ALLEGED FRAUD

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 164, 7 April 1921, Page 9

ALLEGED FRAUD

TERABIDOC BUILDING SYNDICATE CHARGES AGAINST PROMOTER HOME-SEEKERS DETAIL THEIR EXPERIENCES , Tn ths Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Messrs. J. W. Ellison and 11. D. Hanlon, J.P.’s, Thomas Keen Cockburn was charged: (1) That on June 10, 1920, he did obtain .£l5O from one Edward I. Parrington by falsely representing that ho was the owner of timber’ and sawmills at Dannevirke; and (2) that on Jtine 10, 1920, he did commit theft of £lO in money the property of E. I. Parrington. Chief Detective Ward appeared for the police and Mr. J. Scott for the accused. In opening, the chief detective sard that his witnesses would give evidence of the Accused obtaining money from them. Ihe facts, he alleged, were that from the beginning of 1920 the accused set himself Tip as a builder under the name of the “Terabidoc Building Syndicate?' He was the syndicate, and he set himself up to build houses cheaply. He asked for deposits of from -£lOO to £l5O, undertaking to arrange to finance the building, and taking a second mortgage himself for any balance owing. It would also be stated in evidence that no work of any kind had been performed, and that the accused lived on the money he obtained by way of deposit from different people. Complainant’s Evidence.,

Edward Ivan Parrington, dentist, said ■ he knew tho accused as the principal man in the Terabidoc Building Syndicate. Witness saw accused with respect to the erection of a building at Ngaio. He had paid £2O on the section, and there was . a balance of =C7O owing. Witnes.sc explained the position to accu ®®“’ who agreed to build a house for .£1356, on condition that witness paid a deposit of £l5O. Witness paid this deposit and accused was to proceed immediately to erect the house; he was also to take over the section and arrange the necessary mortgages. Accused was to have paid off the .£7O due on the section out of the .£l5O deposit paid to him by witness. The agreement was entered into on June 10, 1920, when witness paid accused a cheque for £l5O. Plans and specifications were submitted to witness by accused, and were finally approved. Accused informed witness that he had sawmills at Dannevirke, and that was what decided witness to build through accused. A month later, when witness saw that nothing was being, done in the, way of building, he saw accused, who stated that he was busy building other houses and that he would get on with witness’s house as Boon as possible. Some time later accused told witness that he had disposed of the sawmills for .£3OOO, and that he would have to get timber from somewhere else. Ho fold witness he would get on with tho building at Ngaio as soon as possible, but up to the present moment no attempt had been made to start the building, no part of the £l5O paid to the accused had been refunded, and witness was still liable for tho £7O on the section, as the accused did not nay that off as agreed. Harold John Brown, accountant to the firm of Bethune and Co., said tlyat his fir mhad been collecting instalments from Parrington. In June, 1920, Parrington owed £BO on one section at Ngaio. Witness got in touch with Farrington, and in consequence of what the latter said witness telephoned accused and asked him if any stun had been paid by Parring inn to accused or the syndicate in respect to a section at Ngaio.' Accused said that to his knowledge nothing had been paid. Parrington still owed £7O on the section. Plans and Specifications. Fobert Charles Thornton, clerk of works, said that in February, 1920, he was out of work, and during that month he got into touch with accused. He saw him at the office of the Terabidoc -Building Syndicate, Lambton Quay. Witness explained that he had had considerable experience of building operations and t.esired wo/k. Accused said he had dimculty in getting out plans as the man doing them had more than he could cope with. After his conversation with accused, he had. no reason to doubt the bona tides of the syndicate. Accused said he had several gangs of men at work, and he gave witness certain plans to prepare, which witness did. Accused then gave him a job, at £9 per week for a month, and £7 per week afterwards. "Witness was asked to join the syndicate or company, but he declined to do that. Witness was employed as building supervisor, and was in the employ of accused for about one year. During that period he supervised the erection of one building in Northland and no otners. He was engaged principally in getting out plans and specifications, and he witnessed the signatures on agreements. _ "Witness

knew nothing of the financial arrangementa of the syndicate and he knew of no arrangements having been made for the supplv of bulling materials. In April, 1920, witness discussed the question of a sawmill with accused, who stated that a sawmill had been offered to him at Dannevirke, and witness was sent to inspect the mill, on his return reporting nvainst the purchase. During the time ho was with the syndicate he had prepared plans and specifications for buildings worth about £20.000, hut had received during the year in wages only £63. The building at Northland, which he supervised, had been started prior to his bein 0- engaged. He had no reason, to doubt the bona Tides of the syndicate until about December 15, owing to the number of callers at the office. Frederick William Vare. company secretary, Wellington, said that he met the accused about Juno or July last year, and he informed witness that he. was managing the Terabidoc Building Syndicate. Some time in September they had a discussion about a sawmill for the syndicate; nt. that, time witness was secretary of a , timber company nt Dannevirke, and this companv’s property was offered to licenced. but the business fell through. John Phillip Aferew dher, lodgor-keomr. Rank of New South Wales, said that accused had an account at the bank. Witness produced a copy of accused’s account from June 1, 1920, to March 8, 1921. A Deposit of £5O. Minnie Dawson, wife of P. Dawson. Nairn Street, said that she was the owner of a num.f.ev-are section at Tower Hutt, and in June, 1920, she got in touch with accused. lie stated that he w.ts a builder, and would build a house for her for ,£1050; l.ians were prepared, and an agreement was drawn up and signed. On Almost 3 las: witness paid, a deposit of .£25. and on August 1G she paid a further £25. During “-he negotiations accused told her that he owned timber mills at Dannevirke. During SepterhNir. October. and November noth; .1" had been done toward? erecting the brildinr: and he told her that she would have to wait her turn, but that it would be all right. Nothing hn® been done in the way of building operations on her section, and her deposits had not been returned to her. A Labourer's Savings. Arthur George Keif, labourer, stated that in June 1929, he inserted an advertisement in the papers that he desired to purchase a house, paying £lOO as deposit. In response to this advertisement he received a note from accused, asking him to call, and he saw accused in his office I he fol owing day. Accused said he would build a house for witness, and suggested that Tie should buy a section at Northland Accused said he could build cheaper than otlv- s Nonuse he had timber-cutting /’ffhts nt Dannevirke. Witness inspected sections at Northland, an dagreed to buy one.

One June 21. he entered into an agreement with accused for the building of a house, on the section, and paid him £5O as a deposit. On July 3 witness paid a further £5O. The accused was to arrange the finance for the balance; the building was to cost £925, and the section £225. Nothing had lieen done in

the way of building on the section, ami witness spoke to him about it, when accused said that he was having legal difficulties over the sawmill. Accused told him that Mrs. Gapes was the owner of the section at Northland which witness had agreed to purchase. In .September last witness had a conversation with Mrs. Gapes, ami in consequence he consulted a solicitor. Accused had made no attempt to erect the building, and had not returned any part of the £lOO paid by witness.

School Teacher's Deal. Maurice Allison Tremewan, school teacher, Karori, said he was introduced to accused by a land agent named Whvte in August last. They discussed the question of erecting a building, and accused showed him plans. Ho further stated that he had sections at Northland, and witness understood they belonged to the syndicate. Ho inspected sections at Northland with Whyte, and thought that one of them would suit

him. On August 21 witness paid accused £lOO, but subsequently changed his mind with respect to the section, and informed accused. Witness was shown another section, but this did not suit, and he asked for the return ot his deposit. Accused said that was awkward, as he had paid Whyte his commission. Witness subsequently agreed to purchase a section at Kelburn, and accused offered, to get witness an option over the land. Plans and specifications were prepared and approved by witness, but as far as he could learn nothing had been done towards securing the section, and no attempt had been made to build on the land. He had not received any part of his deposit back. A Deposit of £2OO, Robert David M'Gillivray, clerk, employed in the Defence Department, said that in September he interviewed Whyte and Son, land agents, with respect to buying a property, and through them met the accused. On October 16 he en. tered into an agreement with accused to build a house. He had paid Whyte and Son in all £209, and accused undertook to have at least two rooms ready for occupation by I'ebniary. Witness picked the section and’paid the £2OO, P and the accused was to finance the rest of the money. All the money Jit p.M •«. »« Son and not personally to the accused. Catherine Smith, wife of■ I eroival Smith, Adelaide Road, said tl a March she saw Whyte and Son land agents about purchasing a home, but as their meVns were limited they decided to buy "ion and try to get someone to buiid the house. Mr. Wte introduced her to the accused, and at M hyte s . ug gestion they inspected a- section at Highland Park, but that was not found suitable Eventually, witness purchased a section at Island Bay for £2oo. Witness .paid a deposit of aiM “ccujed was to arrange for the balance£loo deposit was paid \ in accused’s office. On Maich 18 > agreement was signed for the" erectio of a four-roomed house by the accused, but nothing had been done towards commencing building operations. W iti es= saw accused several times about the mnttw and he told her that he was having legal trouble over the sawmill at Dannevirke Witness did not know what had become of the deposit of £ICO. She had received nothing for her money.

Land Agents’ Evidence. ■ Robert Whyte, landlagent snid he knew accused, and first met him abou fifteen months ago. Accused called at his office and explained the objects ot the Terabidoc Building Syndicate, and gav witness to understand «mt the syndicate was financially strong. He stated Um he had his own architects builders, and workmen, and explained that on a £lO deposit he would finance the balance and build a house worth £llOO or £l2OO. The syndicate would obtain a first moi - gage for as large a sum as . possible, and carry the second mortgage themselves. Witness thought the scheme a good one, and arranged that from those wishing to build he would accept a small deposit, and refer the clients to accused, who would complete the arrangements. Mrs. Smith came to him with a view to puichasing a section, and she paid him a deposit of £lOO in connection with a section at Island Bay, the purchase price of which was £250. Witness paid £m of- the £lOO deposit to accused. Mr. M'Gillivray consulted him under similar circumstances, and he received a sum of £25 from him, also a further sum of £<s, and Inter £lO5, and this was paid over to accused, less £BO. Of this, £oo was paid to the vendor. Witness was never introduced to any member of the syndicate He spoke to the accused several times about the buildings he had undertaken to erect for clients. Witness had handed to accused other .sums of money than those mentioned. Witness was personally liable for £l5O in respect, to a client of the accused’s, as witness accepted the money, and handed it. over to the accused, who had failed to cans’ out his contract. Herbert Sydney Caldwell Whyte, son ot the previous witness, said that he entered into an agreement with accused build a house, but accused never carried out the contract. The experience cost witness about £l5O. M itness then gave evidence in corroboration of wliar. had been stated by his father. James T. Bishop, deputy-clerk at the Magistrate’s Court, produced an affidavit made by Thomas Keen Cockburn on Mav '7. 1920, declaring that the Leiabidoc Building Syndicate membership was confined to himself. How the. Arrest Was Made. Detective J. Torrance detailed the steps taken to bring the accused before the Court. Witness culled at the office several times, but could not get any response to his knocks. He then to his house, and saw the accused wife, who gave witness to understand that accused was out of town. Accompanied by Mrs. Cockburn, witness went to the back dour, and called upon accused three times- On the third occasion witness intimated that if the door was not opened he would force his way in. The accused then opened the door, and was arrested. This concluded the case for the prosecut ion. . Accused ‘ pleaded not guilty, reserved his defence, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in <£lso and two sureties of <£lso each.