POSTAL EMPLOYEE'S LAPSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22284, 9 June 1934, Page 2

POSTAL EMPLOYEE'S LAPSE

UNAUTHORISED OPENING OF . LETTER ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. An employee of the Postal Department named Thomas William M'Alpine was charged in the City Police Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., with opening a letter without Authority on May 31. The accused was represented by Mr P. S. Anderson. Chief Detective Young said the accused was employed as a postman. For some time letters bad been missed and delayed and the latter were found on delivery to have been tampered with. The thefts continued, and after considerable investigation suspicion fell on the accused. Further investigations made it clear that the accused was responsible. This was a serious matter, as suspicion might easily fall on innocent persons. Mr P. S. Auderson said the accused was a neurasthenic pensioner. He was examined for 6ome hours at the Post Office and at the end of that time he did not know what he was saying. He claimed that some matters in the statement he had signed at that interview were not correct. The accused had a reputation for honesty, of which lie was proud. The magistrate said there was more than a suspicion of dishonesty. Artlmr George Osborne, postal clerk, stated that from instructions received from Mr Smith he kept a watch on the postmen's letter sorting room on the mornings of May 30 and 31. He was on duty on those ra6rnings at 7 and 6.30 o'clock respectively. The men sorted a portion of their letters there and then went to the packet and .paper room adjoining. He saw that all the men left the letter sorting room on those mornings and then took up a position from which he had a view of that portion of the room where letters for the New Zealand Tablet Company were placed. They were on a case, placed there for the postman who would be delivering on that round, No. 11 Town. He also concentrated on the No. 1 Town case, the accused's case. On May 30 he took up his position at 7.10 a.m., the accused being in the packet sorting room at the time. He then saw the accused go to No. 11 Town case and handle several letters, but be did not remove any. On the following morning he again kept watch, taking up his position at 7.15 a.m., and saw the accused take four letters from the 11 Town case to his own case, and finger them. He took the letters back to the 11 Town case, and again removed four or five letters, taking them to his own case, where he opened one letter and then sealed it down again. He again took the letters back to the original case, and then went out to the packet sorting room. The accused was the first postman witness saw return to the letter-sorting room from the packetsorting room. From the 11 Town case to the accused's • ca'tee would be about 20 feet. Witness reported on his observations, and later he and Mr Smith went to the office of the New Zealand Tablet Company, where Mr Smith took possession of all the envelopes of the Tablet mail that morning. To Mr Anderson, witness said he had been employed in the Postal Department for 30 years, 19 of .which had been spent in Dunedin. The accused's reputation amongst the postmen was a good one. Witness had .not on any previous occasion kept a watch on the sorting room. He was standing about five feet from the No. 11 case when he took up his position. He did not know if the accused had received permission to return to the lettersorting room. On May 31 witness was positive that the accused did not take any mis-sorted letters from his own case. He did not see the condition of the letter before the accused opened it and sealed it again. The accused sealed the letter without interfering with its contents. The accused was taken off his round and brought back to the Post Office about 9.30 a.m. Witness was not present during the whole of the interview betweeu the chief postmaster and the accused. The accused did not use an instrument to open the letter, which was perhaps only lightly sealed.

Leslie Faulkner Smith, postal inquiry officer, 6aid that od May 31 the accused was a postman employed by the department in Dunedin, his duties consisting of delivering letters in No. 1 Town area which was that area between Duke and Union streets. For some time past there had been complaints about the non-de-livery of letters from the New Zealand Tablet Company, whose premises were iu No. 11 district in Filleul street. The previous witness, Osborne, was instructed to keep watch, with the result that on May 31 he received a report. He was outside the Tablet Office when the mail was delivered, and saw the mail dpened by the manager, Mr Wells. He made an examination of the envelopes as they were opened, and in three cases they showed signs of having been tampered with. The first envelope, bearing the postmark Aramoho, had originally been lightly sealed, but when opened oy Mr Walls the flap was sealed only on the peak, and showed where the original sealing had come off. The second letter had been posted from Point Chevalier, and showed signs of an attempt having been made to force it. The third was posted at Auckland, and showed similar sjgpa of an attempt having been made to open it. Witness returned to the Chief Post Office with the envelopes and arranged for someone to take over the accused's delivery, recalling the accused and questioning him with regard to the letters. The accused at first denied the accusation, but later admitted the offence. The accused had no right to be near the case where the Tablet letters were placed, and also had no authority to open any letters. — To Mr Anderson: Witness said that he had been inquiry officer in Dunedin for 11 years. Complaints had been received from the Tablet office since February of last year. Witness had investigated the matter personally, and had not seen the accused doing anything which he ought not to have done. Apart from the fact that the accused was nearly always the first to return to the paper sorting room and the letter sorting room, witness had nothing against him. When the accused was brought into the Post Office he agreed to allow himself to be searched. A certain amount of money was found, in his possession, but from his investigations he was unable to say whether the accused's statement that it was the residue of his pay was correct. May 31 was a busy morning, and the accused was given permission to return to the letter sorting room, but that permission was not uecessary. He did not know of any case where a postman had taken mis-sorted letters back to their proper case. There was no money iu the envelopes which had been tampered with. To Chief Detective Young: Witness said that the accused was 48 years of age, and had been 13 years with the department. The accused's reports from time to time had been satisfactory. Johu Patrick Walls, Dunedin, manager of the New Zealand Tablet Company, stated that from February, 1933, be had had trouble over the non-delivery of letters to his company, and this matter bad been referred from time to time to the postal authorities. On May 31 he opened his mail in the presence of the previous witness, who retained the envelopes. Detective Russell said that on May 31 he saw the accused at the Detective Office, where he had been brought by Mr Smith. Witness showed the accused the statement which he had made, and the accused said that it was correct. The accused pleaded guilty to a technical breach of the Act, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, bail being allowed in self £IOO, with security of £IOO, on condition that he reported'daily 1o the police.