FALSE PRETENCES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2275, 12 May 1921, Page 2

FALSE PRETENCES.

ISSUING VALUELESS CHEQUE.

ACCUSED SENTENCED. *

At the Supreme Court, Palmerston N., on Tuesday, Frederick Robinson, a young man, was charged that on February 28th, 1921, at Foxton, that with intent to defraud, lie issued a valueless cheque for £lB, and obtained thereby goods to the value of £8 and £lO in money from A. N. Smith.

The following jury was empanelled:— J. S. Fletcher (foreman), P. 11. Russell, J. R. Pinkerton, ‘J. R. Elliott, F. Kirk, W. Manioc, AY. Anderson, 11. G. Langley, T. Scott, F. Mil bey, J. A. Pedersen’ and J. H. Dick.

Accused pleaded not guilty. He was not represented by counsel. Mr C. A. Longlinan, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown.

The first witness called was Arthur N. Smith, draper, of Foxton, who deposed that on February 28th, accused came into bis shop with a cheque which lie wanted to cash, and to purchase a suit of clothes and other articles. In reply to witness, accused had said that the cheque was paid to him by J. Grant, of Bulls, for whom he had been working. Witness supplied accused with a suit of clothes and other articles, and gave him the balance from the cheque (£10) in notes. AA’itness later handed the cheque to the Foxton police in consequence of enquiries he had made from the Bank of New Zealand at Bulls.

Garrett Wilson, Police Constable, of Bulls, stated that accused had been convicted of breaking, entering and theft at Bulls, and the cheque form had been among the goods stolen.

Accused at this stage said he had not pleaded guilty to the theft of the cheque form in the Lower Court, Constable O’Donoghue, of Foxton, deposed to arresting accused on the present charge. Accused had stated that the cheque’was.all right, and he had received it frbm Mr Grant, a farmer, at Bulls. • Recalled, Constable A\ T ilson said there was no. fanner of the name of Grant living in the Bulls district. Accused, in evidence, said he had left Palmerston North some time in February, and had walked as far ns ’ Bulls, carrying his clothes. Ho looked for work on the way, and could not find it. On Saturday, February 26th, he was in an hotel at Bulls, and was talking to a man there whom he told he was looking for work. The man told accused he might be able to put him on to a job in a week’s time. The man said lie had been working at Grant's place outside of Bulls, and lie offered to buy witness’ clothes, and eventually gave him a cheque for £lB 6s, which he said had been paid to him by Grant, whose employ he had just left. AA’jluess took the cheque. On-the following Mondav lie had gone to Foxton, wlferc lie endeavoured <to get the cheque changed, but as he had been told that it would lie difficult to get it changed in his own name he assumed that of Robinson, to whom it was made payable. He afterwards purchased the suit and other articles from Smith.

To Mr Loughnan: He had assumed the name of Robinson as that was the name to which the cheque was made payable. Robinson was not his name; his proper name was; Robert Seymour. He had been, known as Robert McKay. Constable O’Donoghue had arrested him under the name of Robinson, and he was charged under that name for his other offence. He had broken into the shop at Bulls early on the Sunday morning following his receiving the cheque. ■ After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of “guilty.’ In extenuation of his offence, accused said it'was his first offence, and had lie not been out of work and with no home to go to, he would not have succumbed to temptation. He had a good war record, both with the N.Z.E.F. and the Imperial Army.

His Honour deferred sentence until the following morning.

AVlicn prisoner came up for sentence yesterday morning, His Honour said that since the previous day the accused’s application for legal assistance in his defence had been received, but in that lie did not indicate the nature of his defence, as he declared he had done. Even if the application had come before him in time, it would not have been granted, so that accused had suffered no disability on that account. He had been found guilty of the present offence, and had made matters worse by lying about it in the witness box. Accused was already serving a sentence of nine months** imprisonment for breaking, enter-- 4 ing and theft, and lie would he sentenced to a further tern of six months’ imprisonment; the sentence to be cumulative upon the one lie was now’ serving. His Honour also made an order for the return of £lO foundin accused’s possession to Mr A. N, Smith in consideration of his loss.