TRICKSTER AT WORK.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 January 1926, Page 3

TRICKSTER AT WORK.

STONY OK A "PICKLE FACTORY” AUCKLAND, Jan. 7. Further details of what may lx? termed the Ruff case (it was, too!) reveal an astonishing story of how six people parted with nearly £6OO, on the representation of Robert Rnff, aged 45, that he was about to start a-fac-tory for the manufacture of homemade delicacies. The narrative was told in the Police Court, when Ruff, a ininn with no roof to hi.s month, pleaded guilty to four •barges of obtabling money by false pretences. . ' John Recti, labourer, aged 77, stated that he borrowed £lO2. from a friend and gave it to Ruff. Witness had no prospects of paying the money back. He got into touch with Ruff through an advertisement, and Hull told him that he was going to commence a business in Auckland for the manufacture of sauces, pickles anil jams. lie said he had been working for a man named Hayward, in Wellington, and that Hayward was selling out and going to England. Ruff wanted to purchase some of the plant. Witness had not received any money back from accused. A “ CO N DIMKNT OR ” Two brothers, John Henry Ryder,

V butter factory employee, and Freil--1 crick George Ryder, motor driver, of Tunkau, told how they became acquainted with Ruff through an advertisement. He represented to them that he was a competent condimentor. He gave them each a third share in the “business,” and they paid £2lO between them. They gave up their positions, came to Auckland, .ami commenced to make apricot jam in a small place in Yelverton Terrace, equipped with two gas boilers, several jars and a number of empty bottles. Hull aas away from the place most of the time, representing to them that lie was out collecting orders. At the end of the week the landlord seized the stock and plant for his rent. Ruff hail told the pair that lie was paying 30s a week rent for the place. They leai lied that a man named Hawkfns had been in partnership with Ruff, anil that he hail been working there a fortnight prior to their arrival. When thev complained to Ruff, he told them that they could get out if they were not satisfied, anil that they could have their money hack. He gave each a

promissory note for £l2O, dated He- ‘ cember 2nd and payable December Bth. These notes were presented on tluo date, and dishonoured. Herbert Batch-, salesman, deposed to reading an advertisement, as a con- i sequence of which he nu-t Ruff, who said he had sold out m Wellington, and wanted to start here Witness T paid him £75 for a half-share in the if' business, and later gave him anothe V sum of £4O. Huff represented that ho was buying plant in Wellington i and showed him a receipt for i Wed to have been spent in purchasing " R Then he asked witness Fo r another £l6, saying that the plant had cost more than he anticipated, ness paid this, together with. two * of £5 each, making a total of £l4 for his half-share. Rnff billed to produce any plant or equipment. He tofunded about £ls. nisma aiwuus. “HOME-MADE DELICACIES Kenneth H. Reid, linesman, also got to know Ruff per medium of an advertisement, and paid him £oo for a half-share in a ".home-made deliencies” business. jfnry S. Surrey, married woman, deposed that Ruff told her lie was gn--4 ing to start a business for the manufacture of pickles in Albert street. She gave him £55 10s for a half-slime in the business. The factory was never opened. Ruff had refunded her £l6. Senior Detective Hammond stated iri evidence that Ruff had made two statements when interviewed on December 18th and 28th. In tho.se statements he admitted the offences with, which he was charged and he also admitted getting £2OO from two other ""Huff, wbo bait nothing to say. was committed to the Supreme Court for