THEFT CHARGES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 197, 20 August 1931, Page 9

THEFT CHARGES.

Robert John Munro Indicted On Twelve Counts.

PLEA OF NOT GUILTY. Robert John Munro, senior partner in the firm of Munro and Ilickinbottom, tailors, of Christchurch, stood trial in the Supreme Court to-day on twelve charges of failing to account for money paid to him on behalf of the firm and thereby committing theft. Mr Justice Adams was on the bench. Mr Brown acting Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the Crown. Mr Sargent appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to all counts. Charges Involve £ll3. Outlining the case to the jury, Mr Brown said that the allegations were spread over a period from 1926 to the end of 1930. Although there was a formidable list of charges against the accused, the total sum involved in the allegations was onlj’- £ll3. Evidence would be called to show that Munro had accepted money in payment of orders by customers, and had failed to account for these sums to the firm. The first witness called was the Rev Father Browne. Fie said that he paid a deposit on a suit, in the office of Munro and Hickinbottom. The receipt produced bore the signature of Munro, but witness could not remember if Munro received the money in person. Alexander Coutts, police constable, Christchurch, said that in January, 1929, he purchased a suit for £ll, receiving a receipt for the money bearing Munro’s signature. John Joseph Cunningham said that a receipt produced was for £ll paid to Munro and Hickinbottom for a suit of clothes in 1926. As far as witness could remember, he paid the money to Munro. Minnie Florence Dini said that in July, 1926, her son had a suit made by Munro and Hickinbottom at a cost of six guineas. Witness paid the account herself. The receipt was signed by Munro, but witness did not remember whether she had paid the money to Munro in person. Cross-examined by Mr Sargent, the witness said that she had received another account for the suit a year ago. To Mr Brown: I went and saw Mr Munro about it, and he said that it was all right, someone probably had forgotten to strike the account off the books. “ Received Four Accounts. Henry Montgomery Hobson, a carpenter, of Christchurch, said that he purchased a suit from the firm in August, 1928. He paid a deposit of £5 to Mr Munro, and was given a receipt for that amount. The balance of £5 was also paid to Munro. Witness had not done any further business with the firm. Since paying the balance witness had received four accounts. Charles James Sabastian Hughes, returned soldier on pension, said that in November, 1930, he purchased a suit from Munro and Hickinbottom. The price was £l2 10s, witness paying £3 10s on deposit to Munro. Some time later witness met Munro by chance in the Empire Hotel, and paid him the balance owing on the suit. Witness called at the firm’s premises the next day, and received a receipt from Munro. Since then witness had received an account for the money from the Official Assignee. Frederick Alexander Manning, a salesman, of North Lin wood, said that he paid cash for a suit from Munro and Hickinbottom in December, 1928. He paid the money to Munro and was given a receipt. Witness had not received any account from the firm. “Told Not to Worry.’* James K. Mason, railway clerk, Christchurch, stated that he ordered a suit from Munro and Hickinbottom in October, 1928, giving a deposit of £5 to Munro. Later he paid the balance of £6. This money was also given to Munro. Since paying for the suit, witness received two accounts. When the first one came, witness communicated with Munro and was told that probably the girl had made a mistake in the books. “Munro told me that he knew the account was paid,” said witness, “and he told me not to worry about it any more.” Stewart Murray, a bridgeman, Riccarton, said that he had paid £lO on a suit purchased from Munro and Hickinbottom. Fie did not remember to whom he paid the money. The receipt was signed by Munro. Some months after paying the deposit, witness paid the balance on the suit, receiving a receipt bearing the initials F.. ?. Mabel Hannah O’Connor, married woman, Rangiora, said that in December last year she came to Christchurch with her husband, who ordered a suit from Munro and Hickinbottom and three yards of serge. Witness was attended by Munro. Both Munro and Hickinbottom were in the shop at the time. A receipt for £l4 bore Munro’s signature. Four accounts had been received by witness since the money had been paid over. Robert Steele Pearson, head of the New Brighton School, said that he purchased a suit for £ll from Munro and Hickinbottom. Fie could not remember to whom he paid the money. James C. Wallace, licensee of the Grand Hotel, said that in December, 1930, he paid £l6 14s to Munro for goods purchased from the firm of Munro and Hickinbottom.

To Mr Sargent: I have known both Mr Munro and Mr Hickinbottom for many years. I have discussed Munro’s financial affairs with Hickinbottom, who knew that Munro owed money to me. Munro has had personal loans from me. Hickinbottom knew that Munro was to use the firm’s money personally. More than once I have advanced money to the firm when they were short and wanted to pay wages. William Albert Ross, clerk employed in the Official Assignee’s office, Christchurch, said that with two exceptions he could not find any record on the firm’s books of the transactions concerned in the charges. Partner’s Evidence. Frank Hickinbottom, a tailor, of Christchurch, said that he had been in partnership with Munro since 1903. The business was started with equal shares and had not been changed. Any money paid into the firm had to be entered in a rough book. All except what was paid out would be banked in the firm’s name. Witness had signed three of the receipts produced in Court. The money in each of these cases had been accounted for. At no time had witness received any acknowledgement of the money for which receipts were given by Munro. Witness knew that the accounts were on the books and, not knowing that they had been paid, thought that they were outstanding. Many times witness had discussed the ac-

counts with Munro. This time last year he had spoken to Munro about Mason’s account. Munro had said that they had lost track of the man, who was one of a “ crook lot,” and had gone away on a boat. Some time later, a man named M’Laren was employed to send out accounts. Mason’s account was sen out on two occasions. One morning witness received the mail, and noticed that Mason’s account had been returned with a note from Mason asking the firm to summons him. Munro also said that they had lost track of Dive, who was no good. Regarding Murray, Munro said that they were lucky that he did not owe them more than £5. Munro had left the shop many times to collect 10s from Wallace, and came back with all sorts of stories about being unable to get it. On one occasion when witness asked Wallace for some money, Wallace had replied that he did not owe the firm anything, as Munro had collected it. (Proceeding.)