MILTON DEFENCE SCANDALS

Otago Witness, Issue 3201, 21 July 1915, Page 61

MILTON DEFENCE SCANDALS

MORE CHARGES AGAINST HENDERSON. ABRUPT CONCLUSION OF THE SITTING. Further charges against John Robert Henderson, who was brought back from Egypt to answer charges of misappropriating moneys committed to him by the Defence Department for the Milton Territorial camp of 1912, were heard in the Police Court on the 16th. Mr W. O. MacGregor (Crown Presenter), conducted the prosecution, and Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence. Henderson was charged with on or about June 10, 1912,- at Milton, stealing the sum of £95 ss ? a portion of the sum of £1292 9s 6d, paid to him on behalf of the New Zealand Government for payment to tiic officers and men of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment) during their camp at Milton. He was also charged with on or about November 9, 1912, stealing the sum of 30s, received by him from Robert Turnbull for £2O paid by him as adjutant of the 14th Regiment. The third charge was of stealing £7 8a 6d, a portion of a cheque for £23 paid by him as adjutant of the 14th Regiment, to George Reed, of Milton, carrier. Only the first of these charges was dealt with yesterday. The proceedings came to an abrupt conclusion just before the luncheon adjournment owing to the extraordinary behaviour of one of the witnesses for the prosecution. Mr MacGregor outlined the case for the prosecution, and indicated the main facts of the evidence he would adduce. No account had been rendered of the £95 ss, which was the subject of the charge. Accused had attempted to account for it by saying that he had paid £SO 8s of it either to Lieutenant Hoggans, or to Lieutenantcolonel M‘Clymont, but both those men would say that no such amount had been paid them. Douglas Gordon Graeme Hunter, district accountant of the Otago Military District Headquarters, Dunedin, said that in 1912 Henderson was captain and adjutant of the 14th (South Otago) Regiment, stationed at Milton. In' May of that year there was a military camp at Milton, and on May 7 witness posted to accused the cheque produced for £1292 9s fid. payable to the order of the accused. On May 30 witness sent a further cheque to the officer commanding the regiment for £448 ss. That was in payment of the rationing and messing allowance at the same camp. Accused had told him by telephone that the pay was £1197 4s 6d, or £95 5s less than the cheque he had received. He asked witness to deduct the £95 5s from rationing and mossing allowance. That allowance should have been £543 10s altogether The deduction made it £448 ss. lie produced a Treasury voucher for the £1197_ 4s fid, and also two vouchors returned te> him from Milton. The two cheques produced provided for the three payments included in the three vouchers The entry of £448 5s in the regimental book for “camp allowance” was £95 5s short of the amount actually given for mossing and ration allowance. The entry was in the accused’s handwriting. By Mr ITarlon: The cheque originally sent out for £1292 9s fid was not entered in that book. There was nothing in the book to show what was done with that cheque or any part of it. Henderson was entitled to draw £543 10s for rationing and messing allowance, instead of which ho drew £448 ss, to which had to be added £95 5s for rationing and messing. The rationing of the regiment might come to loss than the allowance of 2s a day. The £95 5s might have been absorbed in rationing and messing. He did not know. It was the duty of the officer commanding tlm regiment to ration the men. He received a grant of 2a per man per day for that. If it cost more than that the officer commanding was responsible. Tho grant referred to in tho voucher for £493 was at the rate of 2s per man per day. Chief Detective Herbert said that on April 26, at Wellington, in presence of Mr Wilford (solicitor), and Mr Thom son (Government auditor), witness questioned accused on tills and other matters. Referring to this item of £95 sa. accused ro-

plied: ‘‘This matter is a puzzle to me, and at the present time, without search ana more information, I cannot explain £44 17s of this amount, though I am sure there is an explanation of it. In regard to £SO 8s of this amount which should have been paid to individual officers for messing, this was paid by me to Hogg ans for that purpose—messing—l think by cash, to be paid by Hoggans for officers’ mess account, and not to be paid to individual officers. This was in 1918. At this Milton camp, the largest Territorial camp held in New Zealand, with all inexperienced officers, we got into a considerable chaos, and I had also to run 13 Cadet companies during that camp. We started with a muddle and ended with a muddle, owing to having to change our site because of dry weather causing scarcity of water. The site was changed the day before the camp took place. On the last day of this camp M'Clymont, Hoggans. and myself were all paying accounts, and I can personally say I was at least £IOO to the bad afterwards, having paid that sum that I never had received. These extra moneys that 1 paid were all from my own banking account. I hope to think oui something more regarding this £44 17e. ,Tho £448 5s camp ration allowance was entered by me in the regimental cash- book because the regiment’s books were written up a considerable time after the receipt of the money, and I was under the impression that all the money received from the district accountant to pay the men in camp had been accounted for in the acquittance rolls.” That was all accused said at Wellington on that subject. On May 1. at Dunedin, he voluntarily made a further statement on the same subject, written and signed by himself. This statement, which was put in, was to the effect that witness now wished to qualify his previous statement by saying that he gave money to Hoggans by saying that he gave it to either Hoggans or M'Clymont. Ho was not sure which. By Mr Hanlon: Witness’s notes showed that accused said “ M'Clymont. Hoggans, and I were all paying out,” not Mitchell, Hoggans and I.” John 801 l M'Clymont said that in 1912 he was lieutenant-colonel in the 14th (South Otago) Regiment. Accused was then captain and adjutant in hia regiment. At the Milton camp, in 1912, the accused was paymaster. Ho thought part of the vouchers produced were in accused’s bandwriting. Witness remembered signing the vouchers and noticed that the amount of the cheque therefor was £95 5s less than the amount of the vouchers. Accused explained this by raying that he had £95 5s in hand after paying the men. That sum should have been paid into the regimental account at t.ho bank. Accused never paid the sum of £SO 8a to him. The officers’ mess accounts were paid out of the regimental funds. The entries on page 14 of the cash book produced were all in Captain Henderson’s handwriting. These included entries relating to the officers’ mess accounts Captain Henderson kept the regimental books as port of his duties. Witness paid the £443 5s cheque into the bank himself By Air Hanlon: if the £96 5s had been paid away at the camp he would not have expected to find an entry in the .regimental books. As a general statement he said that there were no entries relating to the cheque for £1292 9s 6d in the regimental book. Alexander Hoggans, lieutenant, in camp at Trentham, said he had been lieutenant at the Milton camp in 1912. He was president of the officers’ mess there. It was not true that Henderson had ever paid this amount o? £SO 8s to him. By Mr Hanlon: Accused might have- paid him certain sums of money. , Ho would contradict Henderson if he said on oath that he paid witness sums of money amounting to £SO Bs. Witness might have received Is or Is 10d or £2 from accused, bus not £SO. Witness gave the book he kept to his colonel. He did not know where they wore now. Witness paid part of tho accounts for the officers’ mrss. Ho received money from the regimental officers direct. Witness’s conduct throughout was peculiar. He limped across the lioor to tho box with his cap on, and when reproved by the Magistrate, remarked that he was in uniform. Ho asked for a ohuir to sit on, and in tho course of examination frequently made flatly contradictory statements. Finally ho wont so far as to contradict the magistrate, and Mr Bartholomew was compelled to intervene. “Do you know what you are saying ?” he asked. Witness : “ Yes, sir.” The Magistrate: Why are you going on as at present? Is there any reason why your memory should not bo reliable? Witness; I want to see that evidence. Magistrate (sharply): Don’t adopt that tone to tliis court. Your condition and conduct have led to an obstruction of the court. It means that the present proceedings cannot bo gone on with. You will have to conic to the court prepared with a proper apology. Then I shall decide the course I shall take. In tho meantime stand down. The Magistrate said afterwards that this witness’s evidence would have to bo taken again, as ho could not taka it as having been properly given. The case would beremanded till 11 a.m. on Monday.