NOT GUILTY.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1922, Page 7

NOT GUILTY.

(STRANGE STORY OF A CHEQUE. INTERESTING' INGLEWOOD CASE., “Not guilty’ to both charges,’ - ’ was the verdict of the jury, after a retirement of over hours, in the- case of Robert Arthur Parkes, whose trial was continued in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on Saturday. His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman was on the bench. Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Crown, while the ac' cused was represented Iby 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 capable of being stolen, to be delivered to one Dorothy Mischef ski; and, secondly, with intent to by falsely representing that he was unmarried and could lawfully agree to marry the said Dorothy Mischefsky on August 4, 1922, did, on or about June 14, near Inglewood, obtain a loan of (Js from the said girl.” PRESENTING TH® CHEQUE. •Continuing his evidence from the previous day, Joseph Mischefski denied that he had ever asked Parkes for the loan of ten shillings to tide him over from one Thursday till the pay-day on Saturday. There had been no rows when Parkes was staying with them, but witness wae away practically all the time. Witness did not attempt to cash the cheque at Inglewood, as he had occasion to go to Stratford, and that was the place to present it. Frederick A. Death, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, Stratford, said the cheque was presented to him by a young lady on June 20, but as Parkes had no account, the cheque was returned. No account of that name had ever been kept by the bank. It was found that the cheque had been taken from a book sold several years ago to a man named Jones, whose address had not been traced.

To Mr. Coleman: The cheque was made payable to “Dorothy 'Mischefski, or order.” Joseph Drake, an examiner in the post office, said he had searched through the records of the savings hank, but there was ho record of an account having been opened by Parkes in the New Plymouth postal district, which included Stratford. Sergeant J. Dale, of the Stratford police force, said that Parkes had made a written statement to him in connection with the cheque, a statement which was made some months before Parkes was arrested. Accused made another statement a few days later, and said he was quite prepared to go with any police officer to investigate his post office savings bank account.

To Mr. Coleman: Parkes was a returned soldier in receipt of a wounds pension. . Be had left the impression in witness’ mind that “he was not all right in the head’’ at the time the second statement was made.

f , Detective-Sergeant J. Cooney, of the I New •Plymouth police force, said he had 1 expected the accused to come to New Plymouth and go into the matter of the 1 money at the poe toffice, but he did not come. Whilst escorting the accused from Stratford to New Plymouth on September 6, witness told accused that he had made inquiries as to a man named Thompson, from, whom Parkes said he had purchased a house, hut had been unable to trace the man. Parkes then said lie was drunk when he made the statement to Sergeant Dale.

“ALL A JOKE.” Constable Scanlon, of Manaia, said that when he arrested Parkes on warrant the accused had said: “It’s all a joke. We were skylarking, and she said she hfldno money. I then gave her the chequijT.ut told her it was no good.” the case for the prosecution. His Honor expressed doubt as to i whether the first count in the indie t- • meat, “with intent to defraud,” was substantiated by the evidence adduced. However, he would put the question to the jury. No evidence was brought forward .by counsel for the defence. 1 In 'his address, Mr. Coleman explained : that the only persons who had anything to do with the transactions had already been called by the prosecution. The trend of couneel’s argument led up to the final point as to whether Parkes , gave the cheque to the girl with the ■ ■ clear intention that some person or perI sons should be defrauded thereby. This ‘ was the only question the jury had to ! decide.

The first indictment was amended at j the request of the prosecution by adding after “with intent to defraud’’ the words “‘any subject or subjects of the King.” JUDGE SUMS UP. In summing up, His Honor said the case was 8, serious one from one. point of view. There did not seem any doubt or dispute as to the fact of the man imposing himself on the girl’s family as an unmarried man while knowing well that he had a wife. It had been suggested that accused was not quite right in his head at the time, but no defence of insanity had been nor could be set up when accused appeared to know the nature of the act. Accused had represented that he had an account in the savings bank, but this statement had proved to be false. There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that he attempted to get goods or money from : Dorothy Mischefski or her parents. The suggestion of the Crown was that •he designed she should use the cheque by taking down tradespeople by buying a* trousseau. If it was proved that he did that it misht fulfil the terms of the indictment. The accused eould have no personal pecuniary interest in using the girl to swindle tradesmen. Was there any other theory in his mind other than to accentuate the glory of his being a man of means? The bank would not , cash the cheque, and it could not be assumed it would when Parkes had no account there. The jury might be puzzled to know why the accused gave the cheque, but it could only ocnvict if Parkes had done so with intent to make someone part with their goods. Dealing with the second indictment, the Judge said the sum involved was small, but the offence was serious. The

jury could only conv'ict if, by a pretence such as alleged, he attempted to , obtain or did obtain the sum of 6s from the girl. The jury retired at 11.50 a.m., and returned at 2.30 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty on both counts, and the prisoner was discharged.