MOST IMPUDENT FRAUD

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 48, 20 November 1926, Page 6

MOST IMPUDENT FRAUD

0 EX-I’OLICEMAN AS INVESTOR SEAFARER’S TRUSTWORTHY SIMPLICITY Wanganui, November 19. A case which has created a great deal of interest locally was continued at the Supreme Court to-day, the parties being John James Stuart, a seafaring man, and Prank Hedgman, an ex-policeman, formerly of Wellington. Mr. C. A. b' Treadwell, Wellington, appeared for Stuart, and Mr. A. A. Barton for Hedgman The claim was for £lO2l alleged to have been held by Hedgman on behalf of the plaintiff. The case was commenced in Wanganui at last Supreme Court session, and was referred to Wellington and back to Wanganui. During the previous hearing Mr. Treadwell said that plaintiff was a cook and of no business training. In 1921 he met defendant who was then a constable and plaintiff was in the Aotea Buffet. The parties became friends. At the end of 1921 Stuart sold the business, and as a result had £3ll 10s. in his bankbook. Defendant advised plaintiff to invest the money in property in Ingestre Street owned by him. Plaintiff put £3OO into the venture. Plaintiff was going to a job at New Plymouth and Hedgman advised him also to pav him the balance of the money he had tn the bank, and he could pav plaintiff's debts. Plaintiff handed over £ll and agreed to send further sums to pay the balance of trade debts and to be looked after. These amounts were sent from time to time. Hedgman said he would be able to advise plaintiff in regard to investments and make a fortune for him. Stuart continued to send amounts regularly every month until just before "August. He made 1 repeated efforts to get a statement of the amount from Hedgman and (ailed. 4 , In the course of lengthy evidence plaintiff declared that Hedgman,.who was dealing in property extensively, promised to act as a father ro him, and led him to believe that he would come out all right in the end. \\ hen Stuart could not get a statement of accounts he became suspicious and .consulted Mr Treadwell, of Wellington The latter wrote to Hedgman, who ignored the letter, but instead met St art and later wrote to counsel that they had mutually settled the matter Hedcnian counter-claimed on belialt of the advances alleged to have been made to Stnart to pay llis debts. Mr. Treadwell said that Hedgman had brought in his falsified books as evidence. ' The books had been tampered with and prepared for the purpose of this case This man. said counsel, was Iving about the matter, and a than who would go to .that extent would go to any extent to win Ins case Producing a magnifying glass, counsel said to Hedgman: "How do vou account for 1921 being altered from 1925. and February 19, 1921. altered from 1926?”—"1t looks as if there has been an alteration.”. Counsel: Has an item of £2ll been altered to square with £3007 ? —"I don t think it has been altered.” His Honour asked witness to account for the serious mistake between 1921 and 1925. Counsel. It is a remarkable thing that all the entries about Stuart appear at the bottom of the pages in the brown book. Is it coincidence?— Counsel: I thought that would be vour answer. It is funny these entries did not get at the top of others, so that thev could be authenticated from time to time. . Counsel drew attention to entries in another book, and said the writing suggested that the person who made the entries did so at one time, and not at intervals, as it was intended to suggest. “It is remarkable,”, said counsel, "that the person making the entries sat in the same position each time, the same slope of writing, etc. A remarkable Hedgman coincidence,” added counsel. Counsel, quoting from a letter by Hedgman to Stuart: "You have done noblv in sending me money. Aou have exceeded all expectations, and T am looking forward to the time when you will reap the reward of your labours." “He must have been a little gold mine,” said counsel. His Honour said be was satisfied that Hedgman received £l4O towards paving Stuart's debts. He was satisfied that Hedgman did not pay the amounts of £6O, £7O, and £75. He was also satisfied that £3OO was never advanced by Hedgman.

The next question to be decided upon tbe transfer of the house. His Honour suggested that it would be better to tieat the deal as if it had never taken place in the first instance. He left the matter to counsel to discuss. Subsequently Mr. Treadwell intimated that overnight minor matters had been settled, and it was agreed that judgment should be entered for plaintiff for £B'26 14s. Lid. This was given accordingly, with costs. His Honour remarked that he could not help saying it was a most impudent fraud. He exonerated counsel for the defence.