TWO YEARS’ PROBATION

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17606, 23 October 1931, Page 4

TWO YEARS’ PROBATION

AN AUCTIONEER’S LAPSE EFFECTS OF WAR INJURIES ' A sentence of two years’ probation was imposed by Mr. P. H. Harper,, S.M., today on Francis Llewellyn Haughie, auctioneer, on the major charge with which ho was faced, while on seven other charges be was convicted and discharged. Seven charges concerned failure to render accounts of auction sales within 14 days, as prescribed by the Auctioneers’ Act, 1928, and failure to pay the balances due, these concerning: Clifford Tattersfield, March 30, 1931, £27 10s; Charles Ivess December 15, 1930, £ls; Francis Edward Wallen, November 30, 1930, £5; John Hislop, July 20, 1930, £4; Mary O’Connor, July 20, 1930, £8 5s lOd ; Louis Cooper, July 31, 1930, £11; and Jean Mills, June 30, 1929, £7 4s. The eighth charge was one of receiving £3 15s on terms requiring him to account for and pay the money to the Official Assignee, and that he fraudulently omitted to do so, thereby committing theft.. On this chaige accused had the option of being dealt with summarily, or having the case referred to the Supreme Court; lie chose the former course. The accused, who was represented by Mr, E. T. Brosnnhan, pleaded guilty to all charges. Detective McLeod said the accused was a licensed auctioneer for three years up to the end of last March, when the license expired and was not renewed. The accused continued to carry on business until August 22. when he was adjudged bankrupt. It was found that there was a deficiency of £267 9s 3d to trust creditors. The last charge was in regard to goods sold on behalf of a bankrupt estate. The accused, added the detective, had not been before the court previously for any offence, having hitherto borne a good character, and it was difficult to account for him getting into this mess. It appeared. however, that the accused had been evading the Act for some time. The accused, in a statement to Detective McLeod gave his deficiency as £ll7 in the trust account, stating that a number of goods had gone out on time-payment ; this, however, did not absolve the accused from liability. This was the second case of its kind during, the last few months. Mr. Brosnahnn said he did not wish to attempt to minimise the offences, but ho asked from the court the sympathy that had been denied the accused by a number of the creditors in the distressing circumstances surrounding the case, The loss some creditors had, sustained might be a hardship, but these were nothing compared with what the accused would have to put up with for years. The accused had seen four: years' service at the war, where ho received a wound in the head, later being gassed. He tried to return-to his occupation of cabinetmaker, but the sawdust got into his lungs, and, although lie was given a holiday, a second attempt to tackle his work was more disastrous than the first. At that time lie was given only three months to live. In the conduct of business, the same circumstance was at the root of the present charges, added Mr. Brosnahnn, who said that each year the accused was confined to bed with the same old trouble. He would suffer for years for the sacrifice ho had made, yet for the first thing he did wrong no sympathy was extended to him. It was not with criminal intent that he had permitted the deficiency, but due to a lack of knowledge , of book-keeping. Over £94 was paid out in money that ho had not actually received, The accused owed £263 7s lOd, hut had £l3O Is lOd owing to him, leaving a deficiency of only £ll7 9s. The greatest portion of the deficiency was prior to March 31 last, and would bo covered hv a bond; creditors up to Hint time, therefore, would not lose. If His, Worship would grant probation, tlio accused would undertake to make restitution. A friend had promised to forward £SO with this object in view, find that would leave only £67 9s to be found; he would undertake to find this balance if. probation were granted.' \ The magistrate snid the offences wore serious as there was such a number of them. He realised that the accused had a long and creditable war servico, and that as a result of the. injuries he received ho was prottented front carrying on liis . trade, his dis abilities impairing him. This may have had something to do with the mismanagement and neglect of his business. At the same time, the accused must have known that his bus! ness’was getting into this mess. Hr bel Lived the accused received no direct benefit himself from the dofab cations, but had carried on with the hope that things would come right eventually. His Worship took into account also the promise to make restitution.' The Act provided for a penalty of £lO in each of the first

• -3| seven charges, but on these counts tlie accused would be convicted and discharged. In regard to the eighth charge, the accused would be convicted amt placed on probation for two years and ordered to make restitution of the amount owing to tfey. Official Assignee. In regard to the other amounts to be mado up, Hi? Worship had no power to make, this » condition of probation, and the Only thing to be done in this respect, was. for the accused to make tn.e neces sary arrangements through his counsel. ’ Air. Brosnahnn agreed oil behalf of the accused to arrange for restitution of £ll7 9s.