HIS EMPLOYER’S MONEY.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16405, 11 April 1924, Page 3

HIS EMPLOYER’S MONEY.

L'lili), J K BY Cl.lillK

I) K!•*AI.('ATI()XS T()TA LU \'G £54(1

An allegation that he had been guilty of a series of thefts from his employer was preferred against a young man named Frederick John McDonald, who appeared before Mr. E. C. Levvey, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning in answer in seventeen charges.

The aeeiise.l was not represented by counsel.

The accused was charged as follows: That on February 22, 1923, lie did steal the sum of £3C; March 8, 1923, £l9; Mav 24, 1923. £ls; May 31. 1923, £25;

June 21, 1923, £10; September 13. 1923. £2O: September 27, 1923, £10: October 23, 1923, £SO; November 20, 1923, £33 12s lit; December 11. 1925, £5 4s 9.1; December 20. 1923, £25: Januarv 19, 1924, £4 4s; January 19, 1924, £lO 10s;

Januarv 22, 1924, £ll 19s; February 16, 1924, £6 16s; Fchruarv 16, 1924, £7 7s 3d; Fehrury 20, 1924,' £5 8s 9.1; a totai of. £2BO Is lCtl; all the sums being the property of Frederick Goodman.

Detective -McLeod stated that the accused hud intimated his willingness to have all eases tried together, and hud expressed his intention of pleading guilty to tile charges. The Diets were that the accused had been employed by Mr. Goodman, a well-known local contractor, for about 18 months. In December, 1922, tlie accused inaugurated a. system of thieving. The time-books and accounts on which lie. was engaged were fictitiously made up, (lie accused obtaining 'cheques for larger amounts than needed, and retaining the balance.

Additions were erroneous, and additional items were included. On other occasions lie was given cheque's to pay firms, lull instead of doing .so lie destroyed the accounts and cashed the cheques. Since tlie defalcations had been cliscoverr.l the accused had given the police every assistance to clear the matter up.

Albert Kduuid Bourgeois, accountant stilted that in January of this year he was instructed by .Mr. (londmau In make, an examination of his hooks and accounts, and, in doing so, he found iertain defalcations. Owing to this he (ailed the accused in, went through hitimediooks and accounts, .and found de f'alcations amounting to £540. they having commenced on December Id, 1922, and were carried <m regularly until February 20 last. The principal system adopted was the manipulation of the wages hook. In the first place it had been done hv using duplicate and triplicate wages hooks, and by’ errors in additions, fictitious names, and accounts. The amount of £3O on February | 28 \vi|s shown as paid to Mr. Crnmhie. j hut the accused laid admitted appropriating the amount. On March 14 the | wages totalied £l5B 9s dd, hut the accused got a signature to a- cheque for £l6B 9s dil, incorrectly adding up the total. The accused’s own wages were £3 17s a week, and he had on one occasion altered the cheque to £l3 17s. One amount of £2O represented fictitious telephone and callage charges, which were included in a wages cheque. On numerous o< casions the total of Ihe 1 wages had been lid it ions, and tin* bal lances had been retained by Ihe ac (-used. In December hist a cheque for £25, intended for Christmas boxes InrThe men. had been retained by the accused. A cheque had also been drawn for (Inpayment of an account owing t" the Gishorue Slice-planners' Company, hut the account- had not. been paid, the- cheque being cashed. Another cheque for £33 12s Id for payment to .1. .J. Niven and Co. had received similar treatment. The witness gave evidence regarding the disposition of all the amounts mentioned in the charges, the sums all being obtained by the methods indicated. Frederick Herbert (loodman, former employer of the accused, stated that the accused had been employed as a clerk for a. little over 18 months, receiving £3 17s a week. His duties had been to keep time books, make up wages, and keep accounts generally. Accused also paid witness’ local accounts, and sent cheques for this purpose. The practice was for the accused to present the tlie wages book, at- the end of eaeli week, showing the total amount required to pay tlie wages. A cheque would then he drawn for the amount represented as ! owing, and the accused would cash the cheque, and pay the' men. Witness had given a number of cheques to accused to pay accounts, and had subsequently found these had not been paid, although the amounts were debited to his account at the hank. Albert IT one is Salmon, accountant in the Gisborne- Sheepfaliners' F..M. Co.. Fred. Collin, butcher; Tims. Adams, bookseller; and: Charles Brown, manager for ('has. Adair, all gave evidence that the cheques made out by Mr Goodman and given by the accused had not been received by them, the accounts being subsequently paid' by Mr Goodman himself. Kdwin Gibbs, licensee of the Masonic hotel; Raymond' Sweet and James O. Crooks, tellers at the National Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence of having cashed the cheques referred to, the accused being definitely identified as the person who cashed some of the cheques. Detective McLeod stated that on March 26 last he had arrested accused on a charge of stealing £SO, telling him there Mould he further charges amounting to about £SOO. The accused had replied, “That is correct.” Witness said to him : “What have you been doing with the money V” lie replied : ‘T have lost it ail gambling; playing tuo-up and betting on hovse racing.” Witness asked him 1 1 oM" lie had manipulated the books, and he had' replied that it v. as chielly in Iho addition in the wages hooks. He had added amounts to the total, retaining Llm extra sum when the cheques were, pushed In regard to the nine charges for the payment of accounts,the accused admitted receiving them from Mr Goodman, and said he had cashed them himself and retained I lie money, subsequently intercepting the accounts rendered and destroying them. In some instances lie bad forged signatures to lime-sheets and receipts. Tin- accused had said he Mould plead,' guilty to all the charges. This concluded the ease for the police. The accused declined to make any

statement. lie pleaded guilty to all charges, and was committed for sentence to the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Auckland. ADMISSION OF FORGERY.' FURTHER AMOUNTS INVOLVED. The accused was further dealt with on three charges of forgery, the alleged offences being the forging of the name of .7. H. James to a receipt for £l2 4s; the name of C. Skelton to a time-sheet for £4 16s, and the name of J. H. .James to a receipt for £23 18s. James Henry James gave evidence that on December 20 last lie had rendered an account for £l3 18s to Mr. F. Goodman. «The account had been altered to £23 18s. and a receipt for that amount had not been signed by him. Witness had only received £l3 18s, and , gave a, receipt for that amount. The ! receipt for £l2 14s, which also bore his name, was not written nor signed by him, and no one was authorised to write it on his behalf. diaries Skelton, laborer, employed by Mr. •Goodman, stated that the time sheet, produced for £4 16s and hearing, his name had not been signed by him. I Albert Edward Bourgeois stated that , in the course of his examination of Mr. , Goodman's hooks lie found an alteration in the figures of an account for cartage

by the previous witness. The amom had been increased by JlilO, the amom being included in the wages hook, whir had been altered beforeliand.

Detective McLeod deposed to bavin charged the accused with the Hire offences, and that he had obtained a admission of guilt from him, and

statement that lie would plead guilty t the' charges. The accused intimated that he did no desire.' to make any statement. tl entered a plea of guilty, and was coni initted for sentence to the Suprern Court at Auckland.