“GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS”

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1926, Page 11

“GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS”

MONEY NOT ACCOUNTED FOR STRATFORD AUCTIONEER ON TRIAL. SENTENCE EARLY TO-MORROW. "Guilty ou all counts'' was the verdict of the jury against Colin Leighton, formerly an auctioneer of Stratford, who was charged in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on Saturday with fraudulently converting to his own use the sum of £44 Is 9d and with fraudulently omitting to account for it to his clients. The indictments concerned seven different incidents and the stories told by witnesses were substantially the same in each ease. They could not obtain the procee': of sales when asked for and were put off with various excuses. The jury’s decision was reached after a retirement of ten minutes, and the Chief Justice (the Hon. C. P. Skerrett) indicated that he would pass sentence to morrow morning after he had received a report from the probation officer. The sums involved were £22 7s 9d due to Rose I. Oyston as the balance of proceeds on a sewing machine, a piano and certain furniture deposited for sale at accused’s mart in March last ; £4 10s due to James Bilkey for a duchess deposited in April; £3 19s 5d due to Charles Close for 32 cases of apples in April; £3 13s 3d due to E. G. Foster for boots and shoes in June; £2 17s 9d due to James McCormick for furniture and books in July; £3 19s 6d due to R. G. Cutfield for a range in July; and £2 14s due to W. P. Mark for 1201 be. of honey in July. The following jury was empanelled:—CL R White (foreman), J. Geddis, B. McGrath, R. Sinclair, H. H. Edgecombe, A. Twine, T. P. Riley, S. H. Phipps, M. McCarten, W. Bent, W. S. Knuckey and W. S. Cartwright. Leighton commenced business in Stratford in 1924, having taken over The People’s Auctioneering Company, said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston) in opening his case. In July, 1926, he filed in bankruptcy with £1295 owing to unsecured creditors, according to his statement. Subsequently other claims were made to a total of £l6Bl. This showed a considerable loss after two years’ trading. The evidence was all very similar and was to the effect that customers had placed in accused’s hands goods for sale and in most instances had not heard of them again. There were one or two cases in which they had been able to recover their goods from the rooms after the bankruptcy, but usually the articles had been sold and Leighton did not have the money to pay. HONEST OR DISHONEST? It was really a question of whether Leighton was honest or dishonest, proceeded counsel. He pointed out that an auctioneer occupied a position of trust and could not act without a license. He was obliged to keep a separate account at the bank in which to deposit customers’ money. Accused had not kept a separate account and had placed the proceeds from th e sales with his own money. Further than that, the account was overdrawn; he actually owed the bank money. He was not being charged with failure to keep a trust account, but it was suggested that this. omission indicated an element of dishonesty. He was really using customers’ money to pay the bank what he owed. In one or two cases he had sold goods below the reserve placed upon them. When he started in 1924 he had £25 in cash and £75 worth of plant and he arranged an overdraft limit at the bank of £lOO. In February, 1926, he admitted he was insolvent, and on February 28 he owed the bank £344, so that his position was then fairly hopeless. In spite of this he carried on. From June 28 to September 2 his cheques were dishonoured by the bank and during this period he was pressed by his creditors. Norman McLeod Richards, ledger-keeper in the Bank of New Zealand, Stratford, said the arrangement for the guarantee of £lOO continued till Leighton's account was closed by the Deputy Official Assignee in July. A statement was produced showing that from May 31, 1925, till the end accused was overdrawn at the close of each month. On February 28, 1926, he owed the bank £344, on March 31 £454 4s lid, on April 30 £340 11s 3d, on May 31 £377, on June 30 £382 7s Bd, and on July 14 £358 13s 6d. He could not say why the account was allowed to be overdrawn so much more than £lOO. Probably it was at the manager’s discretion. Twenty cheques were dishonoured altogether. In answer to Mr. R. R. Tyrer, who appeared for accused, witness explained that the bank took a second mortgage over Leighton’s house as security. ACCUSED'S INDEBTEDNESS. J. S. S. Medley, Deputy Official Assignee at New Plymouth, said that Leighton was adjudicated bankrupt on September 7 and there was a meeting of creditors on September 17. The debts to unsecured creditors were shown as £1382 16s 9d and to secured creditors £l5B 13s 6d. a total of £1541, winch was reduced to a deficiency of £l2Ol. after the assets were realised. Rose lima Oyston, saleswoman, said that her stepfather (Mr. McGregor) died on February 7, 1926, ami the family sent his furniture to Leighton’s mart for sale about the end of March. She called three or four times afterwards, but Leighton always told her that though there was some money due her, he did not have it then. He asked her to cal! again. She had since received neither money nor statement. | She had heard that her stepfather's estate was credited by Leighton with £22 17s 9d, but considered this a very low amount for the furniture, which included a piano and sewing machine. The family had estimated it would bring at least £35 or £4O. Evidence on similar lines was given by the other creditors mentioned in the charges and by Robert J. Hopkins, storeman for Leighton, by Detective Meiklejohn and J. P. Skoglund, town clerk at Stratford. The last named deposed as to licenses issued to accused. No evidence was called by the defence. Mr. Tyrer. in his address, submitted that there could be no suggestion of fraud in the case. The trouble was caused by muddle more than anything else. His Honour summed up and the jury retired at 3.20 p.m., returning with the verdict indicated at 3.39.