THEFT AND EMBEZZLEMENT

Southland Times, Issue 17969, 9 March 1917, Page 3

THEFT AND EMBEZZLEMENT

MEXT GOVERNMENT CLERK PLEADS GUILTY. CHARGES INVOLVE £765. Albert George Leslie. 25 years of age, «nd until lately in the employ of the New Zealand Government as a clerk in the Stamp Office at Invercargill. _appeared before Mr G Crulckshank, S.M., yesterday morning on remand for the theft of £8 11s lid. Detective-Sergeant Cameron prosecuted and five further charges were preferred against the accused, who then stood charged with that (11 on or shout. September 29. 1016, being a clerk in the Stamp Department of the New Zealand Government, he did j-ppgivp £5 11? tld and fail to account for the same to his employers; (2) on May n. 1016, he did steal stamps to the value of £SS 9s 7d; (3) on May 26, 1916, he did receive and fall to account for the sum of £32; (4) on September 29, 1916, he did receive and fail to account lor the sum of £ll 13s 4d; (5) on August 16, 1916, he did receive and fail to account for the sum of £lO 7s 10d; and (6) that between June 30, 1916, and February 12. 1917, he did steal stamps to the total value of £647 5s 10>£d. Evidence on the first five charges was thpn called as follows:

Francis G. O’Beirno. solicitor practising in Invercargill, knew the accused. Witness took a probate (produced) to the .Stamp Office on September 29. 1916. for the purpose of paying the duty and having the probate stamped. He paid his cheque for the amount (£S 11s lid) to the accused, who handed him a receipt. The document was stamped and his pass-book showed the cheque to have passed through the hank. James Robertson, of the firm of Longuet and Robertson, solicitors practising in Invercargill, said that he knew the accused. Witness had handed to the accused in his office a probate (produced) together with a statement of administration. On receiving notice of the amount of duty to he paid, he applied to one of the executors for the amount (£SS 9s 7d). When he received the cheque, witness paid it in to the accused and received a receipt for it. The probate was not stamped since accused *aid that he had not the stamps.

Gerald P. Keddell, solicitor practising at Invercargill, knew the accused. Witness had taken a memorandum of association (produced) round to the Stamp Office. There were duties and fees amounting in all to £ll 13s id to he paid on it. Witness paid his own cheque for that amount on September 29, 1916. He had not yet received the certificate of incorporation. The accused had once since reminded witness to call at the office for the documents.

Gordon J. Reed, law clerk in the employ of Macalister Bros., Invercargill, produced a memorandum of transfer which he had taken to the Stamp Office on or about May 26, 1916, for the purpose of stamping. He could not say whether or not the accused was in charge of the office on that particular day. The fees and duties payable on the document amounted to £32, for which witness tendered his employers’ cheque. 'The cheque had passed through the hank. Witness had also taken a probate •to the Stamp Office on or about August a. 6th, 1916. He could not remember if the accused had been In charge of the office that clay or not. The amount requiring to be paid on the document (£lO fTs lOd) was paid by a cheque which had "been passed through the bank. The document had been stamped. The transfer had been hung up for some months on account of some relationship between the transferor and the transferee and also, witness understood, because of the winding-up of a concerned estate. Frederick W, Broughton, Deputy ComSnissioner of Stamps at Invercargill, stated that the accused was in the. employ of the New Zealand Government as a. clerk in the Invercargill Stamp Office, Jt was portion of his duty to receive duty payable at the office. He would be required to account for these monies by passing them through the cash-book and banking them to the credit of the public account, with several minor exceptions which were not passed through the cash-book. It was his duty to stamp documents taken to the office for that purpose. The writing on Macalister Bros.’ memorandum of transfer acknowledging payment of £32 was the accused's. From information he received from* 'the Detectfve he recently made a search. for that document. He found It among some old papers in one of the rooms of the office. In the case of Mr Keddell’s certificate of incorporation, the form (produced) had been prepared by the accused. It was neither dated nor signed. The papers concerning Macalister Bros.’ probate were dealt with by the accused. Henry Theodore Thompson, Government Audit Inspector for the Southland district, had made an inspection of the books kept by the accused in the Stamp Office. There were no entries in the rash-book concerning the amounts received in connection with any of the five charges. The amounts received on probates had not been credited in the probate register. Mr O'Beirne’s cheque had been paid into the bank but the accused had short-banked his cash-book entries to the extent of at least £8 11s 3ld on that day. The amount (£SS 9s *7d) of the second charge was entered jn the cash-book and banked. The bank slip (produced) was in the accused’s handwriting. The stamps to the value In question had not been affixed to the document and were not still in the office, so had been taken. In connection With the third charge there was no entry In the cash-book and the amount shortbanked in cash that day had been £32. The position was the same with regard to the fourth and fifth charges. Detective-Sergeant Cameron said that he had obtained a warrant for the arrest of the accused on a charge of stealing £S lls lid and he was arrested by the Bluff police on the evening of February 28. Hater witness read the warrant to the accused and added particulars of the missing sum. The accused replied; “I remember that now.” He further said that he was quite willing to give any assistance he could in clearing matters up. He told witness that some office documents were in his bag «t the Club Hotel and also gave other particulars of his defalcations. The accused told witness that he had a burden »nd that his salary was not sufficient to meet the demands upon it and that, When he did one thing wrong, he had to do something else wrong to keep him going. The accused appeared to be sorry for what he had done and particularly for the trouble which he had caused Mr Broughton. He had given witness every • assistance in his investigations and haul never refused to answer any question. He said that he would have liked very .much to get away to the war but knew that he couldn't get. He further said that he had on two occasions resolved to go to the office, make up a list of his defalcations and hand It in, but when came to the time he couldn't do it. This concluded the evidence on this 'series of charges. The accused pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence to the present sitting of the Supreme Court Evidence for the prosecution of the feizth charge was called thus:—

Frederick W. Broughton gave evidence that the accused had charge of the office supply of .stamps, which was replenished from Wellington whence the custodian forwarded supplies on requisition. It was the accused’s duty to check these supplies when they arrived. was authorised to use the stamps for the purpose of stamping documents and also supplying licensed dealers when they put in requisitions for stamps with the cash for same. The accused also had control of a separate deposit of £IOO ■worth of stamps. That was for the purpose of selling stamps that were not on requisition. This office should have been held by a clerk from the Land Transfer Office. Every week the accused’s cash-book should have been balanced and sent to the Receiver-General In Wellington, supported by requisitions, etc. Then on the last business day of the month a statement of revenue, which ■was practically an epitome of the cashbook for the month, had to be made out and forwarded to the Commissioner of Stamps in Wellington. Returns had also to be furnished. On February 13, witness’s suspicions were aroused through discoveries which he made of certain estate papers and an unsigned receipt for £540 fia 3d. He approached the accused, who admitted that the papers had not been stamped for the amount and said that the stamps were probably in an envelope .in the safe, but they were not there. Later witness received a letter of confession from Leslie, dated February 26, IDI7. Witness found Mr Leslie a most brilliant clerk and one 4n whom he (witness) always placed his confidence, as also did the members of the iegai pco£*ss*cpu

Henry T. Thompson, the Government Audit Inspector, testified to having examined the accused’s books from which he had compiled returns showing that there were shortages amounting to £647 5s m%d.

Detective-Sergeant Cameron also gave evidence, chiefly relating to Leslie’s statements to him. The accused had told witness that he did not take any stamps out of the office. He. sold them over the counter to solicitors and pocketed the money. He knew that it would have to come to an end and had been waiting for the crash. The defalcations extended over a period of IS months. He had a big burden and he tried to get the money to square him up so that he could start afresh, but was not successful and could not meet the demands on his salary. When he first did wrong he had to do something else to cover it up and enable him to keep going He spent the money on horse-racing and a few shillings now and then in gambling. He thought that he might get it back. He had worried considerably about it during the last twelve months, but his only relief lay in getting "tight." He would have liked to have got away to the war but knew that that was impossible. He felt miserable on being asked to the houses of friends since, being young and single, he felt that he ought to be away. He welcomed arrest as a relief. He would still like to get away to the war and was prepared to give all the assistance he could in explaining matters. This closed the hearing. The accused again pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence at the present Supreme Court sitting.

During the hearing the a'ecused bore himself up well and appeared perfectly self-composed, albeit a trifle sober, until the evidence was nearing its close, when he became visibly affected and finally gave way to tears when the Commissioner and the Detective deposed concerning his brilliancy in work and frankness of confession when his fault was discovered. He will be sentenced before the Supreme Court rises locally—possibly to-day.