CHARGE DISMISSED

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20501, 18 May 1938, Page 8

CHARGE DISMISSED

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES UNFAIR ARRAIGNMENT CASE FOR CIVIL COURT “We consider this is a case which should have been proceeded with in the Civil Court,” said the Bench when dismissing a charge of false pretences brought against John Thomas Butler (35), a labourer, late of Hamilton, in the Police Court, Hamilton, to-day before Messrs A. E. Manning and G. K. Sinclair, J.'s P. The charge was that, with intent to defraud, the accused obtained six yards of metal chips valued at £4 14s 6d from E. S. Cox by fraudulently representing that the chips were to be charged to the Rev. Father Bleakley. “It is remarkable,” said Mr J. FStrang, counsel for the defence, “that a man should be brought within the scope of criminal law under the circumstances of this case. It is a matter for the Civil Court and I think that the criminal process of the Court has been rather abused in this instance. It is wrong that a man should be arraigned on such a matter when there is no evidence of intentional false pretences.” The case for the police was conducted by Sergeant T. Kelly, who considered that, as accused had used the Rev. Father Bleakley’s name to obtain the chips when he had already entered into a contract with Father Bleakley to complete the work of tarsealing at the Roman Catholic Church and agreed to supply all the material, false pretences had been proved. Delivery of Chips Errol Spencer Cox, a lorry driver employed by Grinter Brothers, Hamilton, said that he met accused at the Hamilton Borough Council yards on February 3. Witness was carrying quarter-4nch metal and accused asked him if the load was for the Roman Catholic Church. The metal \yas taken to the church and in answer to an enquiry by witness, accused said the metal was to be charged to the Rev. Father Bleakley, to whom the delivery docket was addressed. Witness said he had not previously known accused and had It not been for the representation that the chips were to be charged to the Rev. Father Bleakley, delivery would not have been made. Witness stated under cross-exam-ination that he did not attach importance to the transaction. Two loads were carried to the church on the same day. Accused had told witness that lie had obtained a contract for tar-sealing work at the church. Witness had not informed accused that the metal would not be delivered unless the church made payment nor was any information given to accused of witness’ limited authority to give credit. Re-examined, witness said accused had never told him that a contract had been entered into between accused and the Rev. Father Bleakley. James Arthur Grinter, a road contractor, said the metal was charged to the Rev. Father Bleakley and, accordingly, an account was subsequently forwarded to this debtor. On March 11, Father Bleakley wrote to witness which led witness to investigate the sale. Later the police were informed of the circumstances of the deal. Had witness known accused had a contract with the Roman Catholic Church it was likely that the chips may have been supplied to accused on credit, he said, in cross-examina-tion. Priest’s Evidence The Rev. Father Bleakley said he entered into a contract with the accused for the tar-sealing of the circular pathway to the church. The matter of the supply of metal was not discussed and witness gave no authority for the metal to be purchased in the name of the Roman Church. The contract was not completed by the accused but witness has subsequently had the work completed by another contractor at a cost of an extra £l9. Subsequently witness received an account from Grinter Brothers for six yards of ijietal. He wrote to the firm denying having incurred the debt. Cross-examined, witness agreed that accused was engaged to do extra work on the bay gateway at the church but witness was certain that the accused had not made an offer to complete the extra work without cost if witness paid for the metal. The work on the gateway was completed but no extra payment was made to accused.