BUREAU CALL CHARGES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2030, 17 August 1920, Page 6

BUREAU CALL CHARGES.

RETURN NOT FORWARDED. SUBSTANTIAL FINE IMPOSED. [Special to The Sun.] WANGANUI, August W. A country storekeeper was charged in the Magistrate's Court to-day, under Section 87 of the Post and Telegraph Regulations, with failing to send in a return'of a telephone bureau charge. It was pointed out, in support of the charge, that the defendant was a country storekeeper, in charge of the postal branch and telephone in bis district, and that, before entering on that duty, he had signed the customary declaration to forward the returns for all bureau charges. In April last, a woman at the Wanganui Post (Mice-rang up the storekeeper. After the conversation, she went to pay the clerk at the counter, and was informed that there would be no charge, 'the reason no charge was made was that the country postmaster had rung up the exchange tolls clerk, and asked him not to make out a docket, as the woman was the defendant's wife. As a matter of fact, it transpired later that she was not his wife. For the defence, it was admitted that a sister-in-law of the defendant rang him up on official business, and he acquainted the tolls clerk accordingly. The return was then torn np, and was thrown in the wastepaper basket, where it was discovered later. It was pointed out that country postmasters frequently acted as official inquiry agents, and their duties often raiiiired them to give advice and assistance to the public, and it was while the defendant was acting in this capacity, over a Government loan, that the basis of the present information arose. No official stamps were issued to cover the cost of telephone communications of this nature, and it was unfair to ask country postmasters to bear the expense.' It was furthermore stated that the practice had grown in Wanganui to inform the bureau whether the business was official or otherwise. This custom had been in force for some time, and it now appeared that the department had brought the charge with a view to checking the practice. The defendant received a salary of only' £65 per annum, and the amount of the bureau charge in this instance was 1/2. The Magistrate said that the defendant was charged with being concerned in a fraudulent device for depriving the department of charges payable on the telephone bureau. It appeared that the telephone was used for private connection, and not charging or paying the charge himself was a form of dishonesty. It was necessary that a man in a position of trust should be a man of integrity. The offence could have been committed only with the connivance of someone in the Wanganui telephone bureau, but it was not assumed that that person got any benefit out of it at all. It was essential that officers of the Postal Department should be above suspicion. The defendant would be fined £2O with costs.