An accountant told the Supreme Court yesterday that thanks to a malfunctioning bank microfilm machine there are no copies of the cheques that a bankrupt lawyer is alleged to have used to pay off his debts after allegedly taking money from the account of a mentally ill client.

Julian Ernest Sinclair Hall is being tried in the Supreme Court on five counts of stealing a total of $551,044 from wealthy elderly widow Betty Lorraine McMahon.

Hall is accused of transferring $250,000, $175,702.71, $40,000, $45,180.72 and $40,000 from Mrs. McMahon?s accounts between November 8, 1995 and February 20, 1996 and using the money to pay various debts including mortgage payments for his house, child support payments and money owed to former employer Charles Vaucrosson.

Hall had become bankrupt several years before and was unable to practice law until being bailed out by Mr. Vaucrosson.

Hall is representing himself in the case. Representing the Crown is Kulandra Ratneser consultant counsel to Department of Public Prosecution?s office. The case is being tried by Chief Justice Richard Ground.

Yesterday accountant Paul B. Hubbard, senior partner at Deloitte & Touche, said that after he took over the power of attorney for Mrs. McMahon?s affairs from Hall in May 1996, he began trying to get a clear picture of Mrs. McMahon?s financial affairs and dealings with Hall.

Under questioning from Mr. Ratneser, Mr. Hubbard said: ?The more I discovered the more questions it raised.?

Mr. Hubbard said, through a series of legal actions in the summer of 1996, he and another accountant John David Boden, now retired, tried to gain documents from Hall relating to Mrs. McMahon?s affairs. Finally, in September 1996 they received two boxes of documents.

The two boxes have been a bone of contention for Hall throughout the case, as he alleges there are as many as 18 boxes. A later witness, Detective Sergeant David Geraghty told the court he had seen anywhere from 18 to 20 boxes although he had never seen what was in them.

But Mr. Hubbard insisted he had only received two large boxes from Hall.

?I was initially trying to ascertain what her total wealth was,? said Mr. Hubbard. ?Her expenses were quite large. I had to get my hands around her total estate. I also had to go back and try to ascertain if there were any other assets we hadn?t identified. I had to look at payments made from Mrs. McMahon?s assets when Mr. Hall held power of attorney. Because those payments may have represented some other assets, it was necessary to ascertain what those payments were for and whether there were any other assets.?

In court, Mr. Hubbard estimated that Mrs. McMahon was probably worth about $14 million, although in earlier testimony Sharon Lamb, former trust manager at the Bank of Butterfield?s subsidiary, Butterfield Executor Trustee Company (BETCO), had estimated it was more in the region of 20 million.

Mr. Hubbard gained a picture of what he thought had transpired by comparing her bank statements against Hall?s company Woodley Limited to Mrs. McMahon?s accounts. He found that large sums had been transferred from one to the other via manager?s cheques between 1995 and 1996.

?The only explanation I got was in an affidavit sworn by Hall in August 1995,? said Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Ratneser asked Hubbard: ?Did you in any way at the end of your investigation into the affairs of Mrs. McMahon find any documentation that explained the $551,000 taken out and paid to Woodley??

?No,? Hubbard replied.

But during cross-examination by Hall, Mr. Hubbard admitted that he hadn?t been able to ascertain where Mrs. McMahon?s money had gone once it reached Hall?s Woodley Limited account at the Bermuda Commercial Bank.

?You would want to identify who the payees were,? said Hall to Mr. Hubbard. ?The bank was unable to provide copies of cheques because the microfilm system did not work. The film for that period was blank.?

Mr. Hubbard could not say who had told him the microfilm system didn?t work. He said it was a verbal exchange and he had nothing in writing to report that.

?They were unable to supply me with any photostats of paid cheques,? Mr. Hubbard said. ?If they had it, I asked them to provide it. It was a verbal request.?

Mr. Hubbard said the only thing in the two boxes he received was a loose piece of notepaper listing information about 20 to 30 cheques.

?There were more than 20 to 30 cheques, weren?t there?? Hall asked Mr. Hubbard.

?Yes,? said Mr. Hubbard.

?So you are not able to identify any of the payments except for one in respect to any transaction after February 21?? asked Hall.

Mr. Hubbard replied in the affirmative.

?So your information is based on one: I didn?t supply you with any cancelled cheques and two: the bank had a faulty microfilm system at the time.?

?That is correct.?

Mr. Hubbard admitted that he did not write to Hall regarding these specific payments that he could not get copies of.

?No because the court order asked you to provide certain documents,? said Mr. Hubbard.

?At any stage did you tell the Police this?? asked Hall.

?I gave copies of the Woodley file I had compiled to the Police. I told them I could not obtain any more information.?

Hall said: ?Because you did not receive an explanation about where the money went you concluded that I had stolen it??

Mr. Hubbard again replied in the affirmative. He also said he had looked over the accounts relating to Hall?s account JS Management Ltd. that handled Mrs. McMahon?s domestic and daily operations and found them to be in order.

Hall had Mr. Hubbard read part of Hall?s affidavit, which said that before Hall gained power of attorney Mrs. McMahon had often expressed concerns about his bankruptcy.

In the affidavit, Hall said that Mrs. McMahon had made a short-term loan to him, which was to be paid off by him making some mortgage loan payments on behalf of Mrs. McMahon?s nurse Marion Wolffe who was buying a house with Mrs. McMahon?s help.

The Crown closed its case yesterday. The trial continues today.