Police Court

Southland Times, Issue 14332, 28 April 1899, Page 3

Police Court

Thursday, 27th April. J. W. Boynton Esq., S.M.) THE LATE TREASURER TO THE 18. H. BOARD COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. James Edward Fox was charged on remand ’with having stolen on 7th October, 1898, £95 ; 31st December, 1892, £l5 ; 12th January, 1898,£15 0s 3d ; and 21st January, 1898, L5O, the whole having at the times given been in the possession of accused as secretary and treasurer of the Board. Mr T. M. Macdonald conducted the prosecution and Mr J. A. Hanan appeared for the accused. John Walker Mitchell said he had been chairman of the Bluff Harbour Board for 9 and consecutively for the last tivo years and two months. Witness had known the accused for more than ten years. Accused was appointed secretary and treasurer of the Board on Bth October, 1889. His duties were to receive money and pay out money on account of the Harbour Board ; to keep the books of the Board and attend to the general business of the harbour office. Cheques of the Board Jwere signed by the chairman and any two members of the Board and countersigned by the secretary and treasurer. The cheque produced was signed by witness and two members and countersigned by the accused, and was handed to the secretary to be paid to J. C. Howie as a progress‘payment under his contract for the erection of the Board’s offices. (The cheque would be handed over somewhere about the 30th September, 1898, the date of the cheque. It was also the duty of the accused-to prepare the annual balance sheet of the Board. Each financial year ended on 31sb December, and in the ordinary course the balance sheet for 1898 was prepared early in the present year by the accused. The practice was for the secretary to prepare the balance sheet, place it before the Government auditor, and, after it had been certified to, copies were then printed and circulated amongst members of the Board. That practice was followed in the present year with regard to the balance sheet for 1898, Witness received his printed copy of the balance sheet in due course, and in consequence of witness’s perusal of the balance sheet he drew the attention of the Board to what appeared to bo an irregularity, and the Board asked the Government co send down

requeiitsd by the Government to make a —epeciel -audit—of -the- Board’s -accounts. •-‘•Mr Eames arrived at 'the Bluff ‘for that purpose, and witness saw him on the 11th' in.t'.Witness ' was present at times when the auditor was pursuing his investi‘On 14bh inst. Witness went'to the Bluff and saw the accused and Mr Eames at the Board’s offices. Mr Eames, in witness’s presence, asked!’for. an explanation of an item of £95, a payment to J.’.C. Howie. Witness had a little conversation Before the

accused was. present. . When accused came in witness asked Mr Eames to go over the books and vouchers with the accused in reference to the surhof £95, for which there was no voucher r tb be ; found. Mr Eames asked the accused where the voucher was, and the accused said he did not know where it was on the spur of the moment, but he had nd doubt he could-find it in time, and accnsed also said that he supposed that if the money was paid back to the Board it would be all > right. • Witness impressed upon the accused the gravity of the position, and that the primary question was his integrity, and that until he satisfied the auditor he would lie under the gravest suspicion. Accused made no reply, but left the office, and witness afterwards suspended him until a special meeting of the Board to deal with the whole case. The meeting was held and prosecution was directed to be instituted. No voucher for the £95 had been found. Vouchers for all the otter payments had been found. Joseph C. Howie, contractor, Baid, that he held a contract last year for the construction of the Bluff Harbour Board’s offices at the Bluff. Witness received from the Board moneys on the contract and for extras as follows : £75 on 28th May, £lB5 on 25th June, £2OO on 29th July, £l4O on 26th August, £5l on 30th September, £69 on 29th October, £304 19s on sth December, £2 15s on September 3rd, £lO 15s 6d on 10th December, £l7 7s 4d on 31st December ; all in 1898. These were all the sums witness received from the Board. Witness never received a cheque for £95, or money for that amount.

Augustus W. Eames, inspector of audit under the Government, said that in consequence of instructions from the head of his department, he went to the Bluff for the purpose of making a special audit of the Harbour Boe.rd’s accounts. He saw the accused on the morning of the 12ch at the Bluff. Accused handed over to witness the books in ths first place. Witness then asked for the vouchers, which accused produced. The result of witness’s examination of the books and vouchers of the Bluff Harbour Board was that he had found, so far as he had gone, that a large sum of money was unaccounted for. With regard to the charges against accused : On 13th December, 1892, the Board, by minuts of ths.t date, granted the use of the tug to the Bluff Regatta Committee to run excursions in the harbour on 3rd January, 1893, on a payment of £l5. The secretary of the Regatta Committee was the accused. The Bluff Harbour annual Regatta’s Committee’s balance sheet for 1892, prepared by the accused, and signed by him as secretary, shows an item of £l5 on the expenses side as hire of p.s. Awarua. On referring to the Regatta Committee's bank pass-book, witness found that on 31st December, 1892, an item on the expenses side “ Harbour Board? £15,” showing that a cheque for that amount had been paid by the committee. One of the headings in the Bluff Harbour Board’s ledger was “Excursions Account.” Witness produced bank pay-in slip, dated 31st December, 1892, showing a total sum of £238 5s lid as paid into Bluff Harbour Fund by the secretary and treasurer, and included in that amount is the cheque for £l5 for Regatta Committee, The whole of the £238 5s lid was credited to various services, but no part of it to excursions account. Had excursion account received credit for this £l5 the bankings on 31sii December should have been £253 5s lid, instead of £238 5s lid. The £l5 difference bad not been accounted for. In regard to the item £l5 0a 3d _ that the accused was charged with appropriating on 12th January, 1898: There was a book kept by the Board called the berthage dues, and the book purported to show the dues paid from time to time by the ships lying at the wharf. There was an entry in this book referring to the s.s. Banffshire, as follows :—“ Inwards, 27th December, 1897 ; outwards, 12th January, 1898; steamer Banffshire, twelve days, tons register, 3603 at 3d par ton £45 0s 9d." That entry should have been 15 days, 3603 tone, at 4d £6O Is, the difference being £l5 Os 3d. There was a duplicate receipt book containing copies of receipts given by the accused for the purpose of audib. Ihere was what purported to be a duplies,te receipt of the Banffshire, showing a payment of £45 0s 9d berthage dues;' Witness had seen another receipt (produced) signed by the accused in respect of the same transaction for £6O Is. This receipt had been obtained from the local manager of the N.Z. S. Co. The difference between these two amounts had not been accounted for, i.e., Ll 5 0s 3d. In regard to the third item of the £l5 on 21st January, 1898 :In January, 1898, the s.s. Nairnshire damaged the wharf, as appeared from books kept by the accused. The Harbour Board agreed to accept £5O in satisfaction from Messrs Turnbull, Martin & Co , of Dunedin. A cheque was received from them for this amount, which should have been credited in the cash book as a separate item of receipt. It has never been shown either in the cash book or the audited balance sheet. On 2lst January, 1898 the secretary banked £125 2i 6d, m ide up of cheques for £6O Is, £5 and £5O, and £lO Is 6d in notes and cash. This was credited to-—berthage dues, £llB 9s 4d ; towage dues, £5 and water rates £1 13s 21. The cheque of £5O included in this banking was therefore never brought to account as a specific item in payment of a specific claim. The bankings on that day should really have been £175 2s 6d instead of £125 2s 6d, a deficiency of £5O, and the amount has not been accounted for. The total of £95 and these amounts was £175 0s 3d, but the deficiency witness had found exceeded that amount. Mr Macdonald said that he had there evidence to call, but in view of the admis-

sion of the accused he did not think it necessary. Io reply to the usual question the accused simply said that he admitted the offences. The accused was committed to take his trial on each of the four charges at the next sittings of the Supreme Court to be held in Invercargill. Mr Hanan asked for bail. His Worship said that it was not usual to grant bail vzhere the offence was admitted. The only object in granting bail was to avoid prejudicing an innocent man or a man who might, on his trial, be found innocent. In the case of an admission there was ace - tainty of punishment, and, consequently, a temptation to try ambget away. The judge, in passing sentence, always took into consideration previous incarceration in awaiting trial, and where there was an admission of a number of serious offences there was no object in admitting bail. The court had to consider ths chance of a man absconding. There was no inducement for a man to

abscond who had a good defence, or presumably a good defence. But where there was no defence and a certainty of punishment, there was every inducement to abscond. Bail would have to be vary high. After consideration his Worship admitted the accused to bail in his own recognisance of £lOOO, and two sureties of £5OO each, sureties tobi approved by the police.