WIND-SCREENS

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

WIND-SCREENS

VENDING PATENT RIGHT S

ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. H. W. Bundle, S.M., George William Thomas was charged (1) that on March 3 he obtained from Joseph Patrick Beamish, the sum of £l5O by falsely representing that he hem the patent rights in respect to an adjustable, wind-screen; (2) that on March 16, with intent to defraud, he falsely represented that J. P. Beamish had agreed to enter into a certain deal in motor-tyres, and had put £5O into the deal, thereby obtaining from Janies Barbery the sum of £5O in money; and that on l March 7 he obtained from J. Barbery the sum of £225 in money by falsely representing that he held the patent rights for an adjustable wind-screen. JJct , et v,. Black apeared for the police, and i • A. B. Sievwriglht for the accused. Joseph Patrick Beamish, of Glenbervie Road, engineer, stated that in January he noticed an advertisement m a paper in respect to a partnership in an engineering concern, to which ie plied, inviting ’the advertiser to ' upon him. The accused came in respo e to his letter, and introduced himself as “Captain Thomas of the Flying Corps The accused stated that he wanted a young fellow to go in with him m connection with a patent, wind-screen, the patent righto ,ot winch he Slid he held for Australia am New Zealand. Witness l ate \ J* companied the accused to the Tiocadero, where he was shown a wind-ciee Accused stated that there was a clea profit of 30s. per screen, and oileltd witness a share in the business fo.£<■>■ He indicated that witness would be en titled to receive half the profits. ness decided to go info the venture, but did not make any payment. Be accused the next day, when he was asked to consider becoming a partner 8 age for an additional £75. On Ma 2 witness agreed to the partnership in the wind-screen venture and gatage. He paid the accused £l5O in notes on the following day, and received a receipt signed “Thomas.” An a ? ree ™ ent ,R-f^ s ed by accused was not signed Vat ess suggested getting a lawyer to look into matter, and accused remarked that tho money would be better in their own pocketo. Accused stated that he was negotiating with another , mn “ fQr sale of half the rights in the wind screen for £3OO. -i qunragreed that witness should hold a. qu. ter share" only. No agreement had been signed, and no wind wreens had bee made. Witness received only £l, an I that through pleading he was hard 1There was no part of , which the wind screens could be m llll ' l factored, and most of the partsdad t be made by other firms. On Maich 7 accused introduced another man mime Barbery. Witness was then to sign a form transferring accused s rights to Barbery and witness The onu wns handed in to the Patent Office by Thomas, who obtained a receipt for ILater an agreement was signed, ami witness and Barbery were each given a of no deal in motor tyres, and lie had <i"“ “ S’,. ! 'Su- Wh.« Thomas intimated "that he was thinking of calling upon witness and Barbery to anoUer each. Witness; said he tl the .I™ SWWJA-w* when Barbery remarked than it ap pearod to hiin that witness and accused had put their heads together. Toridr. Sievwright: He had come from America but not to drive a paitkrnkar car. Iv was his deslre ,J;kL <i into a wind-shield business. \ , was not told that Thomas had pm-, 4’195 for the plant in the garage. He and not included in the business At this stage the hearing vas a<l- . ' week as further lengthy