THEFT CHARGE IS DENIED

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17879, 22 June 1926, Page 1

THEFT CHARGE IS DENIED

ACCOUNTANT WILL GO TO SUPREME COURT.

Alfred Herbert Rudd, an accountant, residing at 12, Strowan Road, Fendalton, appeared at the Magistrate’s Court to-day on a charge that on' divers dates between October 5 and November 6, 1925. he stole sums of money totalling £323, the property of creditors in the assigned estate of W. Grossman and Co. Rudd, who was represented by Mr Twyneham, pleaded not guiltj* and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. 0 Bernard William Irwin, associated in business with accused, was recently committed for trial on a similar charge. ACCUSED’S STATEMENT. In a statement to the police Rudd said that until recently he was a director in the firm of A. H. Rudd and Co., Hereford Street. In November, 1924, he commenced the formation of the Canterbury Afforestation Company of New Zealand. At that time he advertised in the newspapers for share salesmen. Bernard William Irwin was one of the men engaged to sell shares on commission. A month later Irwin stated that he was prepared to put money into the business, and they agreed that £6OO capital would entitle him to a half-share in the whole of the business. Irwin gave Rudd to understand that he was in receipt of a war pension for life and he could mortgage his pension to obtain £450 to put into the business. He told Rudd that he had actually applied for £6OO and that the Pension Department in Christchurch had got word from Wellington stating that he could only get £450. He then borrowed £5 from Rudd to effect an insurance on his life, which was apparently one of the conditions of the loan. An agreement was drawn up by solicitors and Irwin got the agreement to take it to the Pensions Board to be forwarded to Wellington. Rudd had not seen the agreement since then. Time went on and Rudd advanced Irwin £l6O on the strength of the loan. Irwin was pressed for the money and told that if he could not get it from the Pensions Board he would have to get it elsewhere. In July last Rudd had a trust account with the Bank of New Zealand. He was the only’ one with authority to draw on that account. He had learnt since that Irwin opened another trust account, and since it was opened £775 0s 9d had been paid in. Rudd had since ascertained that an amount of £SO paid in on October 5, and £l5O on October 22 were paid in by a cheque drawn upon the assigned estate of W. Grossman and Co. Irwin gave him to understand that the money had come from his mother-in-law. Rudd credited him with £2OO and debited him with the amount borrowed. C. Rudd said he knew that Irwin was a trustee in the assigned estate of W. Grossman and Co., but he had no knowledge of cheques from that estate being paid into his trust or private accounts. Bernard William Irwin, at present awaiting trial in the matter, said that on August 12 last year he attended a meeting of creditors in Grossman's Estate on behalf of A. H. Rudd, representing the “Brighter Christchurch” Magazine Company. At that meeting he and Mr Parker were appointed trustee. . Subsequently a trust account was opened in the Commercial Ban*: of Australia in the name of “Parker and Irwin. He drew cheques on thii account and, acting on instructions received from the accused, he paid theta into the credit of Rudd's trust account, and some to his private account. Robert Harold P rker. accountant i.i the employ of Bing, Harris n d Co ■ that his firm was one of the rredi--1 tors in the assigned estate of \y Gros> I T " a " cTwi*h' T rwhi h ° WaS appu -“«ed I Rtr'.d pleaded not guilty and was I committed to the Supreme Court for I tna ’; . allowed in £3OO and a