ALLEGED FRAUD

Hokitika Guardian, 15 October 1929, Page 3

ALLEGED FRAUD

CASE DISMISSED. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) GISBORNE, October 14. In the case at .the Magistrate’s Court to-day in which William McKinnon, indent agent, yf Gisborne, and Wallace Fountain, telegraphist, were jointly charged that on August 13th they dgd conspire together to defraud Arthur Yeo, of Napier, bookmaker, of L 99 by means of a forged telegram; And that on August 15 they did conspire to defraud Yeo of -680 by means of a forged telegram, further evidence was given by telegraph operators, 'ibis related to the procedure of despatching telegrams after receipt in the front office of the post office. Alexander Hazleton, Inspector of Telegraph 'Offices for the P. and T. Department, stated that between 4.39 p.m. and 4.53 p.m. on August 13, only two telegrams were handed in l’or transmission on the Napier circuit. One of these, referring to the horse Membo, which was timed as being received at 4.39 p.m. was actually transmitted to Napier at 5.5 p.m., a delay of 24 minutes. In witness’s opinion, ' ere was no legitimate cause for this delay. On August 15, two telegrams were transmitted on the Napier circuit between 4.30 and 5 p.m. One telegram, refemng to the horse Black Mint, was shown as having been received at 4.37 p.m. by Fountain, and it was morsed to Napier at 5.5 p.m.. a delay of 28 minutes. The second message, accepted at 4.48 p.m., vas not morsed until 5.13 p.m., a delay of 25 minutes. None of the telegrams accepted at the telegraph counter between 4.39 and 5 p.m. were disposed of in the operating room before five o’clock. There was no legitimate reason for the excessive delays on the Napier circuit. In his opinion the de : Jays on that date and on August 13th were wilful.

In reply to Mr Burnard, witness said that telegrams were not accepted for bookmakers. He did not know whether the Department had been informed that Yeo is a bookmaker. Persons are reputed to be ‘bookmakers. In witness’s opinion, it was not tlie Department’s function to state dclint.oly that any pel son is a bookmaker. The Department did not deliver telegrams to Y 7 eo. They were doliveveu as addressed (,to “A. Joseph.”l) The Department could not refuse to accent telegrams to any addressee which did not purport to be a betting telegram. No warnings had been issued to the employees to make sure. Further wires to Joseph would require certificates. Witness was also cross-examined by Mr Mauchop-on the procedure in the acceptance of telegrams. Detective McLeod produced racebooks stating that .at-Christchurch on August 13, Membo’s race was timed to start at-. 4.41 p.ini, Black Mint’s race starting about the sam'e time. Witness and Mr Hazleton, interviewed Fountain on September 13, and they, obtained a statement. This statement, said witness, was to the effect that the telegrams produced were accepted by him (Fountain) and received from McKinnon, itwo of tlic six being ‘ signed “G. Symons.” He (Fountain) had never wilfully delayed any telegram, and had never been ap- • reached by McKinnon, or anyone else, to do so. In regard to the “Flying Prince” telegram, he (Fountain) could not account for the original message having gone astray. Detective McLeod said that in a further statement, Fountain said-that fifteen telegrams produced had been accepted by h.m on the times mentioned. When placing the times on them in the first instance, he had inadvertantly reckoned them an hour back. fhe time had been altered since bv the initial “D” being placed on ithe 'respective telegrams. He (Fountain) had altered six, 'but the balance of nine telegrams had been altered by thq operators. He was unable to account for 'the delay in the Telegrams being sent. He <was positive that the delay was not intentional on his part. In regard to the “Flying Prince” telegram, if it was true that there was no record of it through the cash register at the counter, he was satisfied that- no original had been put in to him at the counter, or it would ‘have been recorded. It would be impossible for ■i telegram to pass him without being noticed. As far as lie could see, t)ie only way that'the telegram could been sent was that some operator had sent it without the original.

McKINNON’S STATEMENT; r Detective McLeod said McKinnon had also made a lengthy statement, which was to the effect that Symons said that he (McKinnon) could use the “lio rqply” telegram to Yeo ii he wanted to. No arrangement was made to notify Symons, or that he was to participate in' wagers made with his “no reply.” Since' then he (McKinnon) used the “no reply” on several occasions, but didn’t not if j him. He explained ait erasure on the telegram, saying that he first wrote the word “Membo” and then erased it and printed in the word 'so as to ensure there would be no mistake. In regard to the “Flying Prince” telegrani he had personally handed it in at the telegraph counter,' the time being ab0ut.4.31) p'.in. He did not know the man at the counter, as he had no reason to take special notice. He was sure that it* was hot Hands.' After detailing other transactions, McKinnon said that he never at any time approached any telegraph official to delay, telegrams for him and time'them wrongly, and if any telegrams sent

by him were unduly delayed, he was not a partly' 'to it.

After heaniig an address by counsel, the Magistrate,.‘Mr P. H. Harper, s-id: In dealing with an allegation, of conspiring to defraud, it was. no-, cessary for the CroTvn to prove tor* gory on McKinnon’s part,, but this action had been ratified by Symons, as his evidence showed. The case, therefore, nested on the delays on the telegrams. Under the circumstances t these delays appeared suspicious, Imi they might have been caused by sevi oral persons—the counter clerk, tne, distributor, or the operator. The message of August, 24'(Flying Prince) in which the original disappeared] appeared the most, suspicious of all], but- he did not believe, on the evidence tendered, that any jury would, convict.

The charge was therefore dismissed]