SOLICITOR’S THEFTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19903, 24 September 1926, Page 10

SOLICITOR’S THEFTS.

BIG SUM INVOLVED. ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY. COMMITTED FOE SENTENCE (Peb United Pbess Association.) AUCKLAND, September 23. Henry Karo Emanuel, aged 25, who until last month had practised as a solicitor in Auckland, came before the police court; tnis morning, when he f p ffil an guilty to Stealing the total sum of £o8£)0 and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, bail being allowed. . The following were the charges to wmen Emanuel pleaded guilty:—Forging two mortgagees and stealing £oSO, the properjr of Robert Dearnley Neal, £1660, the pro petty of H. S. Hill; £SOO, the property of Margaret Wood; £BOO, the property of William Greenberg; £750, the property of William Greenberg; £350, the property of William Greenberg; £350, the property of James MThorteous; £250, the Property of Joseph Snell; £635, the property of Margaret Walsh; £3OO, the property of Phillip Schneidemann; and £ls, belonging o Hugh Cox Smith. , , , r Before evidence -was called, Mr Hart, for the accused, said that accused would take the charges as read and would plead guilty. “He desires matters to be disposed of as quickly as possible, added Margaret Wood, of Auckland, widow, said that in January last she answered an advertisement in an Auckland paper asking for £6OO required on mortgage. In consequence she received a telephone communication from a person purporting to be-H. K. Emanuel, solicitor. . He said that his reasons for communicating with witness was in connection with a loan of £6OO required by a man named akeliern, who offered his house as security for a first mortgage. The following day accused called on her with a man named Oser, and both accompanied her to Mr Skellern s house in Eustace road. Witness afterwards said she was satisfied to accept the house as security. Emanuel told witness be would communicate with her when he drew up the mortgage. Later he telephoned witness, and said he wanted the £6OO on January 18. She drew £6OO out of the Post Office Savings Bank. It was not her mdney, but trust money for her children, and she handed it over to Emanuel at his office. Accused said he had a mortgage prepared, and showed her what she took to be an executed mortgage. Witness took his word for it, and did not read the document. Witness produced the receipt given for the 1600. On January 16 she received the first quarter’s interest—a sum of £lO 10s—from Emanuel. Accused told her over the telephone not to send the receipt to Mr Skellern. as he had sent one. Some time afterwards —about July— Emanuel told her that Skellerm had obtain a Government loan, and _was S°ing to pay off witness’s mortgage of £6OO. She was put off afterwards by accused stating that Mr Skellern had not paid the money to him. In consequence of something she had heard, she communicated with Mr Skellern, when she was told he had not received the £6OO from Emanuel. On July 19, in company with Mr B. W. Inder, solicitor, she saw accused at his office. When told about what Mr Skellern had stated, accused admitted ho had converted the £6OO to his own use, and that it had not been invested on a mortgage. In consequence of confeiring with her solicitor, she had received £2OO i back thus leaving her with a deficiency of £4ot>; William Gordon Gumming, of Symonds street, Auckland, said that before leaving for England in May of last year he had handed accused a mortgage for £650 from Osborne to himself. Witness returned from England ,in January. He left documents with accused while he was absent from the Dominion. As a result of something he had heard, witness went to the Lands and Deeds Office in July, and on examining the documents found that the signatures on the mortgage and transfer were not in his handwriting. He did not give Emanuel any authority to sign his name to the documents. Francis O’Connor chief clerk in the Lands and Deeds Registry Office, Auckland, said his department accepted the documents as genuine. Detective M. O’Sullivan stated that a warrant was issued for the arrest of accused on August 28, and on August 31 Emanuel was arrested at Dunedin. At the time of bis arrest he was visiting his people. On September 8, when he appeared before the court in Auckland, ho said he would help witness to trace the defalcations and assist him. The investigations showed that, after paying £2OO back to Mrs Wood, he was £5690 short. Emanuel, after reading the charges, made a statement, which he signed as true in-detail. Emanuel, in his statement, said that until August, 1926, he was practising as a solicitor in High street, Auckland. About three years ago a man was given employment by accused as managing clerk and bookkeeper. From certain investiga- ' tiona made hy accused in 1924. he had reason to suspect that the man had got him into difficulties to the extent of about £ISOO, but as he was unable to prove anything be had to hush the matter up, and he thought ho could recover himself. As time went on, accused said he found things were getting no better, and he was forced to pay his clerk money in order that the latter. would not disclose accused’s position, which, 'he threatened to do unless accused paid him from time to time. Finally accused dismissed the clerk in August of 1925, in spite of the threatened exposure. The clerk had accused’s books. in bis possession at the time, and retained them in spite of repeated requests for them. The clerk admitted in his evidence in the Law Society’s proceedings against him that he had endeavoured to cause him as much harm as possible, and that his taking the books was tor.the express purpose of getting accused into difficulties. Continuing, accused said that on further investigation he discovered there was a shortage of nearly £3OOO up to the end of March, 1925, and some £4OOO in. August of 1925, when hia clerk was d;smissed. . Accused said ho then considered the advisability of calling his creditors together and explaining the position to them, but decided to go to Dunedin to see if he coujd raise the necessary money. The clerk, on being refused further hushmoney, had written letters to the Law Society. The Solicitor-General and certain clients, friends and relatives, stating that accused was in difficulties and vowing vengeance and the ruination of accused. The clerk said that accused also had money in private banks. Emanuel said he had no money in any bank nor had he any assets. Ho saw his friends and relatives in Dunedin in October of 1925, and they promised to let him have the money if it would save the position. The larger portion of the total amount was actually transmitted to a man of considerable standing in Auckland, who was to act on their behalf and straighten matters out. Another friend in Auckland was to let him have a further amount to cover the whole deficiency. Accused said the letter? which his clerk had written to the Law Society had in the meantime borne fruit. As a result of inquiries by the Law Society accused was served with a motion to strike him off the roll in February, 1926. The money for payment was actually in the possession of an Auckland resident on the day he was served with the motion. In fairness to his friends accused said he got into communication with this man. Owing to the fresh position that had arisen the latter communicated with the friends, who had advanced the money, and they advised him that they were still prepared to pay over the money, but would wait the result of the Appeal Court’s decision before doing so. •‘Had I not promise* of the money I would have called my creditors together immediately and thrown myself on their mercy, said Emanuel in his statement, but I kept on for the express purpose of protecting them m the money bad been actually promiCd. It was while I was endeavouring to settle things up that 1 became further involved. and I was forced bv the specia . circumstances of the case to try and hide my senons position and cover up the deficiency in the meantime until the final settlement. Moreover, my business was also seriously affected, and although I was. perhaps clearing £2O a week in costs in theory, by reason of deficiency in practice not on v was I earning nothing, but I was actually losing heavily, as my household expenses, interests, insurance premiums, and the P a 3j ments I regularly made to ray widowed mother for her supnort were eating into the total. Practically the total amount, with the exception of the original deficiency, went in keeping things afloat until the matter was satisfactorily settled. 1 was in the unfortunate position of being unable actually to prove anything against toy clerk, m, although the money was

paid in by clients, I had no legal proof that he had taken the cash. Even had 1 had actual proof, for the sake of my business, I would have had to keep the matter quiet, because once it was divulged my business would have been ruined. 1 did all ia my power to rectify matters, but the action of the Law Society in suspending mo finished the position before 1 could right the wrong. Had I desired I could have cleared away from the country a year ago before there was any suspicion of trouble, but I did not choose to do so as this action would have entailed the theft of £IOO in cold blood as it were. Now I have the satisfaction, if it be any satisfaction at all, that if 1 took from one client it went to another client, and not directly to mo.” Accused said he had no vices whatso ever, and did not live extravagantly. He attributed his downfall to lack of experience, and to the fact also that he had heavy responsibilities, and also indirectly to his clerk.