£645 CLAIMED

Hokitika Guardian, 10 March 1927, Page 4

£645 CLAIMED

A DISHONOURED CHEQUE. DUNEDIN, Much 8. A case in which considerable public interest has been aroused was commenced before Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court to-day, the plaintiff being the Bank of Australasia, and the defendant Lewis Curtis, commission agent. The ci'aim was for £645, the amount of .a dishonoured cheque. Air H. E. IlaiTowclougli appeared for the plaintiff, ancl Air NY. G. Hay for the defendant, who is well known to racing men throughout the Dominion, and , in his evidence admitted that he wUs a convicted bookmaker. This action was commenced in the first place by a bill writ issued to recover the amount of a cheque made by Curtis of which the Bank was the holder. Leave to defend was granted to Curtis on the ground that the cheque was affected by the fraud of Sandman an employee of the bank, who was recently convicted of embezzlement. The defence was that the bank was the holder for the value of the cheque, but took it for tlie same title that Sandman had, Sandman having originally received the cheque from Curtis under fraud, and that Sandman’s title was defective and had been voided by Curtis.

In opening tho case Air Barrowdough said that Sandman for some time prior to the date of the issue of the cheque had been abstracting moneys from the bank by taking cash from the cash paid in to the bank and putting in fictitious cheques to cover up his deficiencies. This practice started about the time of the Exhibition, when a good deal of money was coming in late fu the afternoon. He put in fictitious cheques when he knew his accounts were to be checked and stamped. Those cheques on the bank would give the impression that they were not dished straight out but paid into someone’s account for collection. Anyone looking at the cheque would assume that a pay-in slip had been made out for it, and thjit it was to go into an account. It would be assumed that the cheque was for collection and not to be cashed. It was admitted that the cheque concerned bore the outward signs of going to a customer, but that it did not go io a customer. On August 6th, 1926,. Sandman was ;

in debt to the bank to the amount of £oio. There were other minor debts owing to mistakes in telling, but they were not material in the present ease. Sandman was due to go on leave lor three weeks and was to be relieved b\ another teller. It was important for him to intake up the defalcations ill a satisfactory way. it seemed tliai ho approached Curtis and got from him a cheque for £615 to square off his debts. Curtis stated in bis- affidavit, on which he obtained leave to defend, tlf.it he gave Sandman the cheque on the express understanding that the cheque was not to be presented for payment until Curtis bad an opportunity of squaring another cheque which Sandman gave him, and which was drawn on Frcm, intle, Australia. Jo his affidavit Curtis said the fraud of which Sandman was guilty was in presenting the cheque before the Fremantle cheque was cleared. “ft, is difficult to believe that Curtis was to be tfaken down by so thin a story as be said Sandman told him,” said Mr Thirrowclough. “One suggestion is. and it is made in all seriousness, that Sandman bad extensive booknviking transactions with Curtis and that Curtis realised the difficulty lie was in, that the discovery of the defalcations from the hank would necessarily involve Curtis and that lie endeavoured to help Sandman out. Curtis seems to have lost his head at the critical stage, stopped his cheque, and brought- the whole, facts into the limelight. Our suggestion is that he took the Most A list i l .dian cheque to have some hold over Sandman.” I,earned counsel lurcher suggested that Curtis had not been perfectly trunk with the Court. Authorities were quoted in support of the contention that the bank was tire* bolder for the value of the cheque. Decision was reserved.