NELSON,—THURSDAY, MARCH 15.

Colonist, Volume LVIII, Issue 14368, 21 March 1917, Page 11 (Supplement)

NELSON,—THURSDAY, MARCH 15.

Continuing his evidence, Donald Muiiro, chief traffic auditor, and actingstationmaster at Nelson for two periods last year, stated that since 12th 'February he had made a further investigation of accused's accounts, and the deficiency was shown to be the amount stated in the charge. After his first investigation he found several vouchers and some cash in the strong-room, which reduced the -amount of the original shortage. After 13th December lie found that the-Jmnk certificates had been altered to make up the amounts required. Accused was the only pel-son who could do that. The balances set out in the bank certificates (produced) were not correct as represented in the certificates. The writing on the body of the certificates, 'except the amounts, was accused's.

By His Honour: The body of the certificate was filled in by the -accused, and the balance filled in and certified to by the bank official.

By accused: A relieving officer took as much interest in the working of the railway as a .permanent,-officer, and while -ie -was in charge he" performed" the \isual -duties attached to the position. Wbile ho was1 there he found the clerical staff rather woalc, but could not remember having made representations to the Department on the matter. ,In reply to accused, witness detailed the various duties of the chief clerk. While at Nelson he (witness) had not actually compiled, any train advices. Witness then detailed the duties of the station clerk. After he came to Nelson he reported upon the then station clerk, and asked that he be replaced by a senior or more efficient officer. The head office declined to agree to the proposal, and suggested that the chief clerk should supervise his work. He replied that the chief clerk already had enough to do. After his return he found that the chief clerk was supervising the work of the station clerk in addition to his ordinary duties. He considered that one man could do the work of the two positions satisfactorily. Accused, he said, received less monny for carrying out the duties of chief clerk and station clerk than the former officer received for carrying out the duti'x; of chief clerk alone. He made application to tho. Department for an increase in accused's salary, but it was refused because of the'accused's position in the classification list. He received every assistance from accused in investigating tlie accounts'. He did not ask aroused for a statement. He certainly did not tell accused that if narti.-il restitution was made prosecu-*-iin would be waived. He knew of no y^coi.i itViv accused made the stats-r-.oiit. Witness1 told accused that he ■lid not -se<> how he could have got throno-V the amount in the time. Som^tb-incr -wop said about accused backing "doublesl." He could not rememKf>r »'>onc:orl «f>.-ving' tn'^re must be some n:>v fiio«f. s missing. : Accused had never n.~VpfT hini to sign a cheque without a ;>inT- oTr>r>r>v nevliam1 on oup o>-»-

■r-iti.-vji. I'hp: impi-aste- was .porsonallv | >-<ic-w^ c.iKln f or tb^ imprest'account, land all vouchers and returns had to he

signed by the imprestee. It was often necessary .to wire for extra imprest money, and the application ■ was made by. accused, on his behalf: The short-age-must either be a shortage in money or/a shortage of 'pay sheets; ,If receipted pay sheets- did not arrive by the. time the period closed, there would be a shortage in the imprest, account. It would be possible to take pay sheets from the next period to make the account balance, and this-would not give accused any money. "When accused went to the bank he was' always accompanied by another officer. Accused only had the handling of, a portion of the imprest account,. although he was responsible for all the pay sheets. The money broughf'froni,the bank for wages was put into envelopes', from the pay sheets, and was paid out by an officer, not necessarily' accused. Accused did not handle the wages of the maintenance men, but was responsible for the receipted pay sheets'. These pay sheets had to come from all parts of the lineThere would be opportunity for the pay sheets to become lost. He knew of no occasion on which a cheque had been drawn by accused without a pay sheet. Accused's cross-examination occupied an hour and a-half. Re-examined by Mr. Fell: He had found cases of overlapping on 23rd June, 1916, of £78 ss; on 7th July of £36 14s lid; on 22nd:July of £22 9s 3d; on 4th August. £22 2s 8d;on 16th August £28 3s 10d; on 30th.August £50 8s 4d; on loth September £66 19s 2d; on 21st September, approximately/£153 14s 6d. By accused: He supposed the schedules were, made out from the receipted pay" sheets in the office. A lost pay sheet in that case would not be shown | on the schedule. Allen Henry Baxter, . accountant at j the Bank of New Zealand, gave. evi-J dence as to the alteration of dates on two certificates of bank balances. The alterations were not made by.him. The alteration of the date from 9th January to 3rd was made after the certificate" left the bank. In the second certificate of 9th January the figure 1 had ben inserted after the certificate had been given. The writing of the place and date on the certificate appeared to be the same as on the cheques. By accused: No overdraft was allowed on imprest account. Irwin Faris, auditor and actingstationmaster at Nelson on two occasions last year, stated that accused was then chief clerk. He also supervised the work of the station clerk. He had made an investigation into the accounts and discovered a shortage of the amount mentioned. In his opinion the alteration of the date of the bank certificate from . 9th. to 3rd of Jam7 4 ary was in,the Jiandwriting of accused. He detailed the system allejged to have been adopted by accused in the manipulation of the accounts. On the s balancesheet of the period from 19th January to 3rd February, made up by accused a remittance of £500 was omitted. The bank certificate included that amount; He. found evidence of accused's system before September. By accused: Up to the present he (witness) had held accused in the highest esteem. It was on his recommendation that accused was transferred to Nelson as chief clerk. ■■When'he (witness) came to Nelson on the first occasion, the clerical staff was weak, but not- on the second occasion. While he was in charge he combined the position of chief clerk and station clerk, but the latter was in name only, as the clerk cud the work and accused supervised. Die dual position was only temporary. .Accused's salary," he believed, was £220 per year—less than the previous chief clerk. Accused was a thoroughly competent officer. When he f.igned cheques, the pay-sheets and vouchers were usually put before him. He trusted accused entirely, and might hay* signed a cheque without the voucher, although he- could not remember having done so. By Mr Fell: Accused had never complained thai his^ duties were more than he could manage. Isaac W. Turner, stationmaster in charge .at Nelson, said 113 took over on 13th December, 1916, and accused continued to keep the imprest account: lie had never been an imprestee before. On February 3rd,when,accused made up the accounts., lie told him he would make up the next lot in order«*tc get an insight mto the work. On Wednesday, February 7th, accused obtained one day's leave to go to Blenheim. Next morning he received a wire from accused stating 'that he had missed his car. On Thursday wages were to 'be paid, and the cheques were made out. The second clerk took the cheques and found there was not sufficient money to meet all of them. On Friday morning accused called at witness's house about 8.15, and witness told him there was no money In the bank to pay wages, and accused replied, "No; I have come to make a clean breast of ir." Accused said the shortage was about £500,. and witness told him he had better come to the office and make a statement. Accused said he would not do that, but they went to the office together. Accused then explained how he had obtained the money by overlapping the paysheets. Witness made the shortage over £600, and accused said ho had never bad all that. He suspended accused that afternoon. He- subsequently found some cash and small vouchers which reduced the shortage to £628 18s l]d. On Monday, while Mj- Mxmro wan investigating, accused handed witness a statement. Just as he commenced to read it, accused asked for it back and re-wrote the third page. Ho then hunded the 'statement buck to him, and asked him to send it to the General

Manager that night, which he did. Mx Fell then produced the statement wade-by. accused, and ictid it to the .juryIn the statement nee-used mentioned l his financial difficulties. He so id he ; .commenced playing cards, and lost per-1 haps £20 or £30 on each'occasion. He also commenced betting heavily, and at Christmas time he took about a hundred doubles all over New Zealand, any one of winch, if it had come off, would have put him right. He also went to .Blenheim races as a. last hope. '< Witness, .continuing, said that the "3rd" in the bank certificate appeared to be in accused's handwriting.' He did not think accused's work was moro tlfan he conld manage By accused •. Pro discovered the shortago on the Friday accused came back from Blenheim. JL£ there had not been a shortage of money in the bank he would not have known of the- shortage. At the office accused said there must be seme pay-sheets missing, and after t a hunt one was found. He neve;..- signed a blank cheque. He denied ever having; said that if restitution were made the pi'opffuticn would be waived. He was satisfied that the shortage iv;i:; r.-.oney and not receipted pay-sheets. Charles Leslie Rowe, secoud clerk ii the district rnil'vnv ofiir>o at >:pjsmi, ..gave evidence that it would u-t ho possible for .% pay-sheet x for £6<"O to', -o astray without its being missed. !',- c?iptpd pay-she?ts wore occasional I v found in a basket in the oiStc His Honour (to 'accused: Do you si'ggesfi that receipted pay-sheets' J- f the atnount of £fi24 are missing : J Is that the defence? Accused: Yes, Your Honour; that's the defence. This concluded the caso for the prosecution. . In reply to the usual- question, nrcused said he did not intend to givo evidence. He th«n proceeded to "nddross the "'jury. Hn uvya/i tbpiYh in >Ipcidft the case on the f;vefcs p.s p-ir. (.<■. fore them, and not from any opinion

they might have formed beforehand. Ho J contended that there had not Ibeen a j tittle of 07idence agamso him on the [forgery charges, and they should be dismissed. As to the shortage m the : .:nprest account,1 he submitted tJia. there was not a .shortage' of money but a loss of receipted pay-sheets. They had to be satisfied that he had i^ppropjiatcd the money set out in the charge, otherwise he was entitled to an acquittal. They had tho o\iUe:K:e of officers who were experienced auditors that they never .signed cneqiies unless accompanied by j.tay-sneefc.s. H v. as true he had used receipted paysheets, from one period to another period, but Mr Munro had told them that tliat did not give him any money. It was done by him to save himself I trouble as' he wis overworked. it' had i«ot been shown that he had cashed any cheque for his own use. His -story of missing pay-sheet;-, was not accepted, and, being threatened with prosecution, he made a statement in \the hope of avoiding a prosecution. There was no evidence against him except the' statement—no evidence certainly of reckless plunging whereby he had gone through £600 in a few months.

In summing up, His Honour said there were certain outstanding facts v.hich'wfcre not in dispute. One undisputed fact was that a large : sr.m'of money was. missing, aud it was aques-r tion -.whether 'it was missing from the dishonesty r of acbusetl or whether it was, missing by some accidentr—rlost pay-sheets" or vouchers. He pbinted out "that no representations had - been nade.,t6 the 'general Manager or tho railway officials about missing vouchers although the shortage was .discovered over a month ago, and it was for, the jury to say whether they could accept accused's explanation, or not. -They' could not pass over the accused's statement that lie had been gambling recklessly to square up his accounts. it was a pitiful story, and accused was entitled to sympathy, but that was not their affair. He did not desire, to put the ""case too strongly to the jury, but if there was a loophole of doubt, accused was entitled to the benefit of it, buVjf they, found-there was a clear and unmistakable case against accused they must give effect to their conclusions. "

The jury retired at 4.30, and returned at-5.-15 with a verdict of o-uilty on all counts.

Prisoner applied for probation, and pointed out that he had already been punished by the loss of hisV position alter 16 years' service. He had a wife and.child, and if he were^sent to gaol, they would be dependent on the country. He had been over a month in gaol, and could have got bail, but could not face his fellow citizens. If allowed; probation he',qffered.. to •mlist and endeavour to retrieve' his. position. In sentencing the prisoner, His Honour said he was very sorry to see him in that position. The jury had recommended him to mercy on account of the laxity of the officers in charge. He was unable to see that, laxity himself, ■but even-if-there had been laxity; priooner should not have taken advantage oi^ it. Prisoner's 'long-continued conduct rendered probation impossible, but lie would take a note of his pre- i vious good character. He intended toj give effect to- the jury's recommendation, and would inflict ;t lighter sentence than he would otherwiso have done. Prisoner would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour.