Mosley Pleads Guilty To Charges Of Theft.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17915, 3 August 1926, Page 1

Mosley Pleads Guilty To Charges Of Theft.

AUDITOR GIVES EVIDENCE —DEFALCATIONS AMOUNTED TO NEARLY £I9OO.

Cyril Tonman Mosley, public accountant, pleaded guilty to-day to charges of failing to account for several sums of money to Seafield, Limited. The position shown was an involved one. Mosley was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

The case was taken before Mr F. H. Christian, J.P. and Mr J. H. Seagar, J.P., in Mr H. A. Young’s room, the two Courts being engaged. DetectiveSergeant Young prosecuted and Mr Lascelles represented accused. The charges were as follow: That on June 23, he received the sum of £3OO from E. M. Heyward upon terms requiring him to account for or pay same to Seafield Ltd. and did fraudulently omit to do so.

they were not fulfilled. At the time he used as an excuse that he was particularly busy. That went on to January last and the company nassed a resolution empowering the chairman . and witness to seize the books. On Februar” 4 that was done. Witness ! named what he considered to be the property of the company and collected all possible. Accused was also relieved of his position as secretary. De- ( mands had to be made from time to time for other books and documents in accused’s possession. When the books were obtained an investigation was begun and witness found serious misappropriations. He could not obtain the amount accurately until other documents were received from accused, principal of such being contracts, which were the basis of the company’s operations. Some time later accused called and asked for permission to assist in making the books up and witness told him he had no authority to allow that. Accused, without any hint from witness, mentioned that the company could make it pretty bad for him. At his request witness prepared an approximate statement, which he submitted on May 18. It showed defalcations in the vicinity of £I9OO. Accused asked for an opportunity to check by the books and that was granted. Witness met accused the same evening after the examination- of the books and he took exception to only one or two items. A further statement was prepared and the position now was that accused had failed to account for £lß2l 6s lOd. Early in the situation accused repeatedly stated that all moneys wquld be repaid to the company. On March 22 last a cheque was received from accused’s solicitors for £485. It was duly credited to accused's account. Witness detailed the various sums named in the charges, and said they were not accounted for. The witness-produced a number of cheques and receipts and stated that the amounts were not accounted for. To Mr Lascelles witness said the company had great difficulty in getting

That on divers dates between September, 1924, and February, 1925, he received divers sums of money amounting to £37 3s Id, from W. J. Wilding, upon terms requiring him to account for or pay same to Seafield Ltd., and did fraudulently omit to do so. That on divers dates between October, 1923, and April, 1925, he obtained divers sums of money from J. J. Vincent, amounting to £SO 15s lid, upon terms requiring him to account for or pay them to Seafield Ltd. and did fraudulently omit to do so. That on divers dates between April, 1925, and August, 1925, he received divers sums, amounting to £l3 from Walter Hulston, on terms requiring him to account or pay them to Seafield Ltd. and fraudulently omitted to do That on or about March, 1925, he received from E. R. Page the sum of £6O upon terms requi: ing him to account for or pay it to Seafield Ltd. and fraudulently omitted to do so. That on December 18, 1925, he stole a cheque for £ls 8s 2d, the property of Seafield Ltd. That on divers dates between March, 1925, and August, 1925 He stole divers sums of money amounting in all to £29 the property of Seafield Ltd.

That on divers dates between November, 1924, and August, 1925, he received sums of money amounting to £336 from E. M. Heyward upon terms requiring him to account or pay it to Seafield Ltd., and fraudulently omitted to do so. That on divers dates between October, 1924, and February, 1926, he re-

reived sums of money from G. I. Johnston, on terms requiring him to account for or pay same to Seafield Ltd., and fraudulently omitted to do so. James Steven Day. manager of the Dominion Trust, said his company transacted most of Miss E. M. Howard's Clarkville business. Witness produced three receipts. These were from Seafield Ltd., one dated November 19 1924. for £l6. and signed C. T. Mosley, as secretary for the company, per A.R. The second was from Seafield Ltd. for £3OO. on June 23. 1925. and signed “C. Mosley, secretary." The third was for £2O, dated August 4, 1925, and signed “ C. T. Mosley, secretary, per A. Robinson.” Miss Heyward purchased sixteen sections from Seafield Ltd. John Dennis, motor mechanic, said his wife's maiden name was G. I. Johnson. Witness purchased two sections from Seafield Ltd. in his wife’s maiden name, accused making the sale. Witness made all payments at accused’s office, and he produced receipts for payments made. William John Wilding, manager of the Theatre Royal, said that he purchased a section at Brooklands through the accused. He made various payments. Witness produced receipts for payments made. To Mr Lascelles: I originally got the section from Mr Bullen, but paid in to Mosley. John James Vincent, engineer, produced receipts for payments made for the purchase ,of two sections. Walter Hulston, hairdresser, said that apart from making payments for the purchase of sections, he also donated £1 towards the cost of a bridge over the Styx, but he could not say to whom he paid that sum. Valintine Davis Hewer, auditor, and a director of Seafield, Ltd., said the company was formed in July, 1920 and accused was appointed secretary on August 8 1920. The company was formed for the purpose of taking over a block of land and sub-dividing it into res : dential sites. Part of accused's duty was to receive moneys. Jhe annual balance was on August 31 of each year and it was the duty of accused to hand over the books for auditing purpose - which was done by witness. Last audit witness had considerable difficulty in ee. ting the books. would have early in October and he made application for them from that date on. Promises were frequently made by accused to have the books ready, but

shingle to the sections. Witness would not say that there was dissension over the scheme of reading, but there was ordinary discussion. Some purchasers of sections had difficulty in getting access to them after heavy rains in May, 1925. Accused was enthusiastic in his job and keen to forward the interests of BrookJands. The enthusiasm displayed would fit in with the circumstances as now disclosed. Witness was a party to the establishment of golf links at Brooklands. Mosley was also a party to it. The object was to provide an inducement to purchasers of . sections. The idea was to make the area popular. Accused might have suggested the links being formed. Accused remembered the sale of Mr Hamlet's sections subsequent to the proposal to form links. The sale was a successful one, about 40 sections being sold. Counsel then took the statement made nut by witness and showing defalcations amounting to £I9OO. Mosley stated the witness was entitled to retain commission for the sale of sections. He was instrumental in effecting the sale of many sections. The commission was not shown on the statement as a credit as it was not due until the sums equivalent to meet his commission had been duly received. There was a contingent credit due to accused in respect of the statement and he was informed that it would be given him. One debit shown as a defalcation of £l5O 2s 4d should be shown as only £IOO. Witness had informed accused of the error. The statement was only approximate and made to let accused know how he stood. Summ. rising the position, the figure at which he had placed the accused’s failure to account to the company, namely £lß2l 6s lOd, was, of course, subject to the contingent credit by, way of commission on sections sold. The amount approximately was £270, assuming all purchase money was p id by the buyers of sections. In addition the cheque of £485 was repaid. There was a further £56 11s lid which had been accounted for. Detective-Sergeant Young gave evidence as to arresting accused at his office. Accused said, “Surely, Mr Young, they haven’t issued a warrant for me. I had arranged with them to fix the whole matter up.” Witness 1 saw accused again on a later date and I drew his attention to the fact that receipts were not given by accused in |

respect of certain moneys received, and that they were given by someone in the office. Accused said that he would be responsible for all the amounts paid. On July 29 accused called on witness in regard to further charges. They were read to him and accused made a statement to witness. To Mr Lascelles: Accused did not accept the criminal responsibility for the amounts paid in. That concluded the case for the prosecution, and accused had no statement to make. He pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence. Bail was allowed rs before, £SOO self, and two sureties of £250 each.