SYSTEMATIC IMPOSTURE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1950, 5 December 1906, Page 1

SYSTEMATIC IMPOSTURE.

A WOMANS HR MRS TO OBTAIN MONEY.

In tho charges against Annie Wilson Williamson, at Auckland, for / forgory end false pretences, for the do I 1 fence tho accused, on oath, said that two days before her arrest her husband gave hoi 2r and a slip of paper on which was writton : “ Cheque book, 25.” At his request sho took this to tho bank and obtained a cheque book, which sho gave him. Mho had not seen it since. Her husband was at that time unemployed. On tho day of the arrest., while in tho Albeit Park, her husband gave her tho chequo (produced) to got cashed, and told hor to buy a dress and meet him at the wharf at four o’clock. Mho went to Mistcd’e, selected a dress, and gave tho cheque in payment While she whh in the Park hor husband put several small articles into a bag sho was carrying. Sho did not examine tho articles. At Flisted’s tho attendant askod her to wait, and soon Mr Bunting arrived and questioned her about tho chequo. Ho said tho signature

was not his, and she said, ,l I have gol to meet my husband at four o’clock, and ho will explain,” Mr Bunting,

however, asked her to come with him and maite a staff merit at the police station. She consented. On the way she dropped something in Wellesley street, and Mr Bunting picked it up and said, “ This is a,torn cheque.” Jn the police station Detective Miller found some more pieces in examining her bag, and he asked her if she car-

ried the cheques in the cigar-c.se, She replied that she knew nothing of any cheque but the one. She had no reason to believe hor husband bad given her a forged cheque, but she had since learned that ho had confessed to having done so. She novor knew him forge a cheque before. If the fragments found in Wellesley street came from her bag, she could only suppose they were drawn out by her handkerchief.

Mr Tole : How did these torn cheques get into your handkerchief? Witness replied that the handkerchief was a dirty one of hor husband’s which she tock out by mistake.

Mr Tole : Isn’t it the truth that both you and your husband were going to Sydney on that day ? —Not that I knew.

JJon’t you know your husband has made a confession that he looked all

over the steamer to find you, and was terribly disappointed at not finding you there, and that he met the subsequent steamers at Sydney, hoping to meet you ?—Yes, I know he has said that, but I had no knowledge of it. Why did you give your name as Wilson at Histod's ? Well, my name is

Wilson Williamson. I saw no reason to explain. The name on the cheque was Wilson, but my husband said it

would not matter, as it was made payable to bearer.

ing your husband’s name was Wilson. Mr Tole : Now, Mrs Williamson, is it not a fact that you have been carrying on, in this city, a course of systematic imposture, imposing on people for charitable institutions ?

Mr Haddow objected to the question, His Honor said it was quite admissible.

Mr Tole (to prisoner): Have you not ?—Accused : Yes.

Ilia Honor : You say you iiavo boon carrying on a system of imposturo in

Auckland ? —Yes,

Mr Tole : Have you not gone to clergymen’s houses with your arm in a sling aying your arm was broken and your children starving, to get money from them?—l have got

money. From Canon Nelson, I beliove, and the Rev. Mr Gillam?—Yes.

And Mr Ford, a jeweller. You went and got a pound from him on some pretext ? —Yes, On the pretoxt that your husband had got a job at Waihi, but was burnt out, and that be had got blood-poison-iog, and that you had. taken a house in Burleigh street ; that you had four children, the youDgest six months old, starving ; and so on. I think ho gave you a pound on the story you told

him ?—Yes. Mr Haddow : Why was your arm in a sling ?—lt was bruised and bad. Why did you say it was broken ? I didn’t want to expose my husband. Mr Haddow observed to his Honor that he did not expect this evidence.

His Honor, in summing up, described the jury’s task as a very uu pleasant one, as no one liked to send a woman to prison, but they must not let sentiment run away with them. Nothing would please him better than that they should be able to find that the accused did not know the cheque she used was forged, as it would relieve him of an unpleasant duty. But it was for them to consider if there really woro any reasonable doubt in tho case.

'I he j ury found the accused guilty, but very strongly recommended mercy, on r.ccount of the unfortunato circumstances in which she had bien placed 3ince her marriage, M r Haddow, in asking for leniency, said the woman, though not actuilly coerced by her husband, wis very much under his influence. She had already served three months’ imprison.* ment, because she had no friends in Auckland who would go bail for her. Tho Salvation Army people had f. r the last fortnight allowol Mr to live at he r Heme. He urged that sh i might te released with an order to come up for sentence if called on. His Honor said the evidence did not justify the supposition that she had acted under coercion. It was not as though she had been living with a man to whom ths interest of her children bound her. Bhe had no children living, and if her husband wero addicted to evil practioes she was an able bodied young woman and could easily have left him to earn her own living. He would pay attention to the recommendation of the j ury ; but c mid not adopt t o course suggested by hi r counsel. The trime was a very deliberate one, and the prisoner hid o n fessed that she had systematically practiced imposturo on tho charity of Auckland. It was absolutely necessary in the interest, not of tho wealthy, but of tho poor, that impesture of this sort should be stopped. Because if that sort of thing were tolerated ic was quite plain that the sources of chaiity would soon be dried up, and those who deserved and needed assistance would have to go unassisted. Sentence of six months’ imprisonment was then passod.