THE RITCHIE CASE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 871, 24 November 1916, Page 10

THE RITCHIE CASE.

THEFT OF TRUST FUNDS. ACCUSED ADMITS CHARGES. EXTENSIVE DEFALCATIONS. George Berry Ritchie, a wellknown city solicitor, who had been remanded on charges of alleged misappropriation of trust moneys, again cs.me before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, to-day, when the evidence of the prosecution was called. The charges were that being a trustee of the will of Diedriek Kruse, deceased, with intent to defraud and in violation of his trusts he converted the following sums to j his own use on the dotes specified:— April 22, 1910, £O9 HI/-; Mav 15, 1916, £l6 10/-; Mav 8, 1910, £338 10/8; and October 25, 1910, £O9 10/-. Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., conducted the case for the prosecution, while Mr Alpers represented the accused. | Mr Raymond said that in respect: to the two charges of £O9 10/- each, j he would apply to have them re-j duced to cases of simple theft as Ritchie was not a trustee at the j time they were alleged to have oc-! curred. I The hearing of the charges in respect of the amounts of £338 10/8 and £l6 10/- was first proceeded with. Thomas Hcnsman Caverhill, machine shearing agent, said that under the probate of the will of Diedriek Kruse, deceased, he was appointed a trustee bv deed of appointment dated March 8, 1908. Subsequently in 1912, Ritchie was appointed a cotrustee with him in place of Mr J. Jamieson. The estate consisted of land and mortgaged securities. The accused was solicitor for the testator during his lifetime, and continued to act for the estate in a legal capacity after the testator's death. Ritchie, handled the moneys received. Witness did not handle any of the moneys. Since December last, witness had repeatedly asked the accused for detailed statements in connection with the estate, but had never: received them. About three months ago, Ritchie was informed that witness proposed to hand over the estate to the Public Trustee. Ritchie promised to forward witness a statement. Accused said the moneys i were in his (accused's) trust account at the National Bank. In February, witness signed a discharge of a mortgage by Mr A. Thomas for the sum of £338 16/8. This discharge was v also signed by Ritchie. Ritchie's clerk said at the time witness signed the discharge that the amount of the ,mortgage had been received by Ritchie. On July 11, 1916, witness placed the matter in the hands of Mr Cuningham, his solicitor. Witness Jroduced a copy of a letter dated uly 11, 1916, addressed to Ritchie asking for a statement of accounts or an inspection of the books. There was a mortgage security given by George King. Witness had never received an amount of £l6 10/- on April 22,1916, for interest under this mortgage. This sum in the ordinary course would be paid to the accused by the mortgagor. George Lisle, a land agent, formerly a clerk employed by the accused, said he witnessed the signatures of James Jamieson and Thomas Hensman Caverhill to the deed appointing them as trustees of the Kruse estate and also a mortgage given by A. Thomas to secure £325 in 1911.

Alfred Grover, formerly a clerk in the accused's employ, gave evidence that he witnessed accused's signature to the deed appointing Ritchie a trustee of the Kruse estate in place of James Jamieson. He received a cheque for £lO 10/- for interest on the date mentioned from King on behalf of Ritchie. The amount was I paid by witness into G. B. Ritchie's! trust account at the National Rank. This account was operated on per-] sonally by the accused. | Arthur Bailey said he entered the services of (1. B. Ritchie as a clerk! in May last and was still in his em-' ploy. He gave formal evidence as to his having witnessed Ritchie's and I Haverhill's signature to a discharge: of Thomas's mortgage. He produced! books containing entries as to moneys having been received. James Seymour Middleton, subaccountant at the National Bank of j New Zealand, said accused banked! there. He produced a statement ofj entries made in accused's general ] trust account during the. past two; years, and also that of a second trust; account for a period from January! 0, 11)14. to September 3, 1916.. The credit balance of the general account was 2d, while 15/11 represented the amount by which the other was in credit. The last considerable withdrawal was on May 8, 1910, when £709 10/9 was withdrawn. On February 18, 191."), a cheque for £338 10/8 was paid into Ritchie's general trust account. The cheque was signed by Thomas. £lO 10/- was paid into the same account on May 8, 1910, in respect of a cheque signed by (1. King. Mathew Alfred Thomas, a farmer and dairy manager at Ohoka, said be was the mortgagor under a mortgage produced to Kruse's trustees. He paid the full amount of principal and interest on February 17, 1910, by a cheque of £338 10/8 to Ritchie's clerk. Ritchie, who was in the office, consented to take witness's uncertilied cheque. The discharge of the mortgage was not signed until some time later. George King a fireman employed at the Starland Theatre, said he borrowed £OSO from the Kruse estate in April, 1913, giving a mortgage at 6 per cent. He paid the cheque produced for £l6 10/-, which was for a half year's interest, at Ritchie's office in May, 1910. The mortgage had been reduced by £IOO. John Robert Cuningham, solicitor, said he was instructed on July 11 by Mr Caverhill to obtain from Ritchie all the documents and papers relating to the Kruse Estate. On July 27 Ritchie instructed Bailey, his clerk, to hand witness the journal, the mortgages, and securities in the estate and witness received them. The journal was incomplete and had not been balanced since 1907. The last entry of payments was on March 8,1913. Accounts of the beneficiaries were also incomplete, the last entry having been made i: March, 1914. King's mortgage av; Thomas's mortgage, with a dischari.;. endorsed, were also handed over. Detective Thomas Gibson said he arrested the accused on warrant on October 25 and look possession of cheque books, bank books, etc. The onlv large cheques recently paid out "were sums of £709 odd and £2O odd respectively to Walsh's trustees. The accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. ALLEGED LARGE DEFICIENCY. Mr Raymond said that in view of the accused's plea, there was a possibility that by conferring with accused's counsel in respect to the other charges, the evidence might be materially shortened. There was a further charge of the theft of £4089,

which would cover the whole of the alleged deficiency in the Kruse estate. The court adjourned' until 2 p.m. to enable the conference to he held. On resuming, Mr Raymond intimated that as a result of the conference it had been decided to charge [Ritchie with the theft of £3309 10/-, which amount was in addition to the amounts of the charges previously |delat with. Other charges would also be heard, which were included in the amount stated as the total deficiency, while in addition there were charges pending, which it might not he necessary to proceed with, if the appropriation of the full amount £3309 10/- was proved. The accused was then charged with failing to account to the Kruse i Estate for the sum of £3309 10/-. The \ alternative charges were the theft of £OOO on Mav C, 1909; £4OO on October 19, 1908; £230 on June 1911, and £555 on March 18, 1910. He was! also charged with converting sums j belonging to the same estate of £SO, £SO and £l5O respectively to his own use of which he was trustee. Thomas H. Caverhill gave similar i evidence to that given in the previ- j ous cases, and said that accused had j told him that all moneys received j were paid into his trust account at the National Bank. James Sey'mour Middleton, a National Rank official, produced statements of accused's banking transactions, and gave other formal evidence. (Proceeding.)