SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 41, 12 November 1919, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL CASES

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve, of winch Mr. G. .T. A. Bell was foreman, continued the. hearing of the charges preferred against Thomas Steele Duncan of having on various dates in' September obtained goods to the value, of .£lO7 19s. Cd. from Kirkealdio and Stains, Ltd., by means of falso pretences and also Roods to the value, of «£ltj 2s. from E. Norton, tailor. Mr. V. &■ K. Macassoy, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for tho Crown, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for the. prisoner. On t.ho previous day the hearing of evidence both for the piosecution and the defence.' had concluded. His Honour, in summing up, said there were four points to which the jury must direct their attention, and the points were t .'1) Fas the statement false to the knowledge of the acevsed? (2) Did he make a pretence in order to get the goods on credit? (3) Did he obtain the goods by means of a fait* pretence? (4) Was the pretence made with intent to defraud? His Honour reviewed tho evidence' as. hearing on tho four questions submitted. After an absence of about half an hour the jury returned .'Old declared the prisoner not guilty. TRANSACTIONS IN WHISKY; A young: man named Herbert Maloney was called upon to answer to nine chnrges of false pretences, and pleaded guilty to obtaining whisky on behalf of Gcorgo.Nash. This was accepted, as a pica of not guilty. Mr. T. B. Broad appeared for the accused and Mr. L. J- Gray was foreman of the jury. . Accused was alleged to have used the namo of George Nash, of Wadcstown, in order to obtain from various city firms ten cases of whisky. The liquor was obtained from Ellis and Manlon, Pea,rron and Co., Levin end Co.. Ltd., Laery Beveridgc and Co., Ltd., and E. T. Taylor. The evidence for the prosecution was tho same as that given in the lower Court. ■ ijcorge Nash, of Wadcstown, denied that lie gave the accused authority to obtain tho whisky in his name. He received tho invoice's and immediately went to the respective merchants and denied having authorised the accused to order whisky on his behalf. Cross-examined, witness said he belioved that he authorised Maloney to order one case of whisky for him. This was during last year. He could not remember giving tho accused any authority to do so in the present casus.. He got three cases of whisky in three weeks from T. and W. Young. , Mr. Broad:. Did not Maloney sign, for tivo of these cases? Witness: "That may be. Maloney was authorised to get one of tho cases.". AVitnw;s believed he asked his brother to get one of the cases, and as'the accused was working for his brother it was quite possiblo that his brother asked the. accused to get the case. Mr: Broad: Between April 10 and May 23. did you—Mr. Maeassey objected to the question, and Mr. Broad explained that he wished to establish the fact that the witness ivas a whisky drinker. ' His Honour: That won't make any difference one way or the other. At -ny rate he is still alive. Continuing,, witness said he was never threatened by T. and AV. Young. Ho paid by cheque whenever he thought fit. lie would deny having got six cases of whisky from Harold Brown and Co. No one had been previously prosecuted on his initiative for obtaining goods on his behalf. Walter Dinnie, private detective, and handwriting expert, said he had compared the signatures on the dockets, and .was of opinion that they were all in the same handwriting.' • The accused gave evidence, and stated that he was a labourer, and first met George Nash about fivo years ago. For several monthy they wore on friendly terms, and slept in the same room. He was employed doing, odd jobs round the house, and used to get whisky for-Nash for about 12 months. He got a case from T. and AV. Young on tho signed authority of Nash, and live cases from Harold Brown in tlie'samo way. Ho accounted for every one of tho cases of whisky mentioned in the indictment. Ho delivered seven of them at the house. Nash instructed him to put. the whisky on the verandah, and if ho was not at homo to place it on the tank. Fivo cases wero left' on. the verandah and two on the tank, and" the i accused stated that the others were left in town and the contents delivered to Nash, a. bottle at a time. Cross-examined: Nash told him that ho could sign any name when he was getting whisky for Nash, and' that was why he signed several names. Nash was wrong when he said ho never authorised him to obtain the whisky. Michael M'Enroe, storeman with Harold Brown and Co., said lie knew the accused, also George Nash, About six cases of whisky were obtained for Nash. 'I.hreo of the cases were got by Nash and Maloney together, and the other three by Money alone.. His Honour, iii summing up, said that the whole point in the case was whether or not tho accused was authorised by Nash to obtain the whisky. If he had been authorised to get the whisky then the whole, of the charges fell, but if n« did not, have that authority then he was guilty. All that t.hey had to direct their attention to was whether they were .'Satisfied that these goods were obtained by Maloney, not for Nash, but for himself cr somebody else. His Honour then reviewed tho "evidence at some length. Tho jury retired at 4.30 p.m., and returned at 5.20 p.m. and brought in n verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to clemency because of the laxity of the business methods of tho merchants concerned. Tho prißoner was remanded to Saturday for sentence.