EVIDENCE CONTINUED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17916, 21 October 1932, Page 11

EVIDENCE CONTINUED

FORGERY ALLEGATIONS

loom, body purchases

(Per Press Association.)

WANGANUI, this day

Further evidence was heard to-day in the charges of forgery preferred against Jabez William Mace Luxford Gladys Jones, a clerk employed by Boss and Glcndinning, said the signatures to the vouchers were not hers or those of any member of the stall'. The firm used a rubber stamp on receipts, and it did not appear on these vouchers. William John Kane, audit inspector, said that during the fast audit of the Technical College accounts four vouchers came under his notice, lie found that tour cheques had been credited at the Bank of New Zealand to tlie account of the accused’s firm. These amounts were refunded to the college hoard account, and the penalty in each instance paid to the public account. Isaac Edward Newton, director of tlio Technical College Board said the accused was chairman of the board from August, 1926, to August, 1931. There wore two college hostels. When supplies were required, the board, or mainly the chairman, was informed by witness. The goods, on receipt, would be cheeked and tile invoice initialled. He could not say what goods were delivered by Ross and Giendimiing. They were received by tile board. Witness did not know who ordered them.

Miss M. Cummings, accountant at the Technical College, said accounts came to tier to be checked and initialled. After the accounts had been checked the cheques were handed to her to be distributed. The accused asked tier to post certain cheques to him and make them payable to bearer. Atkinson, recalled, said the Fire Board voucher for the payment of £29 5s to Ross and Glendinning was not received by his firm. A payment of £1 3s 3d was made to a clerk of his firm. Witness had been instructed from the accused that certain payments would he made from the Fire Board to Ross and Glendinning, and to credit these payments to his account. The witness de-. tailed other payments of amounts up to £2B made in a similar way. His firm had not supplied goods to the board, or issued invoices. The aggregate of these was approximately £l6O. None of the vouchers were prepared in the same manner as his firm would, and none of the goods were supplied by his firm.