DOCKETS ALTERED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19961, 20 November 1934, Page 8

DOCKETS ALTERED

CLERK CHARGED WITH FORGERY CONTRACTORS OVERPAID By Telegrapti —Press Association AUCKLAND, November 19. “It is a most extraordinary case for defendant did not stand to gain anything by it,” stated James Tyler, city engineer, giving evidence in the Magistrate’s Court when Thomas Ivil, a middle aged clerk employed in the engineer’s department of the Auckland City Council, appeared on summons on 10 charges of forgery of dockets for cartage by altering the date and serial numbers. The amount involved in the charges was about £23. Witness stated that by using carbon copies and altered dockets for attaching to vouchers, defendant had caused Ferguson and Kew, contractors, to be overpaid to the extent of £155 for road metal and motor hire. When the members of the firm were approached in the matter they appeared to be dumfounded and to have no knowledge of the position. In reply to Mr Hogben, counsel for defendant, witness said he considered that the firm’s lack of bookkeeping system was such that members of the firm would not be aware of having been paid twice for certain items. He had the fullest confidence in the defendant who was a very thorough and reliable man. His personal opinion was that he would be worthy of employment again. Mr F. K. Hunt S.M.: How much did he stand to gain? Witness: That is what makes it so incredible. He cannot stand to gain anything. Mr Hunt: Would he expect to receive any of the overpaid money back from the firm? Witness: “When I saw both members of the firm they seemed genuinely taken aback. They appeared not to be aware that they had been overpaid and immediately refunded the money.” Witness added that defendant’s explanation to him of the position was that he had taken home some vouchers and inadvertently they were burned with some newspapers. A statement that he had done defendant many kindness during the illness of defendant’s father was made by Harry Thomas Ferguson. In reply to a question if any money had been returned to defendant by witness’s firm, witness said that defendant had never received any benefit from the business. He had known defendant for four or five years. Witness met him before last Christmas and was told that some of the vouchers had been accidentally burned at defendant’s home. The value of the vouchers was stated to be £6O or £7O. However, accused said that he would fix the matter up. but did not mention the method he proposed to adopt. About three months ago. in response to a message, witness went to defendant and was told that there was a bit of trouble over altering dockets to make up money which had not been paid owing to the accidental burning of the vouchers. Later he received a demand from the City Council for the repayment of £155. which was paid immediately. Accused, who pleaded guilty, was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail of £2O was allowed.