A METER-READER.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1922, Page 6

A METER-READER.

ALLEGED FAILING TO ACCOUNT AND THEFT. VERDICT .OF NOT GUILTY. The first case of the criminal calendar tqkeu at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday was a series of charges against Herbert Ceddric Jepson, who was for some lime an electricity meter reader in the employ of the New Plymouth Borough Council. The charges were that Jepson, on August 3,1922, had received from Collett and Co., and Moral Bros., the sum of £2 13s and £2 15s 3d respectively under terms requiring him to account for same to the Borough Coun* oil, and that he had fraudulently omitted to do so. Similar charges Were preferred against him with respect to the sums of £1 7s collected from Mary Cowan Angus, 15s from John McCullough, and £1 Ils from Marrett and May, on August 5, while in or about the month of August was set out as the date for a further charge with respect to the sum of 15s Teecived from Geo. Yuka. Each of the above charges was followed by a charge of stealing the sums mentioned, while a final charge was added that, on August 5, he knowingly furnished a false return by allegedly implying that lie had collected the sum of £3B 17s, whereas he had collected the sum of £l9 3s 9d. Jepson pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The Crown prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston) conducted the prosecution and Mt. A. A. Bennett appeared for the accused. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. F. Callaghan, R. C. Smith, G. F. Goldsworthy, E. May, L. D. Callaghan, C. E. Collins, W. J. Hutchings, G. D. Magnusson, F. D. Robertson, R. A. Cocker, R. M. Gorney and P. Biesick. Mr. Robertson was chosen foreman, Mr. Bennett asked that the last charge against the accused be quashed on the grounds that he had been committed by the Magistrate for an alleged offence which he was alleged to have committed on July 29, whereas th date mentioned in the indictment was August

5. It was not merely a matter of a wrong date, and he submitted that a man could not be put on his trial by the Grand Jury without first being committed by the Magistrate. His Honor: I don’t see why he can’t. Mr. Bennett proceeded to quote authorities in support of his contention and said that Jepson had not had an opportunity of meeting the charge made against him for August 5. He asked His Honor to note the point. CASE FOR THE CROWN. The facts alleged against Jepson were that, in his capacity as meter reader, he had collected the amounts stated from the nersons enumerated, but that he had failed to hand the amounts over to the cashier. He had to give a rereceipt from the receipt book to the persons who paid, and in order to cover his alleged defalcations he gave receipts from the back of the 'book. This fact had become evident when his receipt book was checked, it being found that receipts dated in July followed receipts dated Auvust. All moneys collected during July should have been paid in by July 31, and, similarly, moneys collected btween August 1 and 3 should have been paid in 'by the latter date, a thing which had not been done. Regarding the last charge Mr. Weston contended that it was not necessary for the accused to say that he was handing in all the money he had collected. It was his duty so to do, but by holding back money he must be held guilty on that charge. Evidence was given by Guy Vernon Matthews, accountant for the New Plymouth Borough Council, who produced the various books used by meter readers and explained their methods of working. When a consumer paid the meter reader a receipt was given there and then, and after the reader had finished his rounds he paid in the moneys’collected to the cashier, who checked his totals and entered the amount received in the counter cash book. His attention had been drawn to accused’s receipt book where July dated receipts were found among others dated in August. Amounts which had been collected in July should have been paid in during that month, as should all moneys collected during the intervening days between his next payments to the cashier on August 3 and 5. The amounts paid in by him did not correspond with the total amounts he had received. He questioned Jepson on the matter and accused had replied that he had dropped a £lO note, or had gives, a £lO note in change instead of a £1 note, and that other receipts totalling £lO odd were placed at the end of the ‘book. Witness reported the matter to the Borough Manager (Mr. F. T. Bellringer) and, in witness' presence, Jepson had repeated his story. Tn reply to Mr. Bellringer, Jepson said he had £2 15s on him to hand over and this amount witness took. Downstairs in the main office witness had remarked to Jepson that it was a very foolish thing to do, but Jepson apparently did not realise the seriousness of the position and had .mentioned that he would make up the deficiency in a fw days. He paid in the balance outstanding ( £7 Us 9d) on August 10. ACCUSED QUITE FRANK. Replug to Mr. Bennett, witness stated thftt the cashier added up the totals in accused’s receipt book. That was what he had meant when he said she checked the totals, although there was one column which had to be added by accused. Accused had been quite frank when he was taxed with the discrepancies and he (witness) had been inclined to believe his explanation. The receipt book, within its covers, contained a correct record of all the moneys accused had received. It would be quite possible for a collector to omit putting the date on a receipt, and then when he discovered the omission put it m later. In re-examination witness went through the receipts at the end of the book, the amounts set out in each totalling £lO 6s 9d, the amount deficient. Some of these receipts were undated, the others being dated either August 3 or 5. Felix Templeton Bellringer, borough manager and treasurer, said Jepson had been employed as a meter reader smee November 4, 1921, till August 5, 1922. He bad previously been employed temDorarily by the council from March 15 to J»ae 89, 182V' He oerroborated the

previous witness evidence concerning Jepson’s explanation of the deficiency, stating that Jepson had said that he had placed receipts ahead in his book in order to gain time to repay the amount he was down. 'He had also remarked that he had not reported his loss, as he thought he might be dismissed. He had dismissed the accused instantly, and two days later had received a letter from him reiterating his verbal statement and asking for another chance. To Mr. Bennett: Jepson was paid at the rate of £4 per week. A meter reader would collect about £5OOO in a year, or say £4lB a month. Theodore Bedford (cashier for the borough council), Stanley Bollon (relieving cashier), and George Harvey Richardson (auditor), gave evidence regarding the cash payments made by Jepson. The auditor stated that he had audited the books and had found the accused’s payments were £lO 6s 9d short of what he had received. Evidence was also given by householders as to paying the amounts mentioned in the charges. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr. Bennett intimated that he did not intend to call evidence and proceeded to address the jury, contending that, while the accused may have acted foolishly, he had not done so with criminal intent. HTS HONOR SUMS UP. Tn summing up, His Honor said that it was a case in which there was no substantial dispute about the facts, but one in which the jury had to determine as to whether there was dishonest intention, a sense of dishonesty in the mind of the accused when he committed the acts which had been stated in evidence. After reviewing portions of the evidence His Honor continued that the point was: “Was the accused dishonest?” It was not enough to say that he had committed an improper act. Stealing implied dishonest intention, and no matter how foolishly a man may have acted, or how he .may have railed to account for the money, if there was not dishonest intention he was not guilty of stealing. NOT GUILTY. The jury returned, after having been out for about a quarter of an hour, with a verdict of not guilty on all counts, and accused was discharged.