TRUST ACCOUNTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18625, 5 August 1922, Page 8

TRUST ACCOUNTS

FALSE DECLARATIONS. JAMIESON FOUND GUILTY. PLEA OF INSANITY. (Pm Umitbp Pans Association.! AUCKLAND, August 4. Five charges of making false declarations in respect of the trust account of the late legal, firm of Hammond and Cracknell wore preferred against James Waring Jamieson, auditor, at the Supreme Court. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Patterson for the (Sown, said the deficiency in the trust account in 1917 was £11,936; in 1818 over £15,000, in 1919 over £IB,OOO, in 1920 £32,500. The total deficiencies in the bankrupt estate were approximately £45,000. It was clear, and the position was shown by the firm’s books. It was obvious that accused knew the accounts wer 0 not in order. About August 23 lakt, about the time of Hammond and Cracknel! g crash, accused sent a letter to the Solicitor-general withdrawing a certificate And declaration given on March 31, and ho notified the Law Society that things were not quite in order and asking the society to appoint a public accountant to assist him in going into the firm’s affairs. Ivo B. D. Esam, public accountant, eaid the chief irregularities were a misuse of trust funds in financing clients, the payment of interest and mortgages before these had been received, and excessive drawings by partners in the firm, the latter coming out of the general pool of trust funds. Arthur Cracknell, in evidence, stated that the accused generally posted the entries from the cash book into the ledger. He had been. auditor for 1 Hammond and Cracknell for some time, and also attended to the ledger. His salary was £IOO a year. In reply to Mr Leary, witness stated that accused suffered very much from illhealth, and frequently complained of pains in the head, and at times became muddled. He was also very sensitive. Accused made entries in the books from time to time which did not mean anything. He posted accounts in the ledgers and placed debits on the credit side. Respecting the trust account witness said it was not in order in 1914.

The defence was that accused’s condition of health, both, bodily and mentally, had been such that he could not be held responsible for his actions at different periods. Dr Dundas Mackenzie stated that he had treated accused. In his opinion he had been irresponsible seven or eight years His Honor, in summing up, said that according to criminal law every person was presumed to bo sane, until the contrary was proved. The defence in this case was a plea of insanity or irresponsibility, and the onus was upon the accused to satisfy the jury that he was insane when the offences were committed. The Crown had not an opportunity of calling in any medical men to examine accused to ascertain his mental state. His Honor charged the jury to be cautious about accepting the plea.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and his Honor deferred sentence until the next criminal sittings of the court in November. He -directed that in view of the suggestions made as to accused's health, the Crown should have proper investigations made and report to him.