THE GILLESPIE CASE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14888, 30 January 1914, Page 3

THE GILLESPIE CASE.

CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES DISMISSED. Ollivor Noel Gillespio was before the Magistrate's Court at Feilding on "Wednesday to answer a chargo of obtaining, by false- pretences, the sum of £600 from Mrs A. H. James, of Stanway. Sergeant Bowden conducted the case- for the prosecution, 'and Mr Cooper appeared for accused. Th© following report is taken from tho ; 'Feilding Star" :— Mrs A. H. James gave evidence that in January, 1913.. she asked Gillespie to invest some money for her, and Gillespio mentioned a property as a likely investment—that of Mr Wright at Kawhatau. She saw the property, her husband going with her. She was satisfied with the investment, and agreed to invest tho money. She saw- Mr Wright tho day ehe inspected the property, and on the following day saw the accused at his office in Feilding. She informed him of her inspection and satisfaction, and handed him a cheque for £600 on tho Bank of Australasia. The sum was debited to her account in tho bank. Accused gavo her a receipt for tho cheque, the receipt saying the money was for advance to J- J. Wright. At the same time and place she received a second document which signified that Gille.spie's firm had taken a first mortgage of Wright's property with Mrs James's money, and gavo other particulars. Since then, on August oth, witness had received the first half-year's interest on the money. On ascertaining that accused had left Feilding, she made enquiries, and could get neither the money nor the mortgage. She had never been informed by Uillespio that tho money had been put to any other use. To Mr Cooper: Witness believed it was at the end of September she saw Mr Cook, after Gillespie had gone. Sho got a letter .from Mr Cook say-' ing tho money had been misapplied. The reason why there had been delay in bringing proceedings was to give Gjllespie a chance to say what he had done with tho money. She had not seen Gillespie. When the investment was being made, she and her husband were quite satisfied with tho security. When she handed over tho cheque, she understood the whole transaction would bo completed immediately. Thomas P. James, farmer, of Stanway, stated he and his wife had inspected the property and seen Wright, and they wero quito satisfied with tho security. The next day they saw accused and told him they were satisfied, and Mrs James was agreeablo to lend £600 on tho property. Mrs James gave Gillespio tho cheque, for investment on Wright's farm, and sho got a receipt. Her account at the Bank had been debited with the £600. In August his wife received £18 in interest on the money. In the samo month accused told witness thero had been great delay and the matter had been hung up, but it was now settled. To Mr Cooper: Witness knew at tho tiino the money was handed over the actual mortgage had not been signed. His wife would bo largely guided by him (witness) in investing her money. Witness knew "Wrigiir was going to use tho money to purchase a second property, though the mortgage was on Wright's own propert j - . In asking witness tho reason of the delay in bringing theso proceeding, Mr Cooper asked witness if ho knew Gillespio was at liberty by leava ol the Chief Justice in order to assist ' the D.O.A. for the benefit of the creditors in ftis bankrupt estate.— Witness believed there was something like that. Mr Cooper: And every dayV. <Wav is a day lost,,to tfae interests of tho' creditors. Witness: His time must bo very valuable! Joseph John Wright, farmer, of Kawhatau.. said ihe had endeavoured to raiso a loan on his property on first mortgage.' Tho receipt produced (which Mrs James had received from Gillespie) referred to his property, but it was totally untrue., as ho had not received any money from Mrs James. He had seen accused on the railway station at Mangaweka and asked him why tho money had not come, and Gillespio said the. papers had to be gone over again, and had to go 'to Wellington. Later, ho made further efforts to get the money from Gillespie. but was not successful. To Mr Cooper: Witness wanted the money to purchase another farm, and if he could not make that purchase he would not need tho money. Another man had lodged a caveat against tho property ho proposed to buy, and that delayed the transaction. Sergeant Bowden gave evidence that'ho had known accused when he was a solicitor practising in Feilding. He served him with the summons in -connexion with the charge. Gillespio made no comment. That closed the case. The Magistrate explained that tho law was that there must bo pretence, it must bo false, and the other person must suffer thereby. In this caso there was no pretence. Wright had a property and wished to raiso the loan; James had inspected it, and had lodged the money with Gillespie. L'p to that time- there was no pretence. What happened afterwards did not matter so far as this charge was concerned. There was quite enough evidence to bring another charge, so there need be no miscarriage, as the prosecutor might lay a charge under another heading if ho desired to do so. It might seem ridiculous to a layman that this distinction should be made. " but that was the law. He would not bo justified in sending the case to the Svbremo Court. It would be dismissed.