NIPPED IN THE BUD.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 December 1922, Page 6

NIPPED IN THE BUD.

ALLEGED SCHEME TO DEFRAUD. NAME SUPPRESSED. From out of the fairly common charge of uttering a false cheque is likely to evolve a story of an attempt to defraud on the lines of the best detective fiction, if the hint given by DetectiveSergeant Cooney, at the Magsitrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday, bears fruit. A man, who had given the name of ‘’Thomas Wells,” stood charged that, “on or about December 19, 1922, at Wellington, he did make a false document, to wit, a cheque drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Northend, Wellington, for £651 12s, in favor of Thomas Wells, purporting to be signed by G. T. Bleson, with intent to defraud the New Zealand Government.” Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., was on the bench, and the accused was represented by Mr. L. Etherington, pleading “Not guilty.” The detective-sergeant asked for a remand until Saturday next (December 30), and, in opposing an application for bail, alleged there was a deep-laid scheme to defraud the Government of several thousands of pounds. Cheques were alleged to have been stolen from a Government department in Wellington, and a number of enquiries would have to be made. He also indicated that several other chargee were pending against the accused.

The modus operandi alleged against “Wells” was that he had left his farm at Feilding, and had visited several towns between Palmerston North and Waitara, in each of which he is said to have opened an account at different banks and in different names. On Wednesday night each of the thirteen banks received in an official evelope an official cheque fqpr about £650, purporting to be signed by the imprestee of the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Department in favor of the accused Had the scheme succeeded the banks would have lost £BOOO. The cheques are alleged to have been taken from a cheque book stolen some time ago, and it is also stated that the scheme had a very fair chance of success, only the suspicions of the banks had been aroused before the Government cheques came along. Mr. Etherington also applied for the suppression of accused’s real name. He said he knew accused well, and had worked with him in the same legal office in Haw er a. He was a married man with a young wife who was expecting to be confined shortly, and it was because he feared the publication of accused's name would have a very serious effect on her that he (Mr. Etherington) earnestly appealed to His Worship to suppress the name. He had made arrangements to go to Feilding to acquaint the wife of her husband’s trouble, and all he wanted was time to get there before the newspapers could reach her. Detective-Sergeant Cooney had no objection to the name being suppressed, but Mr. Mowlem said that part of th', punishment in serious offences was the publicity given to the case. The entry of a conviction in the records of the Court was not a sufficient punishment, and he did not know of a Magistrate who would agree to the application in such a case. .

On Mr. Etherington stressing the point that his application was being made solely on account of the wife, and that suppression for even only 48 hours would do, Mr. Mowlem, exercising his discretion, agreed to this course. Bail was refused.