THE former secretary of a social club -- where the books were kept in a "chaotic state" -- yesterday failed to overturn convictions related to missing money and a forged invoice.

Brian Stanley Owen Johnson, 64, of Yatesfold, Blackburn, was jailed for two years at Preston Crown Court on June 19 last year.

He had been convicted of the theft of a "substantial amount of money" from the London and Midland Railway Club in Blackburn.

While the Crown recognised it could not prove how much money was stolen, at the end of the trial it suggested the thefts involved around £40,000.

Johnson was also found guilty of forging an invoice to the club for £27,600 for building works.

He pleaded guilty to forging another building invoice for £4,000 and of "using a false instrument" in relation to another invoice for £15,000.

London's Criminal Appeal Court has now rejected a submission that his two convictions by the jury were "unsafe".

Lord Justice Clarke, sitting with Mr Justice Leveson and Mr Justice Cooke, said that in December 1996, Johnson was "prevailed upon" to become secretary of the club which had about 250 members.

At the time he had been looking after his wife. He had no background of keeping books or secretarial skills, but assumed responsibilities for some of the record books including the cheque book.

"It was common ground that the accounting system at the club was far from sophisticated and relied on trust, goodwill and voluntary effort," said Lord Justice Clarke, adding that the books were in a "chaotic" state.

In January 1997, work began on substantial renovations to the club premises and finished around the summer of 1998. No specific plans were prepared for the work nor was a budget set.

Some workmen were employed while some club members also took part in the work. Johnson said he did not pay for building materials, but gave blank cheques to the builders. Receipts were not given to him.

Auditors found cash deficits in the books in 1997 and 1998, but had reservations about the amounts because there had been no system of control over cash and records.

In challenging the theft conviction, Johnson's barrister Keith Harrison unsuccessfully submitted the trial judge should have thrown out the case after hearing the prosecution evidence.

He submitted the workmen's evidence could not be relied on, as they all admitted tax fiddling and getting cash in hand. They had denied using blank cheques for their own use.

The barrister also referred to the lack of evidence relating to how much the extensive renovations would have cost and to the treasurer's evidence that significant sums, not recorded, could have been paid out for the work.

In rejecting his arguments, Lord Justice Clarke said although Johnson's barrister could make many points to the jury about the problems in the case there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could convict.

"It follows the judge was justified in leaving (the case) to the jury," he said.

He further rejected a criticism of the judge's failure to give a particular direction to the jury in relation tot he forgery count.