INEXPLICABLE CRIME

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18559, 20 November 1934, Page 7

INEXPLICABLE CRIME

FORGERY OF VOUCHERS CITY COUNCIL EMPLOYEE HAD NOTHING TO GAIN (Por Press Association.) AUCKLAND, this day. “It is a most extraordinary case, for tiie defendant did not stand to gain anythinly it,” stated James Tyler, the city engineer, in giving evidence in the Police Court when Thomas Ivil, a middle-aged clerk, employed in the engineer’s department of the Auckland City Council, appeared on summons on 10 charges of forgery of dockets for cartage by altering the date and serial, numbers. The amount involved in the charges was about £23.

The witness stated that by using carbon copies and altered dockets for attaching to the vouchers, the defendant had caused Ferguson and Kew, contractors, to be overpaid to the extent of £155 for road metal and motor hire. When the firm was approached in the matter they appeared to be dumbfounded, and to’ have no knowledge of the position. In reply to the defendant's counsel, Mr, Hogben, the witness said he considered the firm’s lack of a book-keeping system was such that members of the firm would not be aware of having been paid twice for certain items. He had the fullest confidence in the defendant, who was a very thorough and reliable man. Ilis personal opinion was that he would be worthy of employment again.

The magistrate, Mr. F. K. Hunt: How did he stand to gain? The witness: That is what makes it so incredible. He cannot stand to gain anything. The magistrate: Would he expect to receive any of the overpaid money back from the firm. COMMITTED FOR TRf.VL The witness: When 1 saw both, members of the firm they seemed to ' be genuinely taken aback. They appeared not to he aware that they had been overpaid, and immediately refunded the money. The witness added that the defendant’s explanation to him of the position was that he had taken home some vouchers, and inadvertently they were burned with some newspapers. A statement that he had done the defendant many kindnesses during the illness of the defendant’s father was made by Thomas Henry Ferguson, in reply to a question that any money should be returned to the defendant by witness’ firm, and the defendant had never received any benefit from the business. He had known the defendant for four or five years. . Witness met him prior to last Christmas, and was told that some of the vouchers had been accidently burned at defendant’s home. The value of the vouchers was stated to be £6O or £7O However, the accused said he would fix the matter up, but did not mention the method he proposed to adopt. About threp months ago, in response to a message, witness went to the defendant and was told that there was a bit of trouble over altering the dockets to make up the money which had not l>een paid owing to the accidental burning of the vouchers. Later he received a demand from the City Council for the repayment of £155, which was paid immediately. The accused, who pleaded guilty, was committed to tho Supreme Court for sentence. Bail of £2O was allowed.