FALSE PRETENCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 May 1922, Page 6

FALSE PRETENCES.

A JOCKEY CONVICTED. ACCUSED’S STATEMENTS . CHALLENGED. JUDGE ORDERS INVESTIGATION. An unusual case of alleged false pretences, involving the charge of issuing a valueless cheque, occupied the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday morning. The accused, George William Clarke, a jockey, pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. P. O’Dea. The charges were that on January 28, at Hawera, with intent to defraud, he obtained from Richard Peters the sum of £2O by means of a valueless cheque, drawn on the Bank of Australasia; also that, on January 30, he stole the cheque by falsely representing that he wished to compare the signature with that of another cheque, and subsequently converted it to his own use. The following jury was empanelled:— Messrs. E. R. Gilmour (foreman), H. Kendall, E. H. Limmer, R. W. Anderson, A. O. Murphy, W. F. Cribb, E. T. Petty, E. H. J. Kalcher, J. E. Nixon, J. McGrath, W. Palmer, W. F. Jenkins. “Rather a curious case,” said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston), in present- . ing an outline of the facts. Peters was a billiard Saloon keeper at Hawera, and Clarke, who was a frequenter of the saloon, had incurred a small account of £1 3s there. On Saturday, January 28 last, Clarke brought to Peters a cheque and asked him to cash it, which Peters did, deducting his own account. On the following Monday morning, before Peters had time to cash the cheque at the bank, accused came into the saloon and said he wanted to borrow the cheque. He said Card (an hotel proprietor) had another cheque which was said to belong to him (accused), and was made out for £4O. Clarke’s reason for borrowing the cheque from Peters, he said, was that he might compare the signatures of the two cheques. Peters handed the cheque over. Later on in the day accused came back and said he had taken the two cheques 3 the bank, and Peters raised an objection to that. Clarke came back to the saloon again, and said that Peters would get his cheque for £2O in a few minutes. He also stated that the cheque for £4O which Card had received was in the hands of the police.

NO ACCOUNT AT BANK. Eventually Peters went to the bank personally and was informed that accused had no account at the bank and that they had no cheque belonging to him there. The jury would understand that if there was no account at all at the bank, then, of course, a cheque on that bank given to obtain money was getting it by false pretences. Accused met Peters later, on a couple of occasions, and promised the money would be paid. Peters put the matter in the hands of the police, and the prosecution followed. Evidence as to the dealings in connec tion with the cheque was given on these lines by Richard Peters. He said the cheque was signed by “G. W. Clarke. ’ After he ascertained there was no account, Clarke told him it would be all right, and that there were plenty of men in Hawera who would guarantee the money. Clarke promised to pay after the February races at Hawera, but witness did not see him again until he was before the Lower Court. He had had a “wire” from, Clarke at Wanganui, stating he would be up to pay the amount. To Mr. O’Dea: He had put the matter in the hands of the police, and then told them to defer proceedings, when Clarke said he would pay. , Accused did not mention that he was expecting money from a win on Simonides. Samuel L. A. Hood, commercial traveller, residing at New Plymouth, testified that he was present in Peters’ saloon when the cheque was cashed, and also when it was handed back to Clarke. Evidence was given by H. E. Card, licensee of the Central Hotel, that Clarke stayed at the hotel in the period Jantiary 5 to February 3, but witness never had a cheque of £4O bearing Clarke’s signature. H. C. Hunter, of the staff of the Bank of Australasia, Hawera, gave evidence t:i the effect that there was no account at the bank in the name of G. W. Clarke. Sergeant Henry, of Hawera, said he saw Clarke on the Wanganui racecourse on January 23, and advised him to get in touch with Peters, as he knew there was some trouble about a cheque. To Mr. O’Dea: It seemed to be a m'atter between Peters and Clarke. This concluded the evidence on behalf of the case for the Crown. THE DEFENCE. In opening the case for the prisoner, Mr. O’Dea said there was no doubt that Clarke had been rn extremely foolish young fellow. He was a jockey with a very good reputation. He was apprenticed at nine years of age. For five years he was with R. J. Mason, the wellknown trainer. He had a retainer 01 £5OO from Harold Brown, and while in Australia was paid a fee of £3OO as retainer ‘by an Indian rajah. Sir George Clifford at one period also had second call on Clarke’s services. Clarke had won the New Zealand Cup, the Taranaki Cup (twice), the Anckland Racing Chit Handicap, and the Taranaki Stake?, among other races. He was the first rider to win on Mason’s Biplane. .

Proceeding to recount the circumstances of the cheque, Mr. O’Dea said Clarke had won a race on J. Harle’s horse, Simonides, at Stratford. He received his usual riding fee, but Harle told him he would give him £5O in addition. Before Clarke made out the cheque which was the subject of the case, he rang up Harle at Wellington, and the latter told him the money would be sent to Hawera by Saturday night. Accused was pressed for cash, and, expecting the money from Harle would be forthcoming, he gave the cheque to Peters thinking he would have the money to meet it. Accused went to the post-office and found the money had not arrived. Instead of going to Peters and asking him to hold the cheque, however, he got it back and destroyed it. Whether Clarke thought he was covering up his tracks counsel said he did not know. It was clear that Peters looked upon the thing as a debt, but Clarke had not the money to pay it. The slump appeared to have affected his profession the same as many others, and his retainer of £5OO a year had gone. Counsel said that when the jury had heard the evidence about the th*

question they would have to decide was j whether Clarke had a criminal intent. Had I he meant to “take down” Peters? Clarke ■ knew that if he did such a thing he would = lose his license. He was a jockey with one of the best records in New Zealand. Recently, when schooling horses at Hastings, Clarke had the misfortune to have some ribs broken, and after he came out of hospital he was riding from Palmerston towards Sandon, when he sustained a broken collar-bone. Mr. O’Dea concluded by submitting that accused had no criminal intent when he handed the cheque to Peters. Accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, said that when he found the money from Wellington had not come, he became frightened, and that was why he got the cheque back. He had handed in his license to the Racing Conference. His Honor here made reference to the statement of Clarke with regard to bis conversation with Harle. “The matter will not be allowed to rest, and inquiries will be made,” said His Honor. “If the ! young man is doing another foolish action ‘ with the idea that he will be getting out I of it temporarily, he should be warned.” j Mr. O’Dea said he had stressed this point before his client, and Clarke knew fully what his position was. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, Clarke said he could not say where he got the blank cheque. THE HARLE INCIDENT. Is there any truth in this story about Harle? —Yes, it is true. Are you going to call Mr. Harte as a witness ? —No. Have you not had time to get him?— I did not think it was necessary. When did Harle premise the money?— • —Before the race. Where did you ring up from?—l think ’ it was from the hotel. ; Have you spoken to Harle about it since ? —No. Why?—Harle and I had a disagreement * about the riding of the horse’ at Wanga- i ntii. j I would ask. whether your racing career i has been a particularly happy one?—lt ■ has been as happy as others. ’ You have not been as successful as most - jockeys?—As successful as most in New • Zealand. Your career has been chequered from i the viewpoint of the stipendiary stewards? . —I have been on the carpet a few times, i May I put it that these lucrative en- j gagements with the “Rajah of Bong,” and so on, have been terminated through i your own habits?—No. Why did you give your license in to the i conference?—l had no use for it, partly ; on account of this case and also on account •of weight; I can’t get riding. His Honor: Before this race was run, when you won upon Simonides, this man Harle laid you £5O to nothing?—Yes, it is a common occurrence. His Honor: Quite so. In reply to other questions, Clarke said no one was present when Harle laid him the £5O. It was in the birdcage at Stratford. His Honor proceeded to question about the ringing up of Harle, and, addressing accused, he warned Clarke that all the information would be searched for afterwards. Accused was not quite sure whether he rang Harle at his house on The Terrace (since burnt down), or at the Dominion Club. His Honor: Do you mean to tell the jury that you can’t remenlber the circumstances under which you rang this man up? Accused was put to a searching examination by His Honor as to the date and place when he rang up Wellington. His Honor said he wanted something definite, and eventually Clarke said it would be January 25, 26, or 27 when he ’phon'd Harle, and it would be from the hotel that he rang. After Mr. O’Dea had addressed the jury, His Honor asked if counsel was of opinion that the fact that Clarke thought the money would be available was an answer. Mr. O’Dea said that was his opinion, the crime being one of intent. His Honor pointed out that the accused had no bank account at all. He did not think it was a legal answer. THE JURY’S DECISION. Summing up, His Honor said apparently there was no defence at all to the second count. Upon the first count—of obtaining the money by false pretences—there was the fact that accused had no account at the bank. It was therefore -for the jury to consider whether the issuing of the cheque was not a representation that at the time the money was available to meet the cheque or that it would be met. After a retirement of a few minutes the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy subject to the accused’s statement in connection with Harle being correct. His Honor thought the jury had taken a wise course. He had proposed to do that himself, because the question of the accuracy of the statement would make all the difference. If it was right, it was the sort of case in which he would invariably grant probation. It it was untrue, accused was entitled to a term of punishment in addition to what he would incur if found guilty of perjury. His Honor directed the Crown Prosecu tor to have enquiries made concerning Clarke’s statements, and said that in the meantime accused would be remanded.