CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3158, 8 April 1909, Page 5

CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES.

THE CASE DISMISSED. The adjourned case in which Walter Edward Beere was charged by James Reed, with obtaining board and lodging to the value of £lO 9s, under falsa pretences, came on for hearing at the Police Court yesterday morning, before Messrs E. G. Eton and T. Wagg, J.'sP. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr 0. Pragnell, who represented the informant, asked to have the indictment amended' by having the word "lodging" struck out, and the amount amended to £h, so as the Bench could deal with the case.

Mr Pragnell, in opening the case, said that accused went to informant's boarding house and represented himself to be a veterinary surgeon and an equine dentist. He stayed at Reed's house for a number of weeks, and when asked to settle the account stated that his wife had property, which she was going to sell, and when this was done he would pay. O tiier reasons were given for the delay in paying the account. Miss Knight, manageress of informant's boarding house, gave evidence as to accused's residence there. Accused told her he was a veterinary surgeon and said he was going to operate on horses at the Prince of Wales stables and the W.RC.A. He said his wife was to sell some household furniture shortly, and he was going to meet her in Wellington.

By Mr Pownall: She'did not make any demand for money personally to accused, and as far as she knew the statements of accused were not made with aiy attempt to defraud. He made no concealment about leaving Masterton.

Ernest Bathurst, said he knew accused. He stayed at Reed's house, and accused promised to pay his board for him, on account of business transactions.

By Mr Pownall: He had known accused at Timaru tor two years, and to his knowledge his character was good. James Reed, informant, gave evidence as to accused 'Staying at his house. He said he was a veterinary surgeon and equine dentist, and had a number of engagements to fulfill. When he asked for payment accused said his wife was to sell some property, and he would pay when the sale was effected. He was going to Wellington and would return with his wife. It [was on the strength of these statements and the fact that accused said he had veterinary work to do that, witness allowed him to continue to stay at his house. Accused also undertook to pay Bathurst's board. Mr Pownall said he did not intend to call any evidence. Certainly criminal machinery could not be set in motion in order to obtain a civil claim. His client merely promised to pay for his board when his wife sold out. It was not a false pretence, and there was no criminal offence shown. The law said clearly that a false pretence must relate to the present or past. The statement must be something in existence and not a future promise, moreover it had not been proved that any of the statements made were false, Mr Pragnell contended that on the strength of the statements by accused that his wife was selling furniture and by means of other representations he had obtained board. The story of accused was plainly one of misrepresentation. After consideration the bench stated that in its opinion the accused Beere obtained board from Reed on certain statements, but it had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court that such statements were false. The case was then dismissed.