EX-COMMUNIST SECRETARY STOLE UNEMPLOYED FUNDS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19271, 7 January 1931, Page 3

EX-COMMUNIST SECRETARY STOLE UNEMPLOYED FUNDS

Took A Taxi To Pay Over Moneys To Dependents Of Convicted Men.

WHEN WILLIAM RENNIE, late secretary of the Communist Party in Christchurch, described as a porter* aged 33 years, residing at 30, Berry Street, took charge of £4 to be paid over to the dependents of members of the party recently dealt with in the Courts, he jumped into a taxi and set out to distribute the moneys. He failed to account for £2, and paid the taxi fares out of the £4 given to him. Rennie, who admitted a long list of previous convictions, was convicted by Mr 11. P. Lawry, S.M., in-the Magistrate’s Court this morning and sentenced to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour for the theft of £2 2s 6d, the property of the Christchurch Unemployed Workers’ Movement. The original charge was in respect of £4, but as Rennie had delivered some of the money, the charge was amended by the Magistrate. Chief-Detective Carroll conducted the case for the police and Mr Russell appeared for accused.

The Chief Detective said that up to December 20 Rennie -was the secretary of the Communist Party in Christchurch. The Workers Movement was associated with the Communist Party in some way or other, or at least carried on business in the same offices. Rennie was suspended from office by the President (Sydney Fournier) and a week later expelled by a meeting of the party On December 29, Rennie was in the hall where the party and the unemployed met and, in the absence of the secretary named Edwards, a man Martin called with £3 to be distributed to the dependents- of the men M’Kegney, Harris and Porter, recently gaoled for various offences, and another £1 to go to Mrs Porter. Rennie took charge of it and gave Martin receipts for it, although he had no authority to handle it. He had not since accounted for the money. He gave Mrs Porter £1 and received a receipt for £2, although Mrs Porter did not get the other £l. Another £1 he gave to a Mrs Musgrave, the mother of M’Kegney. Rennie admitted spending some of the money on taxis and drink. He had no authority to handle the money but had he given it to the party it would not have been so bad. Money Handed Over.

Thomas Martin, agent for the Sea men’s Union, Lyttelton, said that he went to the hall to hand over £3 received from Wellington to be distributed to the dependents of the men in prison and £1 from a seaman for Mrs Porter personally. Rennie came in and as witness thought he was still secretary he gave the money to him and got receipts for it. It was not until later that he learnt it had not been delivered. Mr Russell: You thought it safe to pay the money to Rennie? Witness: Yes. Your complaint is that Rennie took the money after he had been deposed? —No. My kick is that the money was not given to those it was intended for. Has the association any rules?—l am not a member and am not aware of any rules. Have you asked Rennie to account for the money?—No. It was not until later that I learnt he had not accounted for it. Sydney Fournier, who described himself as a stonemason and group leader of the Communist Party in Christchurch, said that Rennie had been suspended by him for neglect of duty, drunkenness and malpractice. Witness’s action in suspending him was upheld at a meeting of the group, and Rennie was deposed. After December 20, Rennie should have been the last man to receive money for the party. The receipts given by Rennie were not in the form of those given by officials. Edwards, the secretary, or himself should have received the money. Rennie did not acquaint him that he had received any money. Rules of Group. Mr Russell: Has your group any rules? Witness: Undoubtedly yes. Are they written?—Yes. Where were they composed?—They were edited and composed by the cen tral executive of the Communist Party in Wellington. What provision is there for deposing a secretary?—The group leader has power to suspend him for malpractice or dishonesty. He has the right of appeal to the rank and file. Did Rennie exercise that right?—No. Has he been before a meeting of the rank and file?—Yes. What is the relation of the Communist Party and the Unemployed Workers’ Movement?—The organisations are distinct but have an identical tactic. I see you are authorised to collect for Marshall (examining a receipt book). He he been expelled?—No. We glory him James Edwards, a labourer and secretary of the Unemployed Workers’

Movement, said that Rennie had held the office of secretary before him. It was his duty to handle the money for the Workers’ Defence Fund, and Rennie had no right to do so. When witness asked Rennie for the money he could get no sense from him, as he was staggering about under the influence of liquor. James William M’Kay, labourer, a member of the unemployed movement, said that he was present at the meeting at which Rennie was expelled. He was also present when Rennie gave Martin a receipt for money that Martin handed over. Mr Russell: Why did you not say there and then that Rennie had no right to take it ? Witness: There was no one else to take it. James Charles Kearney, another member of the unemployed movement, said he was also present at that time Martin had given witness the money before Rennie came along, but Rennie signed a receipt and took the money. He and Rennie went first to the Foresters’ Hotel, and then to the Oxford Hotel and had a drink. Rennie went lo change a £1 note and witness told him he was doing wrong. Rennie meanwhile had ordered a taxi He and Rennie went to Mrs Musgrave’s in a taxi, and Rennie gave her 17s 6d. Mrs Musgrave’s husband signed a receipt for £1 After visiting Musgrave’s, they went to Mrs Porter’s. Mrs Porter signed a receipt for £2. and Rennie gave her £1 and said he would give her another £1 in the morning. Witness argued with him. Rennie then went to give Mrs Harris £l. but witness learnt that he had not paid it. Witness asked Rennie to go to the Workers’ Hall and see the men. He did not turn up there, however. [ Detective Findlay said that when accused was arrested he had a penny in his possession. Witness took a statement from him in which he said that the money spent in taxis was deducted from the last £l. It would amount to about 8s He withheld the £1 from Mrs Harris because of a dispute in the. party as to whether she was entitled to any money as her husband was in gaol on a criminal charge. Accused’s Evidence. Accused, in the box said that he took charge of the £4 from Martin and gave him two receipts for it. He did not visit the Oxford Hotel with Kearney, as had been stated. He brought two square riggers to Musgrave’s, which cost 2s Gd, this making up the deficiency on the £l. He explained this to Mrs Musgrave. The next morning he gave Mrs Musgrave another £1 and she signed a receipt for £2. He and Kearney next went to Mrs Porter and gave her £l. The other £1 was taken up with taxis to the extent of 8s and the remainder was spent by himself and Kearney. The Chief Detective: You really robbed Mrs Porter of £1? Accused: No, not exactly. I did not have any dealings with her. Kearney did. Mrs Porter says that it was you.— 1 No. She is not here, and that is as far as we can go. The Magistrate: When can she be here? She has a sick child, and can’t leave it. If I fouqd that this man was telling lies I would take it into account in the punishment. Accused was convicted for the theft of £2 2s 6d, the amount not delivered to the persons to whom it was assigned. Mr Russell said that the offence had been committed while Rennie was on a drinking bout. Fie asked the Magistrate to take into account the fact that the manner of receiving money for the workers’ movement up to the time Edwards took over had been very lax. Rennie had not been asked for a statement over the matter, and it was probable that the matter had started through the laxity of the committee.