FALSE PRETENCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1921, Page 6

FALSE PRETENCES.

YOUNG MAN FOUND GUILTY. MANY PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS. A charge of obtaining £2 10s in money from Louis Lee, a Chinese market gardener at Patea, by issuing a valueless cheque in October last, was preferred against Thomas Knutsen in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, the grand jury having previously found a true bill in considering the case. His Honor Mr. Justice Hosking occupied the Bench. Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown Pro~ secutor) conducted proceedings for the prosecution. Knutsen, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. He conducted his own defence, and put many questions, varied and sometimes apparently irrelevant, to the witnesses for the Crown. The following jury was empanelled: J. Kempsell (foreman), T. Kisby, S. R. Lovell, R. M. Carney, A. W. Blanchard, J. Holmes, W. O. Ford, J. Hooker, M. L. Gavey, T. L. R. Ford, W. G. Brown, and H. W. Bullot. i Mr. Weston, in outlining the case, said that some four or five days before the alleged offence was perpetrated the accused called on Mr. Stevenson, manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Patea, and had an interview with him. At that time Knutsen seemed to be either intoxicated or not quite in his right mind, a-nd altogether the manager said he could not make much out of the interview. Accused apparently wanted the m’anager to recognise his signature. A few days after Knutsen called at the bank {ind obtained a blank cheque from the lady clerk, telling her he was transferring his account to a the Patea branch. Next day Knutsen called on Louis Lee, from whom he had already bought vegetables on credit, and purchased some more vegetables, tendering a cheque for £5 as payment, and the Chinaman squared the account and gave £2 ]os change. Lee himself did not cash the cheque, but gave it to another Chinaman named Wong, who took it tq the bank and discovered it was valueless. G. H. Stevenson, bank manager, Patea, said that when Knutsen first came to see him his remarks were a general mix-up, as he talked about buying motor launches and farms, and also said something about the war. He gave a specimen signature, which witness later threw in the waste paper basket-. Later a cheque signed by Knutsen came before him through Adams and Sons, with an enquiry if it was all right, and he returned it, stating there was no account. The cheque was afterwards presented by a Chinaman named Wong. Evidence regarding the cheque was also given by Margaret A. Horner, teller at the Bank at Patea.

Louis Lee, market gardener, recounted various dealings with the accused, and was subjected to lengthy cross-examin-ation by Knutsen, who affirmed that Lee was not telling the truth. His contention appeared to be that Lee was to get 10s for holding the cheque and presenting it the following Saturday. After the evidence for the prosecution concluded, Knutsen was asked if he desired to give evidence. He then briefly addressed the jury, stating that he had always told the truth in the matter. If Lee had kept the cheque, he said, there would have been no trouble. 1 He had over £22 in wages due to him at the time, which he could have got by going six miles, and also had a private income of £1 per week. He pointed out that he had been in gaol since December 10. After a short retirement the\ jury brought in a verdict of guilty. His Honor announced that he would defer sentence till to-day and, addressing prisoner, pointed out that there was a long list of convictions against him. His Honor said he thought he would have to declare Knutsen an habitual criminal, as there had been fifteen convictions against him since 1912. In 1918 there were a number of cases of false pretences agaiiist prisoner and also one of using obscene language. It appeared to be wasting time to commit him for three months. He would give Knutsen a chance .of considering the position arid he could make a statement, if he desired, before sentence was passed.