THEFT OF HALF-A-CROWN

Taranaki Daily News, 26 November 1926, Page 9

THEFT OF HALF-A-CROWN

YOUNG LAW CLERK’S LAPSE FURTHER COMPLIC ATIONS ENSUE. JUDGE GRANTS YEAR'S PROBATION. The serious consequences that may follow the thoughtless and in the first place almost trivial action of a firm’s employee where money matters are concerned was exemplified in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Charles William Hall, a young law clerk of Stratford, entered the dock to be sentenced on a. number of charges arising from the “borrowing)’ of half-a-crown which he subsequently repaid. The Chief Justice (Hon. C. P. Skenett) extended leniency to the prisoner, and granted him a year’s probation, under certain special conditions.

The prosecution was the result of Hall's action in using half-a-crown of his firm’s money to lend to a friend. At the time of the offence, Hall was in the employ of Messrs Malone and King, solicitors, Stratford. Being unable to repay the amount at once, he adopted the criminal procedure of altering the numbers on certain postal notes and letters passing through his hands, thus delaying the necessity for repaying the original “loan” until such time as he had a spare half-a-crown of his own. As a result of his action, Hall was charged with making two false documents, one on October 20, by erasing from a letter addressed by his firm to the Postmaster-General the figures 998,285, and substituting for them the figures 058,429, with intent that they should be acted upon as genuine, and the other by erasing the figures 058,429 and substituting the figures 998,285 in a letter addressed to Malone and King and signed by G. McNamara. Accused was also charged with wilfully detaining, on September 20, a letter containing a postal note for 2s fid, which should have been delivered to Malone and King. LENT MONEY TO A FRIEND. The circumstances of the case were explained by counsel for Hall (Mr. A. Coleman) in asking the court for leniency. Accused, he said, was originally instructed to send a postal note for 2s 6d to the Royal Insurance Company. On his way to the post office he was asked by a friend for the urgent loan of 2s 6d, and not having any money of his own he handed over the firm’s coin. Some days later, on June 28, he was sent for another 2s 6d postal note, to be despatched to an insurance company in New Plymouth. Accused used this postal note for the one to be sent to the Royal Insurance Company. About a week later, he was required to despatch yet another 2s fid postal note to the insurance company in New Plymouth. This note he placed in the letter that should have been sent on June 28, and eventually was able to supply 2s 6d of his own to go in the third letter. Thus he repaid the original loan but in such a circuitous fashion that the business people concerned instituted inquiries that resulted in proceedings being taken against accused. MONEY PAID BACK. The police had agreed to withdraw the charge of theft, which would have •been defended had it been persevered with, said Mr. Coleman. The nature of the offence as disclosed in the evidence of the lower court showed that accused had had no criminal intent, and actually paid back the trifling amount he had loaned. As a matter of fact there was a system in the office whereby employees could, if they wished, draw on petty cash for small amounts, substituting 1.0.U.’s which could be redeemed latei, but accused did not make use of this convenience. His employers /gave him a good character,. and were willing to take him back into their employ. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weeton) intimated that he was instructed that the accused would possibly be better suited in manual work than at hie present profession. The case was one in which he felt he was justified in admitting the young man to probation, said His Honour. His first act had been an act of folly, and in endeavouring to cover it up his subsequent actions had been more serious. It was always the way. He could see no reason, however, why the young man should not make good. He was sorry to see from the report of the Stratford police that the accused had been frequenting hotels more than he should for a young man of his age. The accused would be sentenced to a period of probation for twelve months, on condition that he took out a prohibition order against himself and paid the costs of the prosecution amounting to about £7. FORGERY AND UTTERING. PROBATION GRANTED. Two years’ probation was granted to Henry Ernest Ferguson Samuel Lee, who pleaded guilty to charges of forging the name of R. S. Scown to a cheque for £lO at Patea on October 17, 1925, and uttering the valueless cheque to Fred erick Henry Ramsbottom, obtaining the sum of £lO by so doing. Mr. L. M. Moss, who appeared for Lee, said that the two previous convictions against the accused, would be a difficulty in the way of granting probation. The offences were comparatively trivial, how ever, one being the conversion of a bicycle to his own use, and the other the theft of footwear. Lee had been under big disadvantages during the last few years, having had to work exceptionally hard, and he became discontented, got into bad company at Hawera, and started drinking more than he should. He went Home as a member of the orew of the Dorset during the shipping strike, and since coming back had been in regular work with a farmer down the coast, and also at Otakeho. The former gave him a good report, and his Otakeho employer would take him back into his employ if he were given the opportunity. ANOTHER CHANCE OFFERED. He had some doubt in doing what he proposed to do—admit the prisoner to probation, said His Honour. To grant probation where it would not achieve its purpose was to abuse a very useful institution. When young, the • prisoner had made a bad start, and then graver offences had followed. Probation, however, offered the accused another chance, and he was loath to refuse to give the prisoner another chance to become a reputable member of society. He hoped the prisoner would realise his responsibilities, for if he did not behave during

the currency of his probation, he was liable to be arrested and punished. Probation would be granted on condition that the accused took out a prohibition order against himself and observed the conditions of the order, abstained from going to Hawera except with the consent of the probation officer, kept in such employment as the probation officer thought fit, and paid the costs of the ease, amounting to about £l2.