cash was inspected twice a year. The effect of a conviction would be that prisoner would forfeit L 530 compensation allowance or a pension of L2 per week. Witness had reason to believe that in April last prisoner's cash was correct with outside assistance. Witness' visit to Taupo was a special surprise visit. Prisoner had been a troublesome officer and was disrated once. Prisoner was guaranteed for LSOO by a civil service guarantee. Mr Tulo said a statement had been made that the lock-up at Taupo, where the prisoner had been incarcerated, was a pigstye, and thai-, it was swarming with vermin. The local constable would like to be called and oxplain. His Honor said it was wrong that anj' man should be put in custody in a place swarming with vermin. Someone was to blame, but it was not within his jurisdiction. Constable Berryman went into the box and said it was a lie of the deepest dye to say that the lock-up was in a filthy condition. It was as clean as the witness box he stood in. Witness had been at Taupo station four years and a half, andprisoner had been drinking excessively since witness had been stationed there. In reply to Mr Tole witness said prisoner had been in the habit of ill-using his wife, and she had applied for a prohibition order. His Honor said it was a difficult case to deal with, for the Government was an actual gainer, while prisoner was ruined. The constable's evidence was given with a great deal of bias against accused. He concluded by saying he had great difficulty in making up his mind, and he would take tiitie to consider the case. He ordered the accused to be brought before him in the morning. Today accused was brought up on remand. His Honor said he had given careful attention to the case, and had come to the conclusion that, on the evidence before him, he was justified in admitting prisoner to probation. No doubt there was a good deal of suspicion which he could take no notice of, but so far as the evidence went, it had been proved that the misappropriation of money was since the month of November last. The evidence was that there had been a surprise visit, and all was correct in April. In November the accounts were correct. Between November and February tuis L4OO (according to evidence) had been misappropriated. In cases of embezzle ment he (his Honor) found that in the first instance persons thought they would be able to replace the money before they were actually discovered. In prisoner's case there was a good foundation for such expectation, for he was entitled to L 520 from the Government, which would more than cover his defalcations, and he had put in an application to retire from the service upon this compensation. He (his Honor) took into account that prisoner's accounts were not falsified, that he made an immediate confession, and that owing to the inaccuracy of his account, the discovery could easily have been made of the defalcation. Another matter he took into consideration was that the Government were actual gainers, for prisoner's allowance of L 525, or retiring pension, was forfeited. He hoped that the civil service guarantee fund would not be called on to make up the deficiency, seeing that the prisoner was entitled to compensation, which would reimburse the Government, He (his Honor) also took into consideration that the prisoner was utterly ruined by the heavy loss of the compensation which he was entitled to for his past services, and by his conviction for dishonesty. He thought the ends of justice would be met by prisoner being admitted to probation for 12 months.