FAILURE TO ACCOUNT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 10304, 2 March 1922, Page 2

FAILURE TO ACCOUNT.

COURT OFFICIAL IN TROUBLE. At the Magistrate’s Court, Temuka, on Tuesday, before Mr B. D. Mosley, S;M. Walter Yarwood Purchase was charged with having, - while being a person having possession or control of public money, namely, the sum of 17s, being the ' amount of a fine paid to him on the 23rd August, 1921, did fraudulently apply it to other than public service; also with having fraudulently applied the sum of £l, being the amount of a plaint fee, to other than public services, and with being a defaulter in respect to the same. Mr Campbell, who appeared for the defendant, said his client would plead guilty to being a defaulter, as he understood that the Crown would withdraw the two other charges re- ■ lating to the same cases. Mr Hamilton, who appeared for the Audit Department, said he was prepared to accept the plea entered and to consent to-the'withdrawal of the other; charges. He quoted the provisions of the Act, under which the charges were laid and the clauses in the Public Revenues Act which, named the maximum fine provided for in such cases; viz., £SO. Mr Campbell, in mitigation of penalty, said the charges were that, defendant had not paid in the amounts us sbbh 'as they 'should * have been. He had been suspended since December last and was now dismissed. He did not wish to minimise the, offence, as the money should have been paid in within b seven days,, but he might mention that defendant had had a very hard struggle ‘during the last three years.' Since he came to Temuka his wife had died, and ho had been put to heavy expense, and had never been able to make it up. He had three little children and had to engage a. housekeeper. The amount mentioned in the charges had been paid. In view of tho fact that the defend-, ant had been suspended since December and was now utterly ruined, he asked His Worship to make the penalty as light as possible. His Worship said of course he had been in a position of trust. He had ■ been in the Public Service for a considerable number of years, and he had made default in applying the funds by which he was entrusted by the public or the Department to the purpose for which they were intended. The Court had only one duty and that was to inflict the punishment it was justified in doing in view of tlie offence, that was the position as far as the Court was concerned. Personally he had a very painful duty. Defendant was Clerk of the Court, and had been under his jurisdiction as Magistrate. As far as his duties were concerned, he had performed them in a very capable manner, but the offence could not bo looked over. In the position he had held there must bo unimpeachable honesty, and any man who commits a breach must be prepared ’ to pay the penalty. In reply to His Worship, Mr Hamilton said no expenses were claimed. His Worship said accused w'ould be convicted and fined £lO, with '7s Court costs and £3 3s solicitor's fee in each case.