MISSING BATTERIES.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17805, 2 September 1929, Page 7

MISSING BATTERIES.

SALESMAN CHARGED. ALLEGED FAKED DOCKET. ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT WITNESSES Described as a battery salesman, a young man named Harold Thomas Watson, 34, was before the Hamilton Supreme Court, to-day on two charges of alleged theft of batteries, the property of the Electric Construction Company, of the value of £7 and £4 respectively. ' He was also charged that on May 3, 1929, with intent to defraud, he did make a false entry on a duplicate docket, so as to show a sale of a lamp at 2s Gd, whereas he sold a battery valued at £4 14s Gd. Mr 11. T. Gillies represented the Crown, prisoner 'being defended by Mr L. Tompkins. Mr Gillies told the jury in outlining the case for the Crown, that prisoner had been employed as head battery salesman in the company s Hamilton branch for about 15 months. He left the company’s employ in May last, and after he had gone it was discovered that batteries to the value of £49 had been unaccounted for in the two preceding months. On May 3 prisoner sold a battery to one Waters. Counsel mentioned that members of the motor trade got a substantial discount on batteries. Watson approached one Stanley Pauli, gaiage proprietor, and told him he had a friend at Taupiri who wanted a battery, and ho (prisoner) was anxious to get it for him at the trade discount. Pauli agreed to put the order through his firm. This was done, but counsel said the order was merely for the purpose of smothering up a sale. The trade price of the battery was £4 14s Gd. Watson apparently did not insert the carbon paper in making out the docket, but subsequently, on the counterfoil, he entered up a sale of a lamp for 2s Gd. He thus put £4- 12s in his pocket. On another occasion Watson sold a man named Laxon a Willard battery for £2 10s. Later on Laxon, who did not know anything of batteries, found his truck shifted from the rear of the Electric Construction Company’s premises in Alexander Street, into Hood Street. Here it would be shown Watson had obtained a Coyle battery from Garrick Nisbet and. substituted it for the Willard. Laxon, not knowing the difference, and his lorry going all right, drove away without being aware of the substitution. Watson then placed the Willard battery in the shop of a certain dealer with instructions that neither officials of the Electric Construction Company nor Carrick Nisbet should be allowed to know anything about it.

Three Witnesses Approached. Counsel mentioned that after the matter had been placed in the hands of the police, prisoner rang up three of the Crown witnesses and tried to subvert their evidence. Bertrand H. Andrews, manager of the Hamilton branch of the Electric Construction Company of New Zealand, Ltd., said prisoner was employed by the firm at Hamilton from February 1928 till June 1, 1929, in charge of the battery department. On May 2nd. last, a certain docket in the cash sales book was entered up at 2s Gd. Within the trade, said witness, a discount was given on sales. On the Friday night prior to Watson leaving the firm, Mr Burchell, the Auckland manager, and witness went through the stock of batteries and found five short. Watson accounted for the shortage by stating that he had been short of “rentals” and had lent these batteries out. This was most unusual, as a special type of battery was kept for renting and new ones were never used for this purpose. A further check later revealed that three of the missing batteries were actually out on hire, but that apart from these, there were seven batteries unaccounted for. These were valued at £49 12s. Witness said that some time after Watson had left, the truck of a Mr Laxon, who was a carter for the Waikato Valley Dairy Company, was parked in Alexander Street near the firm’s premises. Laxon asked to have his battery topped off. The new battery manager drew witness’ attention to the battery, which bore a stamp by which it could easily be recognised, but no serial number. Witness pinned a note in the truck asking Laxon to call and see him. Later, however, the truck was removed to Collingwood Street, and when witness and others again inspected the truck there, they found that the Willard had been substituted with a Coyle battery.

No Serial Numbers. In answer to Ilis Honour, witness said it was the duty of the salesman to stamp a serial number on each battery sold. The Willard they saw in Laxon's truck bore no serial number. Referring to the battery sold to Waters, witness said this also bore no serial number. The docket supplied in this case showed the sale of a battery for £4 11s to Pauli’s garage, whereas the duplicate showed an entry of 2s 6d for the sale of a lamp. Witness said that last Thursday night he received a mysterious telephone message from an unknown speaker. Mr Tompkins objected and this evidence was disallowed. Mr Gillies: Very well, we can get it from other witnesses. In answer to Mr Tompkins witness gave details of the high' trade discounts, ranging from 25 to 35 per cent, which led His Honour to remark that the poor motorists did not 'share in the benefits. (Laughter.)' Witness said Mr S. Pauli never paid cash for batteries, as he always settled • u./ monthly. He (witness) had never authorised a discount sale to Pauli, as there was no reason to. He would get the trade discount in any case. The various entries, therefore, of sales to Pauli, in which the words were inserted “instructed by Mr Andrews” were not made under witness’ special instructions. Further reference to discounts led His Honour to remark, “There must be some profit in batteries.” (Laughter.) Witness said Watson had power to make sales, but all discounts had to be referred to witness. Witness denied that ticks to certain entries as having been checked off, were his. Mr Tompkins: Is it not a fact that Watson was discharged because you heard he was starting in business? Witness: Ridiculous. I knew five months before that he intchded to start in business. Mr Tompkins: And did not the battery sales drop as soon as he had left? No. Mr Tompkins was proceeding to analyse tin?, sales position, when Ilis ■ Honour irjlcrvcncd, saying there must be a limit to cross-examination, bit.

did not see how the subsequent sales affected the question of the theft of these batteries. Payment For New Battery. Frederick Waters, carter, said he called at the Electric Construction Company’s premises with reference to his battery. He. was told by Watson. he required a new one. subsequently he paid £4 14s 6d for a new battery. He got a receipt for the Witness said he had not met Watson before and there was no reason why he should have been given a trade discount. . . , Stanley Pauli, garage proprietor, .said that one day early in-May Watson came to him and mentioned that he wanted to get a battery for a Mr Wareing of Taupiri, at the trade discount. Ho asked witness if he would allow the order to be put through his books. Witness consented, so long as etish was paid. The same day Watson paid him the cash, and witness wrote him out an order for the battery. Witness later gbt the account for the battery at the end of the month. In answer to Mr Gillies, witness said that after the case had been put in the hands of the police, he got a ring on the ’phone from Watson, who asked him to be lenient with him in the case and remarked, “You would not like to see me get into trouble.” Witness said he intended to the truth about the matter, adding, “Good luck to you if you can get away with it." Answering Mr Tompkins, witness said he was, at the time, pressing Watson for the payment of an account. Battery, Changed. William B. Laxon, farmer and carrier, Whatawhala, said he took a battery back to the Electric Construction and was told by AVatson he required a new one. After some discussion Watson said lie would put him in a neM' one at cost price, 50s. Witness paid Watson this sum and left the lorry for the new battery to be put in. Some time later witness left his truck near the company’s premises and asked for some distilled water to be put in the battery. When he called for his truck later, he found it in Hood Street. He received no receipt for the £2 10s lie paid to Watson. Witness became aware that the Willard battery had been changed for a Coyle, when the police called. In answer to Mr Tompkins, witness said Watson told him he was starting in business for himself and had told him he >vould put in one of his new batteries. Eric U. Ilumm, vulcanlser, said Watson called at his shop about the middle of June and deposited a Willard battery. He told witness not to let anyone know anything about it, particularly Mr Andrews or Mr Nisbet. After tixe police had called, witness' received a telephone call from Watson, who asked him if he could help him in any way by saying that he he said he was going to return the battery. Watson subsequently called on' him with a similar request. Witness replied that he intended to stick to Hie statement he had already given the police. Harry Forsnian, apprentice with t lie Electric Construction Company, gave evidence of the Willard battery being placed in Laxcr.'s truck. (ProceeUinsO.