FALSE PRETENCES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 491, 7 October 1909, Page 3

FALSE PRETENCES.

DR. BORANOFF BEFORE THE COURT.

CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO SIX WEEKS’ IMPRISONMEMT.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr A* D. Thomson S.M., Leo Arthur Arnold Coplan Boranoff, who was recently tour'iug the Dominion under the management of Mr Edward Montgomery as Dr Boranoff, the Russian exile, lecturing on . the terrible hardships which he alleged he and other revolutionaries had experienced in Siberia, and whose lectures caused such a stir in the different towns in which he appeared, was charged on the information of the police with obtaining from Hihira Moroati of Moutoa, two sums of money by false pretences. The first charge was of obtaining £z 4 s Moutoa, on September 12th, and the second of £5 at Foxton, on September 20th. Sub-Inspector O’Donovan pro - secuted on behalf of the police and Boranoff conducted his own case. As he appeared hi the dock the accused presented a neat appearance, is clean shaven, and wore glasses. From, appearance one would take his age to be on the right side of forty. In conducting his case he tried to impress on the Court that he was more sinned against than sinning. He spoke with a foreign accent, pleaded not guilty to both charges and elected to be summarily dealt with. For the prosecution the SubInspector called Hihira Moroati of Moutoa, who recognised the accused and with the aid of an interpreter stated that he first met accused at Moutoa, on Sunday, September 12th, when he came to witness’ house* Did not know why he came there, but on arrival told witness that he was a doctor and witness asked him to examine members of his family. Accused examined witness, his wife, son and daughter-in-law and stated that he understood perfectly the diseases they were suffering from and would prescribe medicine to cure them, which he would send down from Palmerston. For this accused charged £1 4s. Witness subsequently received the medicine by post. He produced two of the bottles. Before leaving, accused told witness that he was a great chief £ud by right should be the Emperor of Russia. He had left Russia and visited England for the express purpose of seeing the King, who had asked him to put ■ up as a member of the British Parliament. He asked the King what was the use of one man (•standing when the rest of the tribe dying. At this point the Magistrate said that he did not want to hear all that, and the witness, proceeding,said that accused told him that he was authorised to pay visits of inspection to all the native Kaianga,s and also all towns throughout the Dominion. Did not remember whether accused told him he" was sent by the King or not. He spoke in broken English. Accused gave witness a ticket with his name on which he had since handed to Constable Woods. The ticket produced was the one given to him. It was a visiting card with “ Dr. 1,. A. Coplan, The Colony,White-, way, near Stroud, Glos.” thereon, and on it being shown to the accused, he told the Court, with the air of a big chief, that he had apparently told Moroati that ,it was his visiting card. Witness, continuing, said he paid the accused the lee asked by him for the examination and medicine in the presence of his son. On September 18, accused again visited witness’ house, and sold him a pair of spectacles, for which he paid £2 2s. After paying him the money, witness drove him to Foxton. Accused went to Healey’s shop, and got some medicine for witness’ son. When the accused told witness that he was a doctor and had authority to treat the natives, he believed it, and would certainly have not paid him anything had he known he was not a doctor.. Cross-examined by accused, witness said he knew the native minister at Otaki named Temuera, who was at his house on September 12. He had also had corres--rVpondence with him in reference to the Moutoa Church, but would not be able to swear to his signature. Did not know that accused had visited Moutoa for the purpose of seeing Temuera and Mr Williams, although he certainly spoke to them first. Subsequently Temuera said the accused was a doctor, and was recently at Otaki. Accused said he could cure any disease, and witness’ son asked him to treat his wife. The charge of £1 4s was for the examination, medicine and a syringe. One bottle s was broken

in transit, and accused had supanother free of charge. 'Keepa Hihira Moroati, son of previous Witness, said he saw accused at Moutoa on Sunday, September 12th. Mr Williams and Temuera were also there on that date for the purpose of holding a service. Saw accused come from the direction of his father’s house with Messrs Williams and Temuera. He lunched at witness’ house, after which witness went outside, and accused followed him. After conversing for some time,

accused told witness that he was a doctor. Witness said that his /' 'wife was ill, and accused said he would s«e her. Later on he did so, and after examining her, told witness that it would be a very serious case if he left it too long, and said that he would get some stuff to cure her. Accused also examined witness’ mother, and said he would send some embroca-

tion down for her. As witness’ father considered he had something wrong with his kidneys, he asked accused to examine him also, which he did, and told him that his kidneys were alright, but he had some other complaint and he (accused) would cure him. On being asked his charge accused said £i 4s, which amount he was paid. Accused also told him that if at any future time he requirtd anything, to address letters to Dr. Coplan, Wellington Hospital, which would find him. Cross-examined by accused, witness said that he did not consider that the medicine supplied to his wife had done her much good. He did not remember whether accused had told him that if he so desired he could get the prescription made up anywhere he liked except at one druggist’s in Shannon, to whom he (accused) objected. To the Sub-Inspector: It was in consequence of accused telling him that: he was a doctor, and he had cured Tetnuera’s wife, that he allowed him to treat his wife. Had he known that he was not a doctor he would certainly not have allowed accused to examine his wife and prescribe medicine. Earnest Healey, chemist, Foxton, said that the accused had come into his shop on September 20th, and asked for 6d of hartshorn and oil, 3d of tincture of nux vomica which was supplied to him, after which he left the shop. He

did not give any name. Charles Hawkins, barman at the Mauawatu Hotel, stated that he saw accused in company with Hihira Moroati, in the room off the bar on September 20th. Accused gave his name as Dr Barr.

Alfred Cook, commission agent, of Wellington, said that on the morning of September 21st, he was in the Post Office Hotel, where he met accused, who asked him to join in a drink, which he did. Thinking that accused was a likely client, witness asked him his name. Accused said that he would not tell him his name, as he did not want people to know, but he would give witness his card. The card produced was the one which accused had giveu him. It had “ Dr, Boranoff, St. Petersburg ’ ’ on it. In answer to accused, witness said that at the time accused gave him his card he said his reason for not wanting his name known was that people would want him to tell them stories in reference to Russia, etc.

Constable Sweeney gave evidence as to taking charge of accused at Palmerston, and of finding the two visiting cards produced in his possession, one was “ Dr. L. A. Coplau ” and the other “ D. t. A. Borauoff.” The accused admitted the cards belonged to him and explained that the only difference in them was that one omitted his last name. Constable Woods swore to having received the visiting cards produced from Messrs Moroati and Cook. Sub-Inspector O’Douovan produced a copy of the medical register as published iu the New Zealand Gazette and the names of Coplan Boranoff, or Barr with the initials that the accused had signed did not appear thereon. On being asked by the Magistrate if he desired to go into the witness box or make a statement from the dock, the accused contented himself with the latter and commenced by referring to what he considered the contradictory nature of the evidence of the two chief witnesses. He also pointed out to the Bench that the first witness required an interpreter on the present occasion and if he required that now, how could he have understood what he (accused, had told him at Moutoa. He contended that the evidence ol the first two witnesses proved his own case. He also stated that the amount received on that date was only £i 4s and not £3 4s as stated by > the complainant. The £2 ior the spectacles was received on September 20th and he did not make a penny out of them. He contended that there was no false pretence. He had examined three persons, supplied them with medicine and a syringe which had cost him 14s and had only charged £1 4s in all, thus leaving the small charge of 10s as his professional fee. He challenged any medical man or chemist to prove that his treatment of his patients was wrong. The patients he had treated were all progressing favourably. Further, he had not asked to be allowed to examine the patients, but they had asked him to do it. He had certainly represented himself as a doctor, which he considered he had a right, to do as he held an M.D. degree from the Berlin and St. Petersburg Universities. He was not registered in New' Zealand at present and had not yet sought registration as he had not the necessary funds, but as soon as he had sufficient money he intended to make application for registration. Of course his acceptance was at the option of the authorities. He contended that he had done all for the patient that he had promised and concluded by asking the Bench where the false pretence came in, and in what way he had defrauded.

The Sub-Inspector contended that it was a false pretence to represent himself as a medical man when he was not duly registered. The Magistrate said the accused would be convicted. The false pretence was that he had represented himself as a medical man authorised to inspect the Natives and had. given his name as Dr. Coplan of the Wellington Hospital. In consequence of what accused had told them, the Natives had allowed him to examine them

and prescribe medicine for which he had charged. He would suspend sentencing accused until after he had heard the other charge against him. THE SECOND CHARGE. The second charge was then read to accused to which he also pleaded not guilty. The SubInspector called the following evidence: Hihira Moroali said that on September 20th he drove the accused Irom Moutoa to Foxton. On arrival at Foxton he asked witness to have a drink, which he did. On coming out of the hotel witness said he was going home. Accused said “ Oh no, we’ll go to Gray’s that’s my house.” Accompanied accused there and after having a drink left the hotel. Accused then asked witness if he would agree to lend him some money, he only wanted £$ and would return it in three days. As witness did not have that amount with him he went round to the Mauawatu Hotel and got. a blank cheque from Mr Hadfield. Mr Hawkins filled it in for £5 and after signing it wit ness handed it to accused and then left the hotel tor his home at Moutoa. Had he known that the accused was not whom he represented himself to be he would certainly uuthave lent him the money. To the accused: Did n)t remember whether he had any 1 meals in Foxton that day but knew he had several drinks. *Was with accused from about 12 o’clock until 9. Accused did not say what he required the money for. The money was lent for three days and as it was not returned witness made a few enquiries in reference to accused in consequence of which the present charge was brought against him. Witness was under the influence of liquor but was able to drive home safely. Frederick Hadfield, hotelkeeper, said that he first saw accused on the 20th September. He came into the small room near the bar, in company with Moroati, who in troduced him to witness as a “blue blood,” a duke, like himself. He said he was going to give him £5, and asked witness for a blank cheque. He handed the cheque to Mr Hawkins to fill in. Mr Hawkins asked accused to whom he would make the cheque payable, and the latter replied, “to Dr Barr.” The cheque was endorsed by the accused, and cashed. This occurred at about five o’clock, and Moroati and the accused were in the hotel for about half an hour.

Charles Hawkins, barman at the Mauawatu Hotel, said that 011 September 20 he saw the accused and Moroati iu the hotel. The latter asked for a blank cheque, and on receiving it, asked that it be filled iu for He asked whom to make it payable to, and accused replied, “Dr. Barr.” He cashed the cheque, and gave accused the money.

Alfred Cook gave similar evidence as in the previous case. In reply to the accused, witness stated that on September 20th Moroati was “pretty tight,” as also was the accused. Did uct see accused speud anything, but be wanted to fight everyone in the room. Witness was perfectly sober.

Constables Sweeney and Woods and Sub-Inspector O’Douovan gave similar evidence to that given in the previous case. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. The accused elected to go into the witness box, and made an affirmation instead of the customary oath. He commenced by declaring that the main points of the evidence that had been given were untrue. He said that he was a duly qualified medical man, and had acted as locum teneus in both England and Ireland. He referred at length to the fact that he administered medical aid in several countries, and that some people had paid him and others had not. He assured the Court with the air of a born actor that if he were to suffer in the present case he would suffer unjustly. “But,” he added, “ what is that to me ? Nothing to what I have previously gone through.” His explanation of receiving the cheque for £$ from Moroati was that in payment of the pair of spectacles supplied to Moroati, payment for which he denied having received on September 18th, and the balance, was what Moroati insisted on him taking in payment of a P.N.. (produced), which had been given to him by Temuera, and which fell due on the Ist instant. He had protested against taking the as he knew the P.N. would be met on the due date, but Moroati had insisted on him taking the money. He referred at great length to what occured in Foxton on the day in question, and said that both himself and Moroati were " tipsy.” Accused said that his reason for signing his name Dr. Barr - was, that he did not want everybody to know who he really was because they would be worrying him for stories of his experiences, and by signing Barr it was only an abreviation of his name.

The Magistrate said that he would convict him on this charge also. The Sub-Inspector said there was a previous conviction against accused, that of passing a valueless cheque for which he had been convicted and fined or 21 days’ imprisonment. He had taken the imprisonment, and had been discharged from prision on August 21st.

The Magistrate sentenced prisoner to six weeks imprisonment on each charge, terms to be concurrent.

Boranoff on hearing the sentence was indifferent, and left the

Court in company with tlie constable wilb llie Siine jaunty air as be had displayed throughout the proceedings.