A MAN AND A MAID.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1922, Page 6

A MAN AND A MAID.

ALLEGED PROMISE TO MARRY. ' PROCURING THE TROUSSEAU. ! PRESENT OF A CHEQUE. A man, a maid, an alleged promise to marry, and a £5O cheque for the • girl’s trousseau were the principal ■ features in an Inglewood drama whica > was revealed in the. Supreme Court at ; New Plymouth yesterday, when Robert | Arthur Parkes was called on to answer two unusual charges. His Honor Air. Justice Chapman was on the bench. Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Crown, while the accused was represented by Mr. A. Coleman. Parkes was charged: “That he, with intent to defraud, by falsely representing that a cheque dated June 14, 1922, and drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Stratford, for the sum of £5O and signed by ‘A. Parkes’ was a good and valid order for the said sum. did attempt to procure something fapable of being stolen to be delivered to one Dorothy Mischefski; and, secondly, with intent to defraud, by falsely representing that he was unmarried and could lawfully agree to marry the said Dorothy Mischefski on August 4, 1922, did, on or about June 14, near Inglewood, obtain a loan of 6s from the said girl.” The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. W. R. West, R. M. Corney, F. G. Woods, J. Buttermoor. H. W. Bullott, R. C. Smith, L. D. Callaghan, G. F. Goldsworthy, L. P. de Launay, E. May, C. E. Collins. A. Calvin Mr. de ■ Launay was chosen as foreman. STORY OF THE CASE. The facts alleged against Parkes were that he had met Miss Mischefski at the Coffee Palace at Inglewood, where she | was working, and, the acquaintance ripening, they had become engaged. Accused had magnanimously presented the girl with a cheque for £5O towards procuring her trousseau, etc. Later on he stayed with the girls parents, and a few days afterwards he mentioned that ho was going to Stratford to procure some money, borrowing 6s from his fiancee for his fare. When the cheque was presented it was not, honored, as there was no account in the names of Parkes at the bank mentioned. On accused’s return to Inglewood he was accosted by the girl’s father, but before explanations could be given he made himself scarce. He was subsequntly arrested and made a Variety of statements. Tn the first he said that he had dated the cheque forward and had told the girl not to present it until that date, as, until then, no funds would be in the bank to meet it. He said had changed his mind about marrying the girl “as she drank,” and he told her'mother the cheque was no good and she could burn it. He also mentioned that he had £3OO in the Post Office Savings Bank, and he had intended to put sufficient money into the Bank of New Zealand to meet, the cheque. • In a second statement he said he had withdrawn all his money except 7s and had bought a house. Tn this statement he offered to accompany the police to the New Plymouth Post Office for the purpose of verifying his state- . | ment about the money, and regretted he had burnt his pass book amongst some old papers. t He reaffirmed his statement that he had found the cheque he had issued in an empty house. In a subsequent verbal statement to the police he denied all knowledge of what he had said in his previous statements, and attributed this lack of knowledge I to the fact that he had been drunk i at the time when he miyle the statements, in one of which ho said that he was married in 1913. but his wife had cleared out and left him. THE GIRL IN THE CASE. Dorothy Mische feki was the first witness to step into the box, and mentioned that she was about 19 years of age. She related how she had met accused and how they had become engaged, and also his references to his financial standing. He had told her that on the day of their marriage his parents would give her £5OO. iShe acknowledged receipt of the cheque for £5O and mentioned the fact that she had loarfed him 6s to go to Stratford. He went, but did not return next day as he said he would. While he was away she received two letters, which were handed to the jury to read, and also two telegrams, the first asking her to go to New Plymouth and the second to meet accused at Ingle- : wood. She and her father complied with the latter request, but accused “bolted.” She presented the cheque during the next, day or so, but it was • rejected so she handed it to the police at Inglewood. Before accused left there j had been no quarrel between them, nor I had Parkes told her not to present the ( cheque. Answering Air. Coleman, after hesitation, witness said Parkes had told her not to cash the cheque until after June 14, stating that he could not get the cash to meet it until that date. She denied that, between the.date accused gave her the cheque and the date he left ‘her home, he had told her not to cash the cheque until he told 'her to do so. Her mother had liked accused for a while after she. first met him, but. i her kindly feelings had cooled off. , Her 1 mother had not said anything to Parkes 1 but had told her lack of appreciation of him to witness. Tn one of the letters Parkes had said that ho wished her people had not tried to “rule the roost” and witness attributed this remark to the fact that some of her friends had told her people that it was no use her going with him as he was a, married man. Her father was going i to speak to Parkes about it, but he 1 had not. seen the accused. She had mentioned it to him and he had denied that 'he was married. She admitted that accused was more or less under a cloud when he loft her place on June ]4. Her mother and father accompanied her. at her request, when sliq went to Stratford to cash the cheque. “NOTHING IN IT.” Corroborative evidence was given by the girl’s mother, Frances Mifichefski. who added that she had never discussed the

cheque with accused, except to ask him what it was for, When he had replied that it was towards the wedding expensea. He had never told her that it was no good. ‘Her daughter did ziot drink and she had gone back to her position at the Coffe Palace at Inglewood. When Parkes asked her if she objected to him keeping company with hr: daughter she had. made no objection if “they liked each other.” Cross-examined, witness stated that sL. had once remarked to Parkes that, she did not think there was anything in his proposal of marriage and he had replied that everything he had said was true. The father, Joseph Mischefski, was the next occupant of the box. and his evidence was similar to that of his wife and daughter. When he met Parkes at the Inglewood station on his return, he tapped him on the shoulder and gently inquired: “What’s all this caper?’ Parkes, however, did not wait, but jumped about ten feet, and “when witness opened his eyes again, he was about five chains up the road.” The accused had failed to come within the ken of witness again. The Court adjourned at this stage until 9.30 this morning.