THEFT ATOPARAU

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 56, Issue 4041, 29 April 1938, Page 4

THEFT ATOPARAU

SECRETARY’S EMBEZZLEMENT. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. At a sitting of the Police Court at Hamilton yesterday, Charles Edward Crews (48), formerly organisersecretary to the Oparau Co-operative Dairy Company, was charged that on March 10, 1937, he stole £ll 18s from the company and further that from June 20, 1936, and November 29. 1937, at divers dates, he stole £963 4s Bd. Accused, represented by Mr N. S. Johnson, pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court, Hamilton, for sentence next week. He was admitted to bail, which was fixed at £5OO. A third charge of stealing £49 19s lid from the company on or about July 20, 1936, at Hamilton, was dismissed for want of prosecution. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. Richard Francis Braine, who was chairman of directors of the company at the time of the offences, said accused was appointed organiser-secre-tary on October 1, 1934. His salary on appointment was £250 per annum, an increase to £3OO per annum being made for the 1937 season when an additional allowance was made ot £2 a month for car expenses and out-of-pocket expenses incurred on the company’s business. In November, 1937, witness made inquiries with reference to the alleged purchase of cement by accused from a man named O’Connor, in Auckland. There were several alleged purchases shown in the company’s books, but witness’ inquiries showed that O’Connor was a taxi-driver and not a cement merchant. Later on accused admitted defrauding the company of £lB7 and, by way of restitution, forfeited £2O salary due him and handed over his car. A later audit of the books disclosed the deficiencies which formed the basis of the charges. “INVALUABLE SERVICES.” Under cross-examination, witness said when Crews joined the company there had been a movement to place the company in liquidation for it would have had difficulty in functioning without the aid of an organiser. The pay-out was, the witness understood, several pence lower than the pay-out of other companies in the province. Accused was to undertake the reorganisation of the company, and he was very successful in his efforts which resulted in many former suppliers returning. In accused’s third year as organiser-secretary the output was over 300 tons, compared with 120 tons in accused’s first year. Crews also undertook trading in merchandise on the company’s behalf and as a result the receipts benefited considerably. Further, the pay-out in 1937 was within id of that of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company. Had it not been for the occurrences alleged in the charges against Crews, the prospects of the company early in 1938 were excellent. Up to the last six months, added witness Crews’ services were invaluable to the company and as reward for the excellent results, the directors decided, last year, to give him a bonus of £25. STATEMENT BY ACCUSED. Following further evidence of a corraborative nature, accused elected to give evidence and, in the witness box, he said he could claim to be responsible for the revival of the Oparau Dairy Company, Limited, following his appointment as organisersecretary. Whereas the company’s pay-outs before his appointment were from 3d to 5d below those of competing factories, the accused was able fo revive the pay-out to figures equal to those of other companies. Having engineering qualifications, accused was able to restore the company’s plant to a good state of repair. The chairman of directors had promised a bonus of £lOO to accused if the excellent progress continued. Accused said he did not claim that bonus at the end of the first year because the company was somewhat short of capital funds. From his wages of £5 a week, accused said he had to pay £2 a week maintenance for his wife from whom he was living apart. Crews added that he used £l4l 10s of his private money on the company’s behalf during his first year while in the second year he was £ll6 out of pocket. Accused admitted “faking” the books and added that some of the money he stole was used to reimburse expenses incurred on the company’s services. The remainder was used for personal purposes, some being spent in extravagant living.

Crews was then committed for sentence, as stated above.