CHARGES AGAINST CLERK

Taranaki Daily News, 26 September 1930, Page 3

CHARGES AGAINST CLERK

DEFENCE IN LOWER COURT THEFT AND FRAUD ALLEGED. STEWART COMMITTED FOR TRIAL Unusual procedure was adopted by Air. L. A. Taylor when appearing for Donald Alexander Stewart, formerly town clerk of Normanby, in the Hawera Afagistrate’s Court yesterday in presenting the case for* the defence. The usual practice in a ease where an indictable offence is concerned is to reserve the defence until the Supreme Court proceedings. The prosecution led by Detective Aleiklejohn continued the case from Wednesday, concluding it in the morning. In the afternoon Air. Taylor called three witnesses, afterwards addressing the court in an endeavour to rebut the portion ot the prosecution alleging intent. Messrs. E. Dixon and G. A. Burgess, J. sP., were satisfied that a prima facie case had been established and Stewart will stand his trial at New Plymouth on ten charges of theft and 24 of fraud. Receipt books containing copies of receipts which could not be found were produced when the hearing was resumes . yesterday. Continuing his evidence, H. R. Alarbrook, audit inspector, said the amounts of cash bunked, in Stewart’s private account and the amount of cheques were :£297 and, £5OB 4s respectively. , , Detective Aleiklejohn: What would you say about the state of the books? Witness: All was in a state of chaos. His knowledge of book-keeping was infinitesimal. His arithmetic wag bad, too, and personally J don’t think he was capable of arriving at a balance of the books. Stewart accepted the amount of shortages but did not know where the money had gone to. I suggested it was the result of his casual way of looking' after his cash and bankings generally. He admitted that that must be. so. He admitted' that he received money in the street when he had not his'receipt book with him. Sometimes he would have fairly large sums in his house. At one period he had over £7O in the house. The bankings were very irregular, both a.eJ to intervals and lodgment of receipts to date. Apart from the disappearance of the obsolete receipt book and Treasury advices he gave me every assistance to clear the matter up. He told me they had been left in the Town Board’s office. AUDITOR CROSS-EXAAIINED. To Mr. Taylor: Stewart said the Treasury advices might have been burnt in his clearing up. Replying further to Mr. Taylor Alarbrook said that ordinarily a book-keep-er would enter all items of cash received and Treasury vouchers in the name and total column. He would add in- the total bank column the banking of casn to date and the Treasury vouchers. Treasurv advices were only another form of receipts and should be shown in the receipts column. Naturally they would also be placed in the bankinlr column so that both would balance, provided there was no cash in hand. It would be much better if they had not been entered at all if they were entered in the name and total columns. Air. Taylor; Will you say that so far as his duties were concerned in relation to Treasury vouchers he made an entry in the banking column of the amount of Treasury advices and the omission in the receipts column was the result of his limited knowledge of bookkeeping? ..Witness: I do not know Stewart’s mind, but it appears to me that that was probably so. Mr. Taylor; The Treasury monies undoubtedly reached the account of the Normanby '"own Board. Witness:' They could not do otherwise as they were paid direct to the bank. , x These moneys, could’ not be 'paid out again unless, a chequjc was drawn? You know that Stewart is charged with not making, .those entries with intent to defraud the board? —A’es. Can you see in Stewart's hook-keep-, inwith relation to Treasury subsidies any intent to defraud? —No, taking iflto consideration my personal knowledge of the incompetence of the clerk. Had the omissions been made by anyone whom I knew had a full knowledge of his duties I. would conclude that the omission was made with intent. The Bench:' Do I understand.that this neglect has been going oi. evcry year since 1923?—Yes, except that until the last few years the deficiency was of no consequence. Have any cheques drawn on; the Tojvn Board’s account been misapplied? No, except those explained by Henderson yesterday. far as his memory served him Stewart'had been frank, continued, witness, who was convinced that Stewart f memory was’ very bad. All eheejnes received had been paid into the bank with the exception of Hair’s. Tn regard to the cash, that could be used by Stewart with a fair amount of impunity, bui also in the case of a person who was careless and negligent with intention to do the right thing and with arithmetical limitations . the cash might slip away. There were occasions when he banked to the board’s account cheques drawn in his favour in his private capacity, in lieu of cash That showed he knew he had cash ip hand and paid the cheques in to make up what should have been banked. In 1927 Mrs. Stewart , had said they were very crude book-keepers and had asked for an audit once a year. He . would not deny that Mrs. Stewart had also said that thev would like him to come once a month. Of course that was impossible. When he told Stewart of the shortages St?wart appeared that theie was a (deficiency but not to the extent that existed. Mr. Taylor: Have you seen anything in the books to indicate that Stewart wilfully falsified the books? Witness: No. Air. Taylor: With the sole exception of Lloyd junr’s 9s 2d Stewart made such entries in the books a.s to show receipt of the money? Witness: Yes. but sometimes in an irregular manner. Mr. Taylor: Mv point, is that Stewait had furnished the evidence against himself if he had tried to get away with the money. Witness: Not altogether. He told me about the obsolete receipt book. Mr "’Taylor: I want to suggest to you that Stewart has not tried to cover up his tracks. Air. Afarbrook: I am unable to say whether there was intent or not other than that I cannot accept the loss oi the obsolete receipt books. There may have been other receipts issued from the same books. 1 have not been able to trace any more. _ Continuing, ■ witness said that Stewart did not balance his books correctly. The point about entering the Treasury vouchers was that it would have assisted him in a balance. Ihe omie/sion of the Treasury entries mad*the balance more difficult.

At the last audit witness said he had pointed out to Stewart that he had failed to draw a month’s salary. The probable reason why Stewart had used tlie obsolete receipt book was that it was at the house and the other was at the office. Re-examined by Detective Aleiklejohn witness said that the failure to make correct entries in the cash book was not for the purpose getting away with that money. It would tend to cover up, however, the absence of other sums, j As a man who had tieen appointed in , .1914 Stewart should have had the ability to keep his books by 1930. Comparatively the deficiencies were small b fore 1927, though the amounts handled annually were much the same. The. shortage in 1930 was rather astounding in view of the similar amounts he had handled every year. The annual turnover was roughly £l2OO per annum. STATEMENTS BY' ACCUSED. Patrick Kearney, detective, handed in two statements taken from Stewart on August 1 and 22. In the first Stewart stated that he had received a standard five education and had never learned book-keeping. He had been a ploughman) until 1902. Since he had been clerk to the board he had left the drawing up of an annual balance to the auditor. The office hours were supposed to be _between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Alondays’, but as a rule people did not turn up then and he used to collect most of the money at the house and sometimes in the street. Generally the lattfer would have receipts posted them. Sometimes in his absence his wife would receive money, usually giving receipts or letting him know. He had just banked at random and had left the balance } for the auditor to attend to. He would make a rough guess at the amount he would need to bank, sometimes using his own money to make up what he thought was required. On occasions he had overbanked.' Oi) the last three audits 'there had been alight deficiencies in cash. From 1927 to 1930 he had. carried on in the same way and was simply astonished when he found that there was a deficiency of £287 15s 3d. He had. been told that the total deficiency had on August 1 reached ]£323 ss, with £4 in the cemetery account. He was unable to say how *this had occurred and could not remember having ever paid a Town Board cheque into his own account. Sometimes he had carried money in his pocket and sometimes he had left it at his house. During the past three years he had not locked any board, money in the Town Hall safe because most people had paid at the house, not £5O having been paid at the office. \ His house was left unlocked. With reference ; to apparent irregularities in the cash book he could only say that these had. not been done intentionally but had occurred through his lack of knowledge. He would be able to raise the. amount of money that was missing. in the second statement Stewart stated that he had been shown a list of board cheques that had been paid into his private account. His explanation was that the amounts represented had. been paid by him in cash in the first instance. When he had paid the cash he had thought it was his own, but it appeared at the date of the statement that it had been Town Board cash sometimes, and he had been drawing a cheque as well. He had not done it intentionally. In October, 1929, he had received £2O for the . lease of the Normanby Domain. This he paid into the Town Board account by mistake. On June 12;. 1930, he drew a cheque for £2O from his own account and paid it to the Domain Board account. To adjust his own account he paid a cheque of £3O Is 4d from Hair into his account.' He had not dreamed that there would be anything criminal in this. He knew that there would be a balance of'. £lO Is- 4d and he was waiting to find the correct position from the auditor before adjusting' it. The £297 in cash that he had . banked would 1 be jfiade up of remits and sales of stock and poultry. As he had been careless there was the possibility.that.some of the board’s money in cash had been unintentionally paid into his own account. With reference to the issue of receipts' from the obsolete book, which had been done al /home, Stewart. said he had- later entered the amounts in the correct receipt book, fearing the .original receipt out of the proper book. He-had'not since seen the old book. He did not know- what had happened to the Treasury advices. ■ - •This concluded the . police case and Mr. Taylor intimated that after the luncheon adjournment he would call witnesses. ' CASE FOR. THE DEFENCE. Edith Alison Stewart,-, wife of accused, with reference to certain recent entries in the cash book, stated that these had been at the, dictation of her husband. For a period her husband had been in a-very -bad state of health- and entirely dependent on her. He had regularly consulted Dr. Sloan, late of Hawera, and as specialists Drs. Orchard, Mullins and. Webb. Twenty-four years ago they had come to Hawera, witness opening* a shop. When the vacancy for a clerk had occurred three members of the board had asked Stewart to take the position.. He had said he was hot competent but Afr. Robertson had gone as bond for him for five years. They had talked him over.

All the entries in the cash book up to folio 39 had been made Jjy witness except those put in by the auditor. Her husband’s work began oh folio 41, which was after the first audit carried out by Alarbrook.' Witness; had done most of the writing and had taken money. Her husband had. also taken money and dictated the relevant entries to her. Her husband, had taken rough minutes at meetings and 1 she had written them up. She had drawn the cheques to be signed by her husband and tlie chairman. The sunstroke still affected his memory and he had to have a diet. For the last few years she had not been in the beist of 'health, sometimes being in bed for long periods. This threw the housework on to her husband. He was very much overworked considering tlie state of his health. Takino- the cash book, witness showed whicfi entries she, her son and her husband had made. She had appreciated the difficulty of keeping the books and special reliance had been placed on th. auditor. She had done her husband’s writing for the newspaper correspondentship, for the Horticultural Society and for the egg-laying competition. As a justice of the peace his help was sought every day. He was a “fatherconfessor” to the township. He possessed the residents’ entire confidence and used to assist in the making up of land and income tax returns. That did not apply to the book work but was only general directions. , Witness knew that there was a shortage but had had no idea of it until the auditor had told her husband. Nothing had been purchased on which the shortage money could have been spent and she had not the least idea where the money could have gone. Board members themselves paid rates at the house. She had not known that it was an offence not to make entries about the Treasury advices. For the past 14 years she had done sewing and had sold milk, butter and vegetables. Cross-examined by Detective Aleiklejohn, witness said that she could not remember having made any' entries about Treasury vouchers. Her memory had not been good recently and she

was a bad hand at book-keeping. HeP husband had not the least knowledge oi book-keeping. PERSUADED TO TAKE POSITION. Detective Aleiklejohn: Why did he take the money for it then? Witness: Gentlemen persuaded him ‘. because our financial 'position was not good. Airs. Stewa'rt further stated that she could not account for the large shortages recently, except that she had not assisted her husband so much during the last three years. Through experience she had learned something about: book-keeping, though she did not think her husband had. Besides the Town Board books, they had kept two other sets of books,, though one of them involved only keeping a record of eggs laid. She liad not collected amoupts in 1927 from Antrobus. The entry with reference to this payment was in her hand-writing but it was probably made at the dictation of her husband. The egg-laying competition had involved a lot of work, 71 pens having to be visited three times a day. Her husband had been absent during the. year judging poultry. During the last few, years their financial position had been a little better than usual owing to receipts from the egg-laying competition. For the work entailed the town clerk's salary should be doubled. It would take considerably more than £BO per annum to keep the house going, but other receipts brought their income to about £2OO per annum. . Re-examined by Air. Taylbr, witness stated that rents had been collected, for people in cash and paid by cheque. Her '( husband was also agent for the State Fire Insurance Office, collecting premiums in cash. Lawford Stroud. Barraclough said, he had known Stewart for 30 years and had done' business with him. They had been intimate friends. He had always found Stewart a man .who could be implicitly trusted, and generous. George Leopold Gaylard, secretary of the Normanby Egg-laying Competition Society, stated that Stewart had kept the record book. Witness had visited the pens very frequently. Mrs. Stewart’s health had. been poor recently. Witness said that he had always found Stewart straightforward and honest J and, speaking for poultrymen generally, he would say that the confidence placed in Stewart was remarkable. As a judge witness said Stewart was ’one ot the straightest he had,' ever shown under. A fairer man could not be wished for. Stewart had offered to resign the position as president of the Competition Society. He had resigned from the presidency of the Egg Circle but a general meeting had. carried a unanimous resolution of confidence. At the next meetino- of the‘ competitions committee' Stewart had wished to resign from the chair, this, not being accepted by the committee. Referring to accused’s ’meiiir , ory, witness said he was a bit absentniinded. .To Detective Meiklejohn: I have found him absent-minded chiefly since the competitions started three years ago. I have had more opportunity of judging during-that period. /'pip V Detective Aleiklejohn: Have you ad-ii vised him that he. should not-be hold-"*, ing a position of trust in regard tp. public monies on account of his absent-, v mindedness? v ' ' - ’ Witness: No. I never thought of Mr. Taylor stated that Mrs. Stewarc had given such evidence as had not-befen brought out by other .witnesses. Therefore he would not call accused. ‘..V/tiJ : “It will be obvious that we have raised no contradiction of the facts,” said Mr. Taylor in addressing the court. It was the inteiit that the de- .. fence denied. Probe the> case as they ' might they could find no evidence of intent. Not until the Bench could come to the conclusion that a strong _ probable presumption of guilt existed.; should they commit Stewart for trial;p* He contended that intent Was not apparent. There was an old rule of common law which said that there was no crime without a guilty mind or intent; > There were certain offences laid down by statiite which were not covered by this old rule. It was for the prosecution to show that a guilty mind had been proved. Theft was not such an., offence and the Crown had to prove likr/-; .tent. 1 . p < It was impossible to take out of accused’s neglect any intent to rob the: •; Normanby Town Board, continued Mr), Taylor. .As far as the £2O received from Mrs. _4 n trobus was concerned, if ' it had been received, which he u.,ubtcd, “ Airs. Stewart, who had made the entry, should be in the. dock.' The whole ,); fabric of intent had broken down under the explanation of his physical con- ~ dition and the unfortunate confinement , to her bed of Airs. Stewart. The shortage, Air. Taylor submitted, was only ; an incident. It was the book-keeping that was at fault.. Had. the auditor been able to make more frequent visits j the book-keeping would .have been all right. The fact was that where, the ’ book-keeping kept him straight he went,. straight, but the cash let him in. Detective Aleiklejohn. submitted that the evidence disclosed a prima facie case of theft. The failure to enter charges were so intermingled with the : , others that they should be kept with those relating to. theft. . . The justices retired to .consider the case aiid ; on returning said that they were satisfied there was a. prima facie ease against. Stewart. The charges so dove-tailed as to make a strong case. Stewart was committed to the Supreme Court at New Plymouth for trial. Stewart- entered a plea of not guilty.