FALSE PRETENCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 May 1922, Page 8

FALSE PRETENCES.

SENTENCE ON CLARKE SIX MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT. Sentence w r as passed by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth yesterday, on George William Clarke, a jockey, who was ccnvieted by a jury last week of issuing a valueless cheque to one Richard Peters, of Hawera, and also of subsequently stealing the cheque and converting it to his own use. There was an unusual development during the case. Clarke said the reason he issued the cheque was that he thought he would be receiving £5O from a man named Harle, a horseowner, of Wellington. He said he had ■been promised the money by Harle; that he had rung up the latter, who had promised to forward the amount. He then issued the cheque, believing the money would be available to meet it. During the hearing Mr. Justice Reed questioned the truth of this . statement, and after convicting accus* 1 ed, the jury added a recommendation to mercy, subject to the story about Harle being correct. His Honor accordingly ordered enquiries to be madeand deferred sentence.

When prisoner was formally asked yesterday if he had anything to say, his counsel (Mr. P. O’Dea) addressed His Honor on behalf of accused. He said he had perused the reports from the police and Mr. Harle. He noticed that the latter said he did not promise accused £5O, nor did accused ring him up during January. Counsel said he could only say that accused assured him. that he did ring up Harle and it was for His Honor to say whether he would take Clarke’s word or that of Harle. As far as ringing up was, concerned, Mr. O’Dea pointed out that there were several messages from Hawera to Wellington during that week. <As regards the offence of which Clarke had been convicted counsel pointed out in extenuation that accused would lose his livelihood through his ‘action. This would mean that a man like Clarke, who had been a jockey all his life, would be thrown on the labor market with practically no aptitude fdr any other class of work. In reply to his counsel, Clarke, from the dock, said he still maintained lie rang up Harle. Addressing prisoner, His Honor remarked he iiad been convicted of false pretences and of stealing the cheque. The jury in convicting him had recommended him to mercy if this story he told about Harle was true. “I disbelieved your story when you gave, your evidence,” His Honor continued. “First of all, if it had been true vou would have told Peters at the time. If you had been promised this money on January 1 I am perfectly satisfied you would not have rested ovcT a matter of three weeks before you applied to Harle for it. In the pecuniary circumstances you were in when he did not send it you w’ould have got in touch with him sooner than you did. Further, you have had experienced counsel advising you and I am quite satisfied that, he would have advised — if it would have been possible to get—that you call some form of evidence for your support, and lastly, you would not have waited till the last moment in this court to tell that story about the money.

“I have seen the file and Harle denies that he ever promised you £5O and that you ever rung him up in reference to.it. The persons in the hotel, who had charge of the office in which the telephone is, have no recollection of your having sent any messages Wellington and there is no entry of your having paid any bureau fee. It has been the rule, in dealing with first offenders, that if a man goes into the box and lies the provisions of the First Offenders’ Probation Act will not be extended to him. I want you to understand, however, that I am not punishing you for perjury. Possibly more evidence will be required on' a charge of perjury than the police are able to get after this lapse of time. If the evidence is forthcoming a charge will no- doubt be preferred against you. 1 am perfectly satisfied that you did lie in the box, knowing that at that late hour the police could not contradict it, and hoping that the jury might have swallowed it. “I think you were very foolish indeed to have pleaded not guilty to the I charge. I do not intend to pass a severe sentence, but I shall certainly have to pass a sentence that I would not have done otherwise. The sentence of the court is that you are to be imprisoned at hard labor for a period of six months on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.”