REMARKABLE CASE OF FRAUD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 966, 14 March 1911, Page 4

REMARKABLE CASE OF FRAUD.

THREE YEARS’IMPRISONMENT. It was stated in recent cables that at the criminal sessions at the Old Bailey, William Joachim was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for fraudulently obtaining from two ladies the sum of £ SOOO. He claimed to be the late William Henry Vanderbilt’s natural son, but evidence given at the trial disproved this. When first arrested Joachim was described as “a well-dressed man, named Frederick Denneby Vanderbilt, aged 48, an agent, ot Marmion Road, Clapham Common.” He was charged with having obtained by false pretences, with intent to defraud, five bills of exchange for each, from Miss Evelyn Maud Taylour and Miss Helen Beatrice Taylour, at 10, Gratton Street. Prosecuting counsel said that the allegations were that the prisoner obtained the five bills ot exchange from the ladies mentioned on November y th, that being the date upon them. In October last the ladies, who were interested in a well-known West End club, inserted an advertisement in a paper to the effect that they were willing to offer a bonus to any person introducing capital to a going concern. They wanted the capital in order to be able to take larger club premises. In reply to the advertisement there came a type-written letter, stating that Mr F. D, Vanderbilt, who was a philanthropist, could accommodate the advertiser with a loan, if the bona fides of the matter were established. He only helped in honourable and genuine causes, and was not a money-lender. The ladies called upon him at Marmion Road, and he asked for particulars. Which were given him. He said he was much interested in the project, and would assist in obtaining the new capital. He went on to explain that he was a brother to Cornelius Vanderbilt, uncle to the Duchess of Marlborough, and related to Mr Payne Whitney. He also said he was acquainted with the late King, and held a commission in the British Navy. He (counsel) thought he could prove that all those statements were false. As a matter of fact, his name was not Vanderbilt, but Joachim, and he was an Indian by birth. On October 31st, by arrangement, he went with the prosecutrices over the new premises and advised them to take them at once. He then said he would obtain a loan, and, if necessary, he would advance the first year's rent himself. On that occasion he gave them a letter to show the landlord to enable them to enter into the necessary agreement for the premises, Subsequently he called on them and informed them that he had arranged for the loan of and that they would require in cash, the remaining ,£IOOO to be retained by the lender for brokerage and interest. On November yth he called again, and at his request they signed five bills for each, three payable in three months and two in four months. On the same day he obtained aogns. cash from them and signed a receipt stating that the money was for discounting the bills. A further charge would be preferred with respect to that sum. He failed to keep another appointment, and the ladies became suspicious. Information having been given to the police, he was arrested.