NAME ON A BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 976, 17 November 1910, Page 3

NAME ON A BILL.

l DEAL TO ACQUIRE A BUSINESS. CROWN CASE FAILS. Thomas Duffy was placed in tlio dock it the' Supreme Court yesterday on a ihargo of obtaining goods by a false prcfince. The indictment set forth that on Vugust 19 last Dully obtained goods and chattels valued at JiMO from Norman Edrard Aitken by delivering to tho latter iroinissory-notes purporting to liavo been indorsed by his father, Bernard Duffy. - Mr. T. Neave conducted tho caso for he Crown, and Mr. A. L. Herdman apJeared for the accused. Mr. Neave, in outlining the caso for :he prosecution, said tho goods of which ;ho prisoner had obtained possession coniisted of the stock-in-trade of a stationery Justness in Charlotte Street, owned by Vlr: N. E. Aitken. On August 1 an agreement was made between the prisoner ind Mr. Aitken under which the former ivas to pay .£l4O for tho business, £70 in lash and tho balance in promissory-notes, ixtending over a period of nine months, ill - . Aitken would state that it was an jgreement between tho prisoner and himself that tho notes should be endorsed by Bernard Duffy, prisoner's father, who resided at Blenheim. It appeared that ;hero were two Bernard Duffy's, father and son. Of the son, Mr. Aitken had no knowledge when the agreement was made, but ha knew Mr. Duffy the father, by repute, as a man of substance- Although the agreement was dated August. 1 it was not at once executed in ful 1 .. Di\fTy was allowed'to go into tho shop cn August 1, but with Mr.- Charles Aitken, brother of the vendor,, in control, i Tho essenco of tho fraud alleged consisted of a misrepresentation by which Duffy obtained possession of the business on August 19. He theu handed over promissoiy-notes for iB7O to Mr. Aitken. Ostensibly they , had been endorsed by Bernard. Duffy, father of the accused, but actually tho signatures were those of Bernard Duffy, jun. Questioned in tho offico of Mr. Williams, solicitor, tho prisoner had stated that the bills had been endorsed by his father. Interrogated at a subsequent interview in the same office, Duffy for the first time hinted that tho notes had been endorsed by his brother. A telegram sent by Mr. Aitken■- to Blenheim elicited a reply confirming tho fact that' Bernard Duffy, junior, had signed the notes. Evidence for tho prosecution was given by Norman Edward Aitken, Robert Bradford Williams, solicitor, Bernard Duffy, father of tho prisoner, Bernard Duffy, jun., and Chas. Conrad Aitken. Alexander Dunn, solicitor, of Wellington, who was the first witness called for the defence, said that on August 1 he dTew an agreement .between Messrs. Aitken and Duffy covering the sal© of a business from tho former' to the latter. In his dealings with the parties he clearly understood that nossession had teen given on August 1. Nothing was said to the. witness by Aitken about suspending the agreement until the,promissory notes had been handed over by Duffy. To his Honour: Witness understood that the risk of the notes not being endorsed was. taken by tho vendor. ' William Sydney / Horrocks, commission agent, who conducted the sale of tlie business in question, said the terms of tho 6ale were: a casli payment of XTO and three bills dated three, six, and nine months ahead, two of them for <£20 and one for ,£3O. Witness understood that on payment of ,£7O Duffy was to obtain immediate possession. It. was arranged that Charles Aitken should be employed by Duffy to look after the shop while the latter was absent in Blenheim. Further evidence for tho defence was given, bv James M'Parland. His Honour told the jury that; in order to convict tho prisoner, they must find that he did not obtain possession of the business until he had handed .over to Aitken the bills purporting to be signed by his father. Whether tho prisoner had cheated Aitken or not the jury need not consider. - The jury, after an absence of more than an hour, brought in a verdict of not guilty, and' the prisoner was discharged. AN EARLY-MORNING BURGLARY. TWO MEN CONVICTED. The trial of three men, John Earnshaw, Henry Robert Hunt, and Leslie Ellis,, accused of committing a burglary at tho Levin Hotel on the morning of August 21, was continued in the Supremo Court yesterday, before his Honour the Chief Justice. Mr. T. Ncavo conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. H. F. o!Leary appeared for. the three accused men. Evidence for tho prosecution was given by Constable Longbottom, of Levin; Janics'Wilson, farm labourer, Levin; Bessie Emily Smith, the keener of a boardinghouso at Levin; David Bdmond Porter, flaxmiller at Koputaroa; and Wm. Perrin, flaxmill cook. No evidence was called for the defence. Mr. Neave, in his final address to the jury, said tho prisoners had practically attempted, to set up an alibi by asserting that they left Levin on tho Saturday night preceding the burglary at 10.3*0 o'clock, but they had not attempted to give any particular account of their movements to the constables by whom they wore arrested. They had been found in possession of tho stolen property, and had not attempted any reasonable explanation as to how it came into their hands. Tho transference of tho safe over a distance of 400 yards suggested that at least three men were concerned in the burglary. . In tlio "course of- his address to the jury on behalf of the prisoners, Mr. O'Leary said no attempt had been made to set up an alibi. The defence was that tho evidence adduced was insufficient to convict the men in tho dock of the crime with jvhich they were charged. Hjs Honour, in summing lip, emphasised the absence of any attempt by tho accused to proffer a reasonable explanation as to the surroundings of the caee with which they stood charged. The jury retired at 12.40 p.m. At 3.40 p.m. it returned to Court, anu the foreman stated that Earnshaw and Hunt had been found guilty. 11l regard tc Ellis, the jurymen had been unable to agree. At 4.45 p.m. the jury, being still unable to agree, was discharged. A formal application by Mr. Neave for a retrial of Ellis, during the present sitting, was granted by his Honour. Earnshaw and Hunt were remanded until Saturday next for sentence.' PRISONERS SENTENCED, THE CAMBRIDGE HOTEL ROBBERY, John Harrison, found guilty on Monday of robbery, with violence, at tht Cambridge Hotel, Wellington, on Augusi 10, was brought before his Honour ths Chief Justice yesterday for sentence. Hii Honour, in imposing sentence, stated inter alia, that it was not to-be toloratei that two men (one still unknown) shoulc commit robbery with violenco m the ■streets of Wellington—practically off t main street. In tho olden days of this colony prisoner would certainly have in curred a very long term of imprisonment The sentenco would be eighteen months imprisonment, with hard labour. In tho caso of Ernest White, convictet on Monday of assault on a girl, his Hon our declined to entertain a suggestioi that probation should be granted, an< imposed a 1 sentenco of six months, witl hard labour.