SENT TO PRISON

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1931, Page 9

SENT TO PRISON

THOMSON AND DARLOW DETENTION FOR FIVE YEARS BOTH EQUALLY CULPABLE THEFT OF TRUST MONEYS Statino- that he was unable to differentiate between their culpability and that the jury had not done so either, Mr JusticV Seed in the Supreme Court a< New Plymouth on Saturday morning sentenced Harold John Moule Thomson, solicitor of Inglewood, and his clerk, Samuel Robert Darlow, to five yeys reformative detention on each of nineteen charges of theft of trust money, the sentences to be concurrent On the previous Saturday the accused had- been found guilty on 57 counts. The body of the court was crowded. Speaking on behalf of Thomson, Mr. L. M. Moss said that he desired to call Dr. Taylor to give evidence as to Thomson’s condition when he was admitted to the hospital three months ago. His Honour: That cannot affect the position, as the gaol authorities will attend to any person suffering from illnews. . ~ , . , Mr. Moss said it was his desire to call • the evidence. It was regrettable that- Thomson did not follow the- course anticipated by his counsel and plead r»uilty. His reason for altering that intention was due to the fact that he was charged jointly with Darlow, and he had heard that certain extraneous matters might bp introduced at the trial in respect of .which he wished-to be in a position to reply if necessary. While regretting the course taken by Thomson, Mr. Moss asked his Honour to give weight to the fact that his condition of health for some years had seriously affected his powers of judgment, and his sense of responsibility. UNABLE TO SETTLE DOWN. It was within his Honours knowledge that, for years, practically nince his return from the front, where he was a very efficient officer, Thomson had found himself unable to settle down to the duties and responsibilities of professional life. In that connection his genial disposition and his wide popularity had been a hindrance rather than a help to him. The course of life he followed had effected a marked deterioration in his physical condition with other attendant results, and to that change rather than to any intentional wrong-doing must be ascribed the poshition jn which Thomson was now placed. Mr. Moss submitted that no one -who had had business relations with Thomson when in his prime would suggest that he would then have been-a party to such a series of acts, and he proposed to-call Dr. Taylor ,to show, the extent to which his physical detenoiation had gone. Counsel referred to the position or the solicitors’ .fidelity guarantee fund and its application to that case. The fund, although' established only last year, would contribute a< sum of between £7OOO and £BOOO to reimburse clients whose funds.had been misappropriated. The whole- of the moneys which had been misappropriated since January 1, 1930, were being refunded. The fund was established and maintained by the solicitors themselves,, and the public now knew that all funds entrusted by them to solicitors were absolutely protected, 'as adequate provision was made for the fund to -be maintained at a figure to eovqr any claims which were made upon

it. When it was realised that there were nearly 1500 solicitors practising in New Zealand it would be recognised, that the proportion which went astray was very small. Unfortunately, when a solicitor did go astray the utmost publicity was aiven to that fact, and the profession ' as a whole incurred odium and suffered in consequence. The profession by instituting the guarantee fund, and by insisting on a stricter system of audit, had taken steps to give the public full protection in the future. . Hr. Moss said Thomson keenly rc<r ret ted the position in which he now. Found himself. He had never declined to take responsibility for his share. On behalf of Darlow, Thomson wished him . to say that he regretted that suffering would be inflicted upon his wife and ' family, and he hoped, that the Court would extend what leniency it could in ' imposing sentence upon the clerk. ' PLEA FOR DARLOW. On behalf of Darlow, Mr. P. O’Dea submitted that he was a married man 37 years of age, with a wife and three children of 7 years, 9 years and 12 years of age depending upon him. His Honour: That cannot affect the position. When a man commits a, crime he usually brings misery and tribulation to innocent people. Mr. O’Dea said he admitted that, but still he felt justified in bringing the matter before the court. Darlow, continued counsel, joined Thomson when he was a youth of 19 and Thomson was 39 years old. His Honour could easily imagine the influence a man 20 years older would have on the clerk. In 1917 the master went to the front, leaving Darlow, a young man of 23, in charge, and the auditor’s evidence was to the effect that he gave every satisfaction while his master was away. The misappropriations had started a few years ago —no doubt only in a small way at first. Darlow* had frequently spoken about the matter to Thomson, who always told him that the matter would be squared up. That went on until the crash came, and even then Thomson said that if Darlow had not been panicky he jiould still have squared the position. Then Ihomson started drinking and the misappropriations became heavier and heavier. No doubt he was drinking to drown the troubles caused by the lying and deception necessary in the early stages, and which became greater as the defalcations continued. Counsel’s submission was that Darlow had been too loyal to his master, but ft could hardly be expected that a man who had star 4 d in the office as a youth could go to the police and say “My master is a thief!” and, moreover, Thomson was all the time saying that the matter .would be squared. When addressing the jury His Honour’s remark made him feel that it was almost useless — His Honour: What did I say? * Mr. O’Dea: That you would direct the jury that the evidence showed that Darlow had aided. His Honour: It was quite clear that was so. "RECEIVED’NONE OF MONEY.” Mr. O’Dea said he did not wish to address the jury with the view of securing an acquittal, but with a view of securing some recommendation on hi- behalf. He, however, felt that he must take full blame for placing before the Judge the fact that Darlow had.merely been a servant acting under direction. It must, he added, be

evident to His Honour that Darlow received none of the money. His Honour: I am not. prepared to accept that.- There is no evidence to show that he had put any money away but I am perfectly satisfied that he had taken part in dipping into the funds. Mr. O'Dea: Thomson denies it. His Honour: As far as I can judge Thomson has not the faintest idea of the position. Mr. O’Dea submitted that Darlow lived quietly. He had let himself get into debt and had been sued and had not paid his insurance premiums for several years. If he had been dipping into the funds would he have allowed things to go in .that way? Counsel submitted that all Darlo.w did was to help Thomson to make the frauds possible, and the reason he did so was that though capable he was an unqualified man and he felt that if he had left he would not be able to get a position at £6 a week anywhere else. Mr. O’Dea. admitted that was no excuse, as Darlow should, have left when the defalcations started, but the mental agony he had suffered all these years must have been terrible punishment. -Everything that Darlow had undertaken apart from the office had given no trouble, and he had been personally trustee for several estates and held other positions of trust. No evidence as to character had been brought, but the fact that he had been Mayor and had held many other public positions showed that he was held in high esteem in the district. That a clerk in a lawyer’s office could become Mayor of his town, even though it was a small place like Inglewood, spoke volumes for the esteem in which he was held and for his character. In everv case the cheques were drawn bv Thomson. Darlow had lived a clean life, did not drink or gamble and was held in high esteem in the community, and counsel asked His Honour to take into consideration that through all these years Darlow had loyally stood by his employer, expecting all the time that Thomson, would square things.

THOMSON’S PHYSICAL CONDITION.

Dr. Taylor, physician at the New Plymouth hospital, gave evidence that Thomson had been admitted to the hospital recovering from a stroke. When admitted he was confused and garrulous. There was considerable arterial degeneration and irregularity of heart action, and his kidneys were also affected. “You have .both very rightly been found n-uilty, by a jury of your fellow men o? the series of misappropriations alleged in the indictment,” said His Honour in addressing the prisoners. “To men of your age and experience it would be entirely out of place to deliver a 1 mily on dishonesty, and I refrain from dointr so. You deliberately chose that path 3 knowing full well that sooner or later all must be discovered and punishment must follow. “I cannot help feeling that, in order to prolong your manipulation of the funds of your clients you chose a complacent auditor who was easily gulled, or grossly incompetent. With an honest “and capable auditor the amount of your defalcations would have been considerably reduced and your career of dishonesty much sooner have been brought to a close. These defalcations are likely to entail great hardship upoh many poor and deserving people. Of the large sum involved, estimated by the auditor at from £lO,OOO to £12,000, a certain proportion of the defalcations that have taken place since the Act came into force, will be made good by your fellow-practitioners; the balance will fall on the parties concerned. “The legal profession is, in the main, an honourable and high-minded body of men, but in all professions there are black sheep, and it is to the honour of the members of the profession that they have voluntarily taken upon themselves the duty of providing for any loss that may be sustained by the public through unfortunately entrusting their savings to men such as yourselves.. As there may be others of the profession who are tempted to follow your course of conduct it is niy duty to impose such a sentence as may be a deterrent. UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE. “I am unable to differentiate in your culpability; nor did the jury. I gave them the opportunity, if they so desired, of recommending either one of you to more lenient treatment than the other, but they refrained from doing so, and I agree' that they were right in not discriminating between you. “You, Darlow,” said His Honour, “made the excuse that you were acting under the instructions of your employer, and I cannot help thinking that you were under the mistaken impression that you could safely take part in these transactions and could eventually shelter yourself from criminal responsibility by claiming that you had done so. “As to the “moral responsibility of taking part in these dishonest practices, “your excuse is that you had a wife and family dependent upon you and you feared that if you had resigned you might have had a difficulty in obtaining another situation. This appears to me absurd. You were drawing a very small salary xor a man of your ability; your work and the prominent position you occupied- in the office, and your personality, shown by the official positions to which your fellow-townsmen from time to time elected you, I am sure would have readily secured for you as good if not a better financial position than the one you occupied. “I am forced to the conclusion that you found the position you did occupy a very much better financial proposition than is represented by the bare £0 a week you were nominally receiving. 'That a man of your personality and ability, and unhampered by any sense of moral responsibility, could take part, in conjunction with a man of drunken habits, in these manipulations of trust funds without yourself dipping into those funds is a bigger draft upon my credulity than I can honour. Whether or not you have laid aside a nest egg there is no evidence to show, and I must assume you have not, but that you confined yourself in the circumstances to a bare £0 a week is not, in my opinion, within the bounds of human probability.

“Ais to you, Thomson,” His Honour continued, ‘‘one cannot but feel a genuine sadness that a man who for many yeans held an honoured name in the profession, and who worthily played his part in the Great War, should have come to this. I can only suppose that your moral character has been sapped bv drink. I cannot accept your statement—nor did the jury—that you were ignorant of what was going on in the office. It would be beyond the bounds of reason to imagine that it could be so. I feel satisfied that you were fully conversant with the whole position. “The sentence of the Court is that each of you be sentenced to five years’ reformative detention on each of the nineteen counts, the sentences to be concurrent. The other counts upon which t 1 jury found you guilty are alternative and no sentence is pronounced upon them.”