THEFT AND FORGERY

Otago Witness, Issue 3215, 27 October 1915, Page 53

THEFT AND FORGERY

THREE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT,

Robert Sproule Hutton Menzies came before his Honor Mr Justice Sira on the 20tu instant for sentence on 15 charges of theft and one of forgery. Mr Solomon, iv.C., and Mr Scurr appeared for the prisoner, and Mr Wm. (J. MacGregor, K.C., represented the Grown. Mr Solomon said tiiat he iiad been asked by tho friends of tho prisoner to speak in mitigation of sentence. Of course, it wont without saying that he did not for a moment suggest that tho crimes with -which the prisoner was charged were not serious, and demanded serious consideration at the hands of his Honor, but ho proposed to say a word or two on the aspects of the case that might bo.worth consideration in fixing the penalty. He would point out that the circumstances were very sad indeed, and presented unusual aspects. The prisoner had entered the employment of Neill and Co. when 23 years of age. At that time tho insurance business with Noil! and Co. was comparatively small, and he was instructed that the premiums at that time were in tho neighbourhood of £2OOO a year. After the prisoner had been there some little time he embarked in a moment of madness upon a course which could only land him in his present position. Ho commenced to do business through Neill and Co. at a scale below the schedule rate at which insurances were accepted. When ho did that it was not to benefit himself in any way. He not only took the course mentioned, but he concealed what lie was doing from his employers. He received a fixed salary, and a bonus each year, but the bonus was not dependent upon the business done. It was a fixed bonus. M Hat ho did placed his employers in an absolutely false position. The business increased enormously, and to such an extent that when ho was arrested the annual premiums had increased from £2OOO a year to £20,000 a year. His Honor: How is doing business at a lower rate connected with his defalcations? Mr Solomon: I am coming to that. Continuing, counsel said prisoner’s actions were not indicated by any of the reasons usually associated with such a downfall. This man was not a drunkard, a gambler, a racing man, or anything of that sort. _He had t-wo companies at his disposal for doing business at a lower rate than the schedule rate, and his concealing the truth from his employers accounted for the fact that they did not discover they wore not receiving as much money as they should be receiving from the volume of business done. Having the two companies under his _ control, ho took money from one and paid it to the other, and ho also used his own money to conceal the difficulties into which he was getting. It was in consequence of these difficulties that he took the moneys from the company and paid them into his own account. He ultimately got himself into such a maze of difficulty that it was impossible for him to extract himself from_ it. Ho lived at a rate his salary did not justify, and got himself into such a position that he did not appreciate for tho moment the full impropriety of taking money, even though it was not taken for his own purposes, and now stated that it was impossible for him to- say to what extent money had boon used. Tho prisoner was not only charged with defalcation but forgery within the meaning of the Statute. What had happened -was that when he made a claim upon one of the insurance companies he signed a receipt in tho name of Joseph Nathan and Co., of Wellington, suggesting that ho had paid that company so much money. There was no such claim, and he had not paid that money. The forgery was however merely for the sake of concealing tho losses made by doing business at a lower rate. Pie did not draw any cheque for that. The forgery was not to add to his defalcations, but to prevent his employers from ascertaining that ho was doing business at a lower rate. Neill and Co. were agents for foreign firms, and were pledged to- pay a certain amount, he (counsel) understood to the extent of £IO,OOO. In consequence of what had been happening. Neill and Co. had been earning commission on these very large sums of money for many years which they would not otherwise have earned. Menzies had been without any supervision whatever in his business. Ho was trusted by his employers, and, of course, must be punished for his betrayal of that trust, but counsel pointed out that had there been supervision at the time the foundation for Menzies’s failure in life was laid, the failure would never have occurred. When arrested he had given every assistance he could, but he was not in a condition to give such assistance as might have been expected of him owing to his frame of mind. His condition liad been such that the police and those acting for him had thought it wise not to suggest bail. He had exposed to his employers a matter of £9O-0, and not only that,' but a number of other things, expressing the opinion that he deserved to suffer and was prepared to suffer. He had boon a useful and apparently well-conducted man. Ho had a young wife and small child absolutely unprovided for. Counsel asked for such mercy as was consistent with justice. Tho Crown Prosecutor (Mr MacGregor) said that tho prisoner would be 35 years of ago in May next. He was a native of Otago, and a married man with one child, seven years of aeo. He entered the service of Neill and Company in December, 1904, after being trained in another office. He started at £l5O a year, the insurance work then being comparatively Small. Tho business increased, and his salary was raised as it increased, and from February, 1913. ho had been in receipt of £4OO per annum, with a yearly bonus. He had a good knowledge of insurance business and plenty of ability, and possessed the entire confidence of the firm and insurance people, _ He had also hold responsible positions in connection with municipal affairs. He increased the volume of insurance business very considerably, but that was done by do : ng business at less than tariff rates, and would result in a vorv heavy loss to Neill and Co. The defalcations covered a considerable period, and wore hidden from Neill and Co. by the forging 0 f signatures of pvncinals of firms. One letter to the head office of the company in Melbourne bore, not only the signature of Mr Pid. Nefil. but also the forged signature of Mr P. C. Neill, the latt--r signature being to a note that stated that he found the statements made in the letter were correct. Another part of the prisoner's system was to intercept inward letters, so ns to keep

them from the principals. The amount 1

longing to insurance companies for -which Neill and Co. were responsible was nearly £3OOO, and of that amount Menzies was charged with stealing £1402. There wore, however, additional cheques for £959. There was, also, the difference between the insurance rates accepted by Menzies and the tariff rates due to the insurance companies, and they made a loss of over £IO,OOO. With regard to the forgery, the object of that had been twofold. The object of making a fictitious claim for £9OO was to cover sums appropriated, and also to conceal the difference between the rates and. the premiums received. Ho (the Crown Prosecutor) could hardly accept his friend’s statement that the character of the prisoner was good, but be did not wish to go into details. It, however, could not go forth that the police agreed that his character was good. Mr Solomon: Anything of a monetary nature ? The Crown Prosecutor: No, no; handing the police report to his Honor. Mr MacGregor added that in each case where cheques were drawn and. the money misappropriated, they were for odd amounts — pounds, shillings, and pence—so as to appear to be for re-insurance. His Honor said tbo prisoner had pleaded guilty to 15 charges of theft and one charge of forgery. It appeared from the depositions that he had been in a position of trust in the service of Neill and Co., and that ho had betrayed that trust, and had taken advantage of his position to carry on for years a series of frauds, that had resulted in his appropriating to his own use about £3OOO, the property of his employers; but he had involved them in about £IO.OOO. In view of those circumstances, it was his (his Honor’s) plain duty- to inflict, a substantial term of imprisonment. It was unfortunate that innocent persons were involved in the punishment. However much he might regret the position of Menzies’s wife and child, it was his plain duty to inflict a substantial term of imprisonment. Prisoner would be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for each of the offences, with hard labour, the sentences to be concurrent.