HUGE THEFTS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19373, 23 December 1932, Page 14

HUGE THEFTS

i INSURANCE COMPANY ROBBED OF £II,OOO. A case in which two ex-employees of the Alliance Assurance Co., Ltd., were charged with the theft of nearly £11,500 from that company was heard lin the Police Court at Christchurch ! yesterday morning before Mr H. A. Young, S.M. Clarence Alford Palmer, an insurance clerk, aged thirty years, 116 Stapleton’s Road, and Walter Vernon Wiseman, insurance clerk, aged thirty-three years, 60 Lindsay Street, were jointly charged that op or about December 15, 1924, and on other dates between then and October 30, 1932, while in the employ of the Alliance Assurance Co., Ltd., they stole £11,431/4/4 in money, the property of the Alliance Assurance Co., Ltd. Accused pleaded guilty, and were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was fixed in the sum of £SOO with two sureties of £2OO each. Statements by Accused. In a statement submitted to the Court, Palmer stated that about January, 1930, he found one day that the cash in the box was short. He had discussed the matter with Wiseman, whom he knew also had a key. When the matter was discussed they had not the money to make up the shortage, and discussed means of hiding it through the books. He could not remember whether the first suggestion of dishonesty came from himself or Wiseman. They had agreed that the best method was by inserting incorrect totals for the additions in the Renewal premium ledger. In order to keep the percentage of reinsurance normal they also had to falsify the Re-insurance Borderau. Wiseman, in a statement, made on December 2, said that in 1928 or 1929 he commenced to falsify the books of the company in collusion with Palmer, by inserting false totals of premiums in the fire renewal premium register and the accident new and renewal premium registers. The individual items were correctly entered, but in adding up the totals for transfer, he inserted the wrong totals, which were less than the correct totals by the amounts he had taken. He believed Palmer treated the fire register in the same manner. The correct individual premiums had in each case been entered in the fire renewal premium register and in the accident new and renewal premium registers, so that a correct record was preserved which would show the differences in totals. The suggestion in the first instance came from Palmer, continued Wiseman. In the first instance the additions were prepared by Palmer in pencil and checked by Dixon, wrong totals then being inserted in ink. This was done to deceive Mr Francis, as he was repeatedly asking for comparative statements to account for the fall in the nett premium income. Wiseman said he was aware of this as it was necessary to keep up the Alliance nett premiums in the No. 2 return by reducing the reinsurance premiums, as Mr Francis, at the end of each month, required from him so much detailed figures to account for the fall in the nett premium income. As far as he was concerned, continued Wiseman, the amount he had appropriated in cash was about £3OO to £4OO. He had been to the races occasionally, but did not bet heavily. The money had simply been frittered away. Wiseman stated that he purchased a house within the last twelve months for £I3OO, but there were mortgages of £BOO and £3OO on it. The furniture belonged to his wife. He had an endowment policy for £2OO. He owned an Essex car, for which he paid £3BO two years ago, but he still owed £6O or £7O on the car to Dominion Motors, Ltd. He had no other assets and no expectations. He was willing to transfer his equity in the house, the car and the policy to the company. With regard to the three amounts which Palmer alleged to be missing from the cash box during his (Wiseman’s) absence, and to other sums for which he could not account, he was certain that no other member or members of the staff were concerned with the misappropriations.