Embezzlement of money from the municipality.

December 20, 1968. Joe O'Neil gave information to Moerman about a money speculating case. Public attention was widely attracted because it was in the election. The result of the case would be useful in the campaign. On 30 December 1968 the first defendant (the accountants? - The translator) was sent to prison for six months and the court dismissed the second and the third defendants because they were proved to be irrelevant to the complaint.

The case of 900,000 Baht taken from the municipal treasury about 2 years ago.

28 November 1968. The municipal accountant misappropriated funds of 900,000 baht. This case highly raised the interest of the public and the court had been questioned for nearly two years.

Armed robbery.

February 18, 1969. The judge, Penthip, and the prosecutor, Nuan, inquired about a robbery and assault case. The defendant and two others accused in the case looted the plaintiff's money, then assaulted the plaintiff's mother. The local police were a witness in this case. However, the prosecutor had carefully questioned the plaintiff on his words. She wanted assurance that the plaintiff was willing to plead, not to incriminate the defendant or not to be forced by the police. On March 28, 1969, the defendant was released due to insufficient evidence. Thawee noted that the defendant may have been taught by the police.

investigating arson Ws Derpite con fessiom.

March 5, 1969. There was a case of arson in Tambon Wiang, Amphur Fang. It was caused by a defendant who did not want his brother to meet the plaintiff. They were in a severe brawl. As a result, the defendant committed arson at the plaintiff's house.

Mal Byers tells of legal cases.

March 5, 1969. There was a case of arson in Tambon Wiang, Amphur Fang. It was caused by a defendant who did not want his brother to meet the plaintiff. They were in a severe brawl. As a result, the defendant committed arson at the plaintiff's house.

Defence of policeman's grudge against a charge of heroin.

February 17, 1969. One man was arrested on charges of heroin abuse when he went to receive souvenirs from Bangkok. However, he plead that he was arrested because he bothered one of the police during the arrest. The other defendants plead that the man did not abuse heroin. On 19 February 1969 the court clerk provided information that the wife of the man who was accused of heroin abuse had been arrested in a case of heroin trade. It was possible that the defendant might be guilty, but because of insufficient evidence, the case could not be tried.