Post by nzbc on Dec 15, 2023 11:26:25 GMT 12
THEFT AND FORGERY
THEFT AND FORGERY
BANK CLERK PLEADS GUILTY •COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. On remand from Wellington, John Langlois Maxwell Lefroy, a young hank clerk, aged 21 years, formerly <>. Pallia lua, appeared in the local Magistrate's Court yesterday before JMessrs H. 1). Grocott and A. Ross, J.’sP. He was charged that on Eebr ary 4th, 1929, at Pahiatua, bei g the servant of the Rank of TNew iS »uth M ales, lie did commit theft c. £6O in money, the property of t' e said hank. He was further charged that on the 4th day of February, 3.929 at Pahiatua, lie did commit forgery in that he did make a false k, .cnnlent, to wit, an acknowledgej ait of deposit for £6O with the A aik of New South Wales, Palnat'Va. purporting to he signed by one phyl'lis Bentley, with the intention That it he acted upon as genuine. He was also charged with the theft of £7O 10s, the property of the Rank of New South Wales. Constable F. Burrell, who conducted the case for the police, said That there were three indictable charges, and it would be necessary t , have two sets of depositions. One ■sot of circumstances governed the forgery and theft charge involving £6O, and he proposed to deal with these two charges first. The accused had been for some time in the •employ of the local branch of the Rank of New South Wales. At times at had been his duty to relieve the "teller during the dinner-hour, and it v as alleged that the offences occurred during these periods. A few months ago accused was transferred to Auckland, and only recently one of the clients of the Bank had discovered a shortage in his account. On investigation, a shortage was discovered in another account. In A. S. Bentley’s case, Misa Bentley went -■along to the bank to deposit £l3O odd. Siie made out a slip in the •ordinary way, and it was alleged that the accused afterwards tore up the slip and made out another for .£7O odd. converting the remaining £6O to his own use. The first witness was Phyllis Bentley. daughter of Mr A. S. Bentley, confectioner and proprietor of the (Savoy tea rooms, where she was employed, who said that about the 4th of February last, shortly after lunch, she went to the Bank of New South Wales and paid into her father’s account the sum of £l3O 8s Id. Accused was behind the counter at the time. She filled in the one de|yj,t s'ip at the bank, and did noiC.J!et a receipt. She did not have a %y-in hook. She attached a halfpenny x • the deposit slip, and accused p , a i en through it. saying that "the bunk did not take half-pennies, '-'hown deposit slip (marked A) by Constable Burrell, witness denied that t was the one she had made ■out. Nor was it her signature. She had • luce examined Tier father’s pass-book and found that the entry referred to was only for £7O 8s Id, a deficiency of £6O. Arthur Edgar Manners, audit inspector of the Bank of New South Wales, said he knew the accused, who had been employed in the local branch of the Bank from 1926 till February 26th of this year. Part of his duties, since April 30tTi of last year, had been to relieve the teller during the lunch hour. Witness had •examined the books of the bank here as from February 4th. 1929. and he Wimd that no deposit for £l3O 8s Id went through to Mr A. S. Bentley's account. On sth February, 1929. ; deposit of £7O 8s lcl was nude " Mr Bentley’s account, which b-d been paid in hv Phyllis Bentley. He compared the signature on the deposit slip to a specimen of Phyllis Bentley's signature, and though it was a very good forgery it was easily detected under the magnifying Frederick Barrel 1 , police constable stationed at Pahiatua. said lie knew the accused who had been employed in the lb,ilk of New South Wales at P. hiatus’. He produced a statement made ly incused to a detective in Wellington. The accused had read it over, in bis presence that day, and said it was correct. The statement read as follows: “I am a sing'e man, 21 years of age. My par ents are at present in India. For the past six years I have been in the employ of the Bank of New South Wales. For the past 2J years I have been working at the Pahiatua branch of the bank. At the present time my salary is £220 per yeor. “While at the Pahiatua branch my duties partly consisted of reliev- . rig the te'ler during the lunch hour. 1 would receive deposits, .cash ■heqnes. etc. One of the clients of the Bank was a Mr A. S. Bentley. On the 4th February, 1929, Miss Phyllis Bentley. daughter of the above, called at the bank during the lunch hour and paid in to her father’s ount the sum of £l3O 8s Id. She made out a deposit slip for this amount and handed it to me together with the amount mentioned. I did not give her any receipt for this amount. I did not put through any record of this amount having been received from but the following day I made another deposit s'ip for £7O 8s Id and credited it to
Bentley’s account the difference, £6O, I kept myself anj converted to my own use and the remainder of the money 1 paid in. I later destroyed the original deposit slip made out by Miss Bentley. “In order to make out the deposit slip for £7O 8s Id, I had to forge Miss Bentley’s signature. I did this by copying it from the original deposit slip. The deposit slip shown to me dated sth February, 1929, is the one which 1 forged. The £6O which I took in this manner has since been spent by me, paying debts mostly. 1 know that I had no right to take this money, and it was only the fact that l was in debt which made me take it. About eight months ago I committed another theft in a similar manner to the one mentioned. On that occasion 1 was acting-teller when a Chinaman named Loo Tin called at the bank, and paid into the account of Wong Hee and Co. the sum of £7O 10s. Loo Tim signed a deposit slip for this amount, and handed it to me together with the amount mentioned. 1 gave him a receipt for this amount. As soon as lie left the bank I destroyed the deposit slip, and retained the £7O 10s, converting it to my own use. This money was also absorbed in paying debts which I had accumulated. It is quite likely that I purchased a few things in addition to paying debts. These debts were not drinking or gambling ones. As far as I can recollect they were just ordinary debts which I had let go, and which had amounted ui> on me. In conclusion, 1 can only say that I yielded to temptation and took this money. 1 was handling a good deal of money at the time, and the temptation was very great. The above-mentioned amounts were the only ones which I had dishonestly taken from the bank. This statement is true and correct in every detail. I make it of my own free will, as I wish this matter to Be cleared up.”
Accused pleaded guilty, an<j was committed to the Wellington Supreme Court for sentence on each of the above charges. Depositions in connection with the third charge for theft of £7O 10s were then taken.
Constable Burrell said that in this charge the circumstances were very nearly the same as in the previous charge. Loo Tim, a Chinaman employed as a fruiterer in Alain Street, paid in £7O 10s during one dinner-hour which had not been entered hi the hooks of the bank. Giving evidence, Loo Tim, a fruiterer. said he was engaged in business in Pahiatua, the firm being conducted under the name of Wong Hee and Co. He identified his pay-ing-in book for the Bank of New South M ales. He remembered going to the bank on September sth, 1928, and paying in £7O 10s. “Tips young fulla” (pointing to accused) was behind the counter and entered the amount of deposit, £7O 10s, in witness’ book under date sth September, 1928. Accused also put his initials to the entry. Sometimes witness would make out a deposit slip and sometimes the accused would make it out for him. He forgot who made it out on this occasion, but he remembered signing it. He paid in the amount in question during a dinner-hour.
Arthur Edgar Manners, inspector of the bank, said he had examined the deposit hook of Wong Hee and Co., which showed that accused received a deposit of £7O 10s from M ong Hee and Co., and had duly acknowledged receipt of it by initialling the entry in the deposit book and stamping it with the bank stamp. This deposit had never gone through the books of the bank. It had been suppressed. A search had been made for the deposit slip but no trace of it could be found. Constable Burrell, in evidence, read that portion of the previous statement relating to the present charge.
The accused was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court on each of the three charges.'
PAHIATUA HERALD, VOLUME XXXVII, ISSUE 11149, 24 MAY 1929, PAGE 5 paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PAHH19290524.2.11?items_per_page=100&page=3&query=wong+hee&snippet=true
THEFT AND FORGERY
BANK CLERK PLEADS GUILTY •COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. On remand from Wellington, John Langlois Maxwell Lefroy, a young hank clerk, aged 21 years, formerly <>. Pallia lua, appeared in the local Magistrate's Court yesterday before JMessrs H. 1). Grocott and A. Ross, J.’sP. He was charged that on Eebr ary 4th, 1929, at Pahiatua, bei g the servant of the Rank of TNew iS »uth M ales, lie did commit theft c. £6O in money, the property of t' e said hank. He was further charged that on the 4th day of February, 3.929 at Pahiatua, lie did commit forgery in that he did make a false k, .cnnlent, to wit, an acknowledgej ait of deposit for £6O with the A aik of New South Wales, Palnat'Va. purporting to he signed by one phyl'lis Bentley, with the intention That it he acted upon as genuine. He was also charged with the theft of £7O 10s, the property of the Rank of New South Wales. Constable F. Burrell, who conducted the case for the police, said That there were three indictable charges, and it would be necessary t , have two sets of depositions. One ■sot of circumstances governed the forgery and theft charge involving £6O, and he proposed to deal with these two charges first. The accused had been for some time in the •employ of the local branch of the Rank of New South Wales. At times at had been his duty to relieve the "teller during the dinner-hour, and it v as alleged that the offences occurred during these periods. A few months ago accused was transferred to Auckland, and only recently one of the clients of the Bank had discovered a shortage in his account. On investigation, a shortage was discovered in another account. In A. S. Bentley’s case, Misa Bentley went -■along to the bank to deposit £l3O odd. Siie made out a slip in the •ordinary way, and it was alleged that the accused afterwards tore up the slip and made out another for .£7O odd. converting the remaining £6O to his own use. The first witness was Phyllis Bentley. daughter of Mr A. S. Bentley, confectioner and proprietor of the (Savoy tea rooms, where she was employed, who said that about the 4th of February last, shortly after lunch, she went to the Bank of New South Wales and paid into her father’s account the sum of £l3O 8s Id. Accused was behind the counter at the time. She filled in the one de|yj,t s'ip at the bank, and did noiC.J!et a receipt. She did not have a %y-in hook. She attached a halfpenny x • the deposit slip, and accused p , a i en through it. saying that "the bunk did not take half-pennies, '-'hown deposit slip (marked A) by Constable Burrell, witness denied that t was the one she had made ■out. Nor was it her signature. She had • luce examined Tier father’s pass-book and found that the entry referred to was only for £7O 8s Id, a deficiency of £6O. Arthur Edgar Manners, audit inspector of the Bank of New South Wales, said he knew the accused, who had been employed in the local branch of the Bank from 1926 till February 26th of this year. Part of his duties, since April 30tTi of last year, had been to relieve the teller during the lunch hour. Witness had •examined the books of the bank here as from February 4th. 1929. and he Wimd that no deposit for £l3O 8s Id went through to Mr A. S. Bentley's account. On sth February, 1929. ; deposit of £7O 8s lcl was nude " Mr Bentley’s account, which b-d been paid in hv Phyllis Bentley. He compared the signature on the deposit slip to a specimen of Phyllis Bentley's signature, and though it was a very good forgery it was easily detected under the magnifying Frederick Barrel 1 , police constable stationed at Pahiatua. said lie knew the accused who had been employed in the lb,ilk of New South Wales at P. hiatus’. He produced a statement made ly incused to a detective in Wellington. The accused had read it over, in bis presence that day, and said it was correct. The statement read as follows: “I am a sing'e man, 21 years of age. My par ents are at present in India. For the past six years I have been in the employ of the Bank of New South Wales. For the past 2J years I have been working at the Pahiatua branch of the bank. At the present time my salary is £220 per yeor. “While at the Pahiatua branch my duties partly consisted of reliev- . rig the te'ler during the lunch hour. 1 would receive deposits, .cash ■heqnes. etc. One of the clients of the Bank was a Mr A. S. Bentley. On the 4th February, 1929, Miss Phyllis Bentley. daughter of the above, called at the bank during the lunch hour and paid in to her father’s ount the sum of £l3O 8s Id. She made out a deposit slip for this amount and handed it to me together with the amount mentioned. I did not give her any receipt for this amount. I did not put through any record of this amount having been received from but the following day I made another deposit s'ip for £7O 8s Id and credited it to
Bentley’s account the difference, £6O, I kept myself anj converted to my own use and the remainder of the money 1 paid in. I later destroyed the original deposit slip made out by Miss Bentley. “In order to make out the deposit slip for £7O 8s Id, I had to forge Miss Bentley’s signature. I did this by copying it from the original deposit slip. The deposit slip shown to me dated sth February, 1929, is the one which 1 forged. The £6O which I took in this manner has since been spent by me, paying debts mostly. 1 know that I had no right to take this money, and it was only the fact that l was in debt which made me take it. About eight months ago I committed another theft in a similar manner to the one mentioned. On that occasion 1 was acting-teller when a Chinaman named Loo Tin called at the bank, and paid into the account of Wong Hee and Co. the sum of £7O 10s. Loo Tim signed a deposit slip for this amount, and handed it to me together with the amount mentioned. 1 gave him a receipt for this amount. As soon as lie left the bank I destroyed the deposit slip, and retained the £7O 10s, converting it to my own use. This money was also absorbed in paying debts which I had accumulated. It is quite likely that I purchased a few things in addition to paying debts. These debts were not drinking or gambling ones. As far as I can recollect they were just ordinary debts which I had let go, and which had amounted ui> on me. In conclusion, 1 can only say that I yielded to temptation and took this money. 1 was handling a good deal of money at the time, and the temptation was very great. The above-mentioned amounts were the only ones which I had dishonestly taken from the bank. This statement is true and correct in every detail. I make it of my own free will, as I wish this matter to Be cleared up.”
Accused pleaded guilty, an<j was committed to the Wellington Supreme Court for sentence on each of the above charges. Depositions in connection with the third charge for theft of £7O 10s were then taken.
Constable Burrell said that in this charge the circumstances were very nearly the same as in the previous charge. Loo Tim, a Chinaman employed as a fruiterer in Alain Street, paid in £7O 10s during one dinner-hour which had not been entered hi the hooks of the bank. Giving evidence, Loo Tim, a fruiterer. said he was engaged in business in Pahiatua, the firm being conducted under the name of Wong Hee and Co. He identified his pay-ing-in book for the Bank of New South M ales. He remembered going to the bank on September sth, 1928, and paying in £7O 10s. “Tips young fulla” (pointing to accused) was behind the counter and entered the amount of deposit, £7O 10s, in witness’ book under date sth September, 1928. Accused also put his initials to the entry. Sometimes witness would make out a deposit slip and sometimes the accused would make it out for him. He forgot who made it out on this occasion, but he remembered signing it. He paid in the amount in question during a dinner-hour.
Arthur Edgar Manners, inspector of the bank, said he had examined the deposit hook of Wong Hee and Co., which showed that accused received a deposit of £7O 10s from M ong Hee and Co., and had duly acknowledged receipt of it by initialling the entry in the deposit book and stamping it with the bank stamp. This deposit had never gone through the books of the bank. It had been suppressed. A search had been made for the deposit slip but no trace of it could be found. Constable Burrell, in evidence, read that portion of the previous statement relating to the present charge.
The accused was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court on each of the three charges.'
PAHIATUA HERALD, VOLUME XXXVII, ISSUE 11149, 24 MAY 1929, PAGE 5 paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PAHH19290524.2.11?items_per_page=100&page=3&query=wong+hee&snippet=true