FOUND GUILTY

Southland Times, Issue 22471, 6 November 1934, Page 4

FOUND GUILTY

theft and forgery COUNTY COUNCIL EMPLOYEE. Lengthy evidence was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honour Mr Justice Kennedy and a common jury, when Charles Martin Todd, a married man, aged 30 (formerly employed in the office of the Southland County Council) stood his trial upon charges of stealing, as a servant, the sum of £44 5/-, the property of the council, and of forging nine pay-sheets. After two hours’ retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of the lack of checking and supervision in the council office. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr H. J. Macalister) conducted the' case for the Crown, while Mr Gordon Reed represented the accused. Six jurors were challenged by the defence and 22 stood aside by the Crown before the following jury were empanelled: David John Farnie (foreman), Peter Alexander Bell, James Dow, Vivian Simpson Vial, Patrick Joseph Scully, Eric Wren, Lynton Daniel, David Gordon Strang, Thomas Edwin Dowling, Ernest John Hunt, Daniel Bernard Ferry and Harry Crowther. Prosecution’s Case. In opening, the Crown Prosecutor traced the method adopted by the County Council in its administration of the unemployment moneys passing through that body’s hands. The accused had been employed specially for the work of which he was in charge. A man named Gilbertson had also been employed, but the present charges all related to a period prior to Gilbertson’s employment. Mr Macalister, after detailing the systems by which it was alleged that the accused had defrauded the county, outlined the evidence the Crown proposed calling. Arthur Joseph Service, clerk to the Southland County Council, gave details regarding the accused’s duties. Todd, he said, was employed as a temporary clerk in September, 1931, and remained in the council’s employ until suspended in April, 1934. Assisted by other clerks, Todd had charge of the work until Gilbertson came. To Mr Reed: He could not say how many men were working under the unemployment scheme for the council in April, 1933. At one period there were 783. Todd handled from £30,000 to £35,000 of unemployed money per annum. There was always considerable bustle in the county office on pay days. Todd, when interviewed by the chairman, the auditor and witness, proved very ready to show all the sheets he had in his possession. There was no attempt at concealment at all. Alexander Bain, a clerk employed in the Labour Department, produced several pay-sheets received from the County Council. In respect to them the Unemployment Board had paid out moneys. Witness was shown four wages sheets and said that no claim for refund had been made on them. Assuming that a claim had been made, it would not have been passed by the department as he understood that the names of certain of the men appeared on other wages sheets upon which the refund had already been paid. The duplications would have been noticed. To Mr Reed: The names on the wages sheets were checked against the specimen signatures of each man. Immediately a man left the council’s employ, the council was supposed to notify the department by letter. Robert Malcolm McLean, an audit inspector stationed at Invercargill, said that following his receiving a report of irregularities, he commenced to audit the council’s books on April 26. He discovered some wages sheets on which no payment had been made by the Unemployment Board and ascertained that £44 5/6 was unaccounted for for April, 1933. Witness gave details of alleged irregularities in pay-sheets produced. Witness said that time-sheets, in Todd s handwriting and signed by him, were put in to support false pay-sheets, rhe great majority of the signatures on the false pay-sheets were, he concluded, forgeries. There were a great many irregularities and several fraudulent systems which witness then proceeded to describe. He said that when a man had left relief work, for instance, he was often carried on by fraudulent entries on the time-sheets. The total sum involved was slightly over £3OO. When witness took over the investigations he found sixpence in the accused’s cash box, but there should have been £46 6/8. Time-Sheets Necessary. To Mr Reed: A time-sheet was necessary in every case. The wet weather time-sheets could quite .properly be signed by Todd, although some were signed by the foremen. He was not aware that the accused, of necessity, had had to sign sheets for certain men out gold-prospecting and out at Te Anau. He did not find instances of formen omitting to fill in men’s time but he knew it had happened. Todd was, in witness’s opinion, overworked at the office and, as a result of witness’s interest in the matter he was given assistance.

Stanley William Eunson, an accountant in the council’s employ for the past 17 years, detailed the office routine and the office administration of the unemployment work. To Mr Reed: He was aware that blank pay sheets were often signed in anticipation. That was when workers could not always manage to come in to draw their pay. Evidence that it was part of her duties to assist Todd and Gilbertson in the pay office was given by Elza Helen Croad, a typiste employed by the council. She typed the time-sheets and paysheets and the names of the men were supplied by Todd and Gilbertson. Cross-examined by Mr Reed, witness said that often some of the men would sign the sheets beforehand if they happened to be going out of town. Edward Charles Armstrong, a labourer, said he had never signed more than one pay-sheet in respect to the same work done by him for the county. He had given no one authority to sign for him and he had received only one pay. To Mr Reed: The signature on the other sheet (produced) did not look very much like his signature on the first sheet. He had arranged with Todd to collect his money once a month. Arnold Edward Moylan, another relief worker, denied that a signature purporting to be his was, in fact, his. Mr Reed: These signatures are very, very similar, Mr Moylan. _ Witness: I can find a very big difference. . Similar evidence was given by Edward Charles Hurd, Robert John Henderson, Hugh Gillon Henderson, Charles McCallum, Alfred James Dyer, Charles Enoch McDowell and Cyril John Brown. __ , Detective-Sergeant Hewitt, in evidence, detailed haying interviewed Todd on June 15 in connection with the alleged irregularities, of which the accused denied all knowledge. Todd could give no explanation of the shortages; if they existed he knew nothing about them. Todd made a written statement (produced). Alleged Irregularities.

Cecil Lawrence Gilbertson said that he went on to full time with the County Council in July, 1933, and assisted the accused in his work. Witness had exclusive charge of a card system and he found a number of irregularities. Ho discovered also that there were two pay-sheets through for the same man in the same week. He spoke to Todd

about- the matter and the accused replied that there was probably a mistake in the dates. Later on he admitted it was wrong. Witness let it go through at the time. Afterwards he taxed the accused, who said that things were somewhat behind and he was adopting that method to get some of the money back. He mentioned that the bus money (about £4O) had been stolen and that the county had ■ held him responsible. The irregularities continued and witness assisted the accused and helped to cover things up. Witness received vari ious sums as his share of the proceeds. I He thought the total would be about I £5O. Later, witness assisted to forge I certain pay-sheets. Todd always received the money first and then shared it later with witness. To Mr Reed: He had seen numbers of sheets where the signatures had been omitted in error. Todd did not receive the benefit from the sheets where the times had been wrongly filled in. Some of the workers signed sheets in anticipation. Witness had often seen errors as regards the dates in the pay-sheets. He realized there was a great deal of laxity in carrying out the unemployment scheme.

Mr Reed indicated that the defence was not calling evidence and the Crown Prosecutor did not address the jury. In pleading for the accused, Mr Reed emphasized that the charges of theft and the forgeries were closely interlocked and he put it to the jury that if they were not satisfied Todd stole the money then they need not concern themselves very much with the forgeries. They had to satisfy themselves that the accused deliberately forged the documents, otherwise he was entitled to an acquittal. Counsel stressed that there seemed a general laxity throughout. It was significant that although Todd handled over £30,000 a year he had stolen (the Crown contended) but £4O. If the accused had wanted to be dishonest, why did he not go to the Labour Department and obtain moneys by means of the refunds to wliich the county was entitled? Mr Reed invited the jury to compare several of the signatures which had been denied by witnesses that day and he considered they would agree upon their great similarity. He would not suggest that -those witnesses were telling untruths, but evidently a mistake had been made. If the necessity and the circumstances required it, Todd would sign several of the time-sheets. Gilbertson had been dragged into the matter to give evidence against Todd, but his testimony was applicable only to the time when he was at the office. The jury had to be very careful indeed, warned counsel, about accepting Gilbertson’s evidence at all, for he came within the class of persons known as accomplices. His testimony would have to be scrutinized very closely indeed. At any rate, it concerned matters about which the jury were not being asked to inquire. It had been shown that Todd had been very frank throughout and at no time had he attempted to conceal anything. Were they th actions of a guilty man? There was so much uncertainty in the whole business, so much laxity in the whole administration, and so much evidence of errors and omissions, that, though they might be satisfied there was. something wrong, it would be unfair and unsafe and unjust to convict Todd. He was entitled to the benefit that must exist. The Summing-up. In the course of his summing-up, his Honour, after referring to the nature of the charges, said the fact that there might be laxity in the administration of the moneys must not preclude the jury from finding Todd guilty of theft if they really thought he did steal the moneys. On the other hand, if there was a doubt, the accused was entitled to an acquittal. His Honour referred to the general practice adopted in the office regarding the time-sheets and then proceeded to review the evidence. If the testimony of the workers was to be believed, then they received but one lot of pay whereas the accused drew two lots. If so, what did Todd do with the other lot? If he could not account for it. was the proper inference that he stole it? The duplicated sheets all bore signatures, the authenticity of which was denied by the persons whose names they purported to be. Then, if they were forged, who forged them? asked his Honour. Todd was in charge of that branch of the work, he prepared the sheets, and he personally paid out on them. Did a large number of claimants impersonate the workers and. forge the sheets or were they forged in the office ? It would be noticed that the timesheets supporting the claims were in the accused’s handwriting and it was Todd who would apply to the Labour Department for the money. No claims it was significant, had been made to the department in respect to the four duplicated sheets. Why ?It was Todd’s duty to make claims. Did the fact that he did not carry out this duty show that he knew the claims would not be in order and that forgeries, if they were forgeries, would be detected? Referring to Gilbertson’s evidence, his Honour said that if the jury accepted, it there were subsequent irregularities, but they would remember that his testimony did not refer to the present charges. His evidence would have, to be received with great caution, bearing in mind that, if he said what was true, he was later an accomplice. It was, however, quite competent for the jury to accept it as standing alone. If they were satisfied on the whole of the evidence that Todd was guilty he must be convicted; otherwise he was entitled to an acquittal. The jury retired at 5.38 p.m. and returned two hours later with a verdict of guilty on all counts with the recommendation mentioned above. The prisoner was remanded until Wednesday morning for sentence.