SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 17971, 12 March 1917, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

SATURDAY, MARCH 10. (Before His Honour Mr Justice SIm.J His Honour took his seat at 10 a.m. PRISONER FOR SENTENCE. Albert George Leslie, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court to the theft of various sums aggregating £768, the property of the New Zealand Government, appeared for sentence to be passed on him.

Mr Eustace Russell, who appeared for the prisoner, said he had been in the employ of the Government as stamp clerk, and as such received large sums of money. The department in which he had been working was one of the biggest revenue offices in Invercargill, £IO,OOO to £12,000 a month passing through his hands. He had been in the employment of the Department since 1908 and was now 26 years of age. The prisoner came to Invercargill on January 12, 1915, and was placed in charge of that department at a salary of £126 a year, which was Increased later to £l5O, and in April, 1916, to £165. The position was that he had been helping himself to Government money, and counsel wished to point out that after his arrest the young man was willing to give any assistance he could to clear the matter up, and had explained to the Detective that he had had a burden to carry and his salary was not sufficient to bear it. The defalcations had extended over a period of eighteen months. Counsel ventured to say that the salary was totally inadequate considering the responsibilities of the office but,: of course, that was no justification for his dishonesty. Having made a false step he did what others had don« under similar circumstances, went to the races, thinking he might in that way restore the stolen money, and in addition, he had given way to drink. Counsel understood there had been no audit of that department for three years, and, certainly, there had been no audit since prisoner took over the office, other* wise the defalcations would have been discovered much earlier. On February 26 he wrote a letter to the Commissioner confessing his guilt and he had repeatedly made up his mind to disclose the position, but at the last moment funked. Counsel asked his Honour to treat the prisoner as leniently as he could consistent with justice. He had previously borne an excellent character. Mr W. Macalister (Crown Prosecutor) said that apart from the thefts he wa* charged with there was nothing against the prisoner, who had borne a good character. , His Honour: How were the defalcations discovered?

Mr Macallster Raid that he understood something had come under the notice of Mr Broughton, hence the discovery.

His Honour: There must be something very lax in the Stamp Office to have allowed the prisoner to go on stealing money for months and months in that way. *

Mr Macaiister: I don’t know about that

His Honour: It shows that the Deputy Commissioner Is not exercising proper supervision over his subordinates. Mr Russell: I understand that monthly returns were supposed to be made up and sent to the Treasury in Wellington. His Honour; What is the good of them, if a man can draw upon his imagination for monthly returns? Mr Russell agreed with his Honour. He said that the returns, which had been made out and signed by Mr Broughton, had been falsified, and, after having been signed, were destroyed. Mr Macaiister read a report regarding the prisoner which had been furnished by Sergeant-detective Cameron. ■ Hie total defalcations were £7sß 2s 6|d. The prisoner was a single man, and his salary had been quite adequate. He had no other obligations. Mr Macaiister said that he did not know about the audit; but if a man laid himself out to make false returns and not send them forward, some time might elapse before he was detected. His Honour: There must be laxity somewhere to allow a man to go on stealing for more than six months. I don’t know who is> responsible for it; but, undoubtedly, there has been laxity. Mr Russell explained that the probate in connection with the Fleming will had not been returned, although it had been paid, and the prisoner had taken advantage of that. His Honour said that the general rule adopted In cases of the kind when a man abused his trust, which, in any circumstances was not justified, was te sentence him to a term of imprisonment. The prisoner would be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. IN DIVORCE. Frederick Albert Field petitioned for divorce from his wife, Vivian Eleanor Field, on the ground of desertion. Mr W. A. Stout appeared for petitioner, and the respondent was not represented. Petitioner, In evidence, stated that the parties were married in Invercargill in 1904 and that respondent soon afterwards neglected the home, being absent when he returned for his meals and at times staying away ail night. On one occasion his wife was not at home and after making his own tea he v lolled her mother's home in South Invercargill. Shortly afterwards when he returned to his own house he saw his wife and her sister leaving it and could get no satisfaction from the respondent, who that night stayed with her mother where the child was. He had tried to persuade her to return home but sne refused and never afterwards came to the house except when during his absence she took away her belongings. In November of the same year he left for Christchurch, having repeatedly tried to induce respondent to live with him, as also had her mother, but without avail. The child had been in the care of respondents mother, petitioner having paid ten shulings a week for its maintenance. Hs had left Christchurch last September. Respondent had written to him for money which he had sent to her. His wife had followed the occupation of a barmaid and had been in all the big towns of New Zealand. She wrote on September 14, 1914, that things seemed to have gone all wrong and appeared to have repented but she refused to rejoin him. Petitioner had received a letter from Mr Hanlon asking him to provids maintenance for his wife and he replied requesting that his wife write to him direct which she did not do. Evidence in support was given by Harvey Ibbotson, cycle importer, and Ellen Augusta Turner, mother of the respondent. , His Honour granted a decree nisi, w be made absolute in three months, petitioner to have custody of the child. AN AFFILIATION CASE

Duncan (Mr H. A. Macdonald) v. Croebie (Mr Wm. Macalister), an appeal under the J.P. Act against a decision in the lower court in connection with tne paternity of a child. Mr Macallster said that notice had not been served by the plaintiff in writing, and on these grounds his Honour struct out the appeal, with costs amounting *• £3 3s. A FLAXM IDLING CASE. Duncan Mcßae and others v. Ernest Lansdell. This was an appeal under the Magistrate’s Court Act, in connection with a flaxrnilling dispute in which damages had been allowed the respondent Mr Wm. Macalister. Instructed bv Mr Eustace Russell, appeared for th* appellant, and Mr W. A. Stout for the respondent. . After hearing argument by counsel, his Honour said that he would take time to consider the case.