ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 259, 1 November 1893, Page 8

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES.

THE STORY OF A MONEY LENDING TRANSACTION.

At the Police Court thia morning, before Mr R. S. Bush, R.M., two charges of alleged false pretences, which originally arose in conaection with a money lending transaction, came up for hearing. Henry Chas. Hill was charged thab he did unlawfully and knowingly, by certain false pretences, obtain of and from Lewis Moses (1), the sum of £5 in money on the 31eb May, 1893, and (2), the sum of £2 10s on tbe 26th June, 1893, at Auckland. Ib was agreed to hear the charges separately. Mr McAlister appeared for the prosecution, and Mr W. J. Napier for defendant. Mr McAlister, in opening the case, stated thab on the 31sc May defendant wenb bo Mr Moses and requested a loan of £5. Moses asked defendanb if he was a married man, and if the property he proposed to give as security belonged to him or his wife. In either case the money could be bad, bub if bhe goods belonged bo hi 3 wife she would hare bo sign the bill of sale. Defendanb eaid the property belouged to him. Moses went to the house of defendant, saw tbe goods, and made bhe £5 advance. Three weeks later Moses made a further loan of £2 10s on the same goods. Defendant paid back instalments for some weeks as they became due. Moses saw part of the good 3he had given a bill of sale over in an auction room, and subsequently took possession of the goods. Mrs Hill (or Hieeocks) broughb an action againsb Moses for taking possession of the goods, and gob judgmenb in her favour, Moses being ordered to return the assessed value iof the goods with costs. Moses had been placed in the position of haying losb money, and besides, he had to pay heavy costs. The outcome of the matter was the present charges. Lewis Moses, who described himself as a financial agent, deposed thab defendanb came to him for the loan of £5 on some furniture, and stated that he was a married man and that the furniture belonged to him. Defendant further stated he bought bhe furniture in Sydney and broughb it over with him. Witness saw a woman at defendant's house, who he said was Mrs Hill. Defendanb signed the bill of sale and witness gave him £5. On the 26bh June witness lenb defendanb £2 10s on the same security of the furniture, which he represented was his property. Some time afterwards, witness was in Cochrane's mart, and recognised sonfe of the goods mortgaged to him. This aroused his suspicions, on accounb of having received a letter signed Mary Ann Hiscocks. Wibness gave nobice to the auctioneer that the goods were his_ property. The goods were sold, and witness received the proceeds. Subsequegtly witness was sued by Mary Ann Hieeocks and judgmenb was given againsb him for the alleged value ot bhe goods in Mrs Hiacock's favour. Witness would nob have lenb bhe money excepb on the distinct representation of defendant,who stated the goods were his property. The witness was severely cross-examined by Mr Napier. In answer to questions he said thab he was a money lender. The bill of sale was completely filled in by him before defendant signed ib. He did nob read it over to defendent, bub he explained bhe contents. He charged 260 per cent, interest. Ib waa nothing unusal. Mr Napier; 260 per cent, is a low interesb for you. Witness : No. If Hill had paid his loan back at the end of the week, I would have only gob 5s for the brouble I have been pub to. CroBS-examinabion conbinued: Defendanb paid witness back about £2 or £2 10s of the £5. He had altogether paid back on accounb £3 12a 6d. Mr Napier to witness : Are you carrying on business in your own name. Wibness: Under the name of the New Zealand Mortgage Loan and Discount Bank. Mr Napier: Do you know what a bank ia? Witness: I call my office a bank. Mr Napier (severely): Are you the manager of a bank? Witness : I am the manager of that office which I call a bank. Mr Napier: Do you use the name of a bank to deceive bbc public. Wibness : I lend money on my own accounb. Mr Napier : Then why do you sign your name as manager ? Is ib meanb to deceive ? Witness : Because I care bo. Witness: If you carried on your business as honestly as I carry on mine, ib would be bebber for you. Mr Napier: Do not be impudent, Mr Lewis Moses. In reply to further questions by Mr Napier, witness eaid he received £6 12s lOd from Cochrane and Son for the goods. He purchased about £5 worth of the goods "himself, and reckoned them worth £10 or £12. Witness further eaid thab he did nob register the bill of sale because of bhe extra cost. He did not usually register bills of sale. E. W. Burton, solicitor, deposed to being present in tbe R.M. Courb, when the case Hiscockß v. Moses was heard. The accused stated bhe goods were bhe property of hia wife. John Kean, a boy 14 years of age, deposed bhat he was a clerk in the office of Mr Moses. He witnessed the signature to the bill of sale and saw Mr Hill sign it. Witness did nor read the document nor did he hear ib read.

In answer to Mr Napier, witness said that there was no ledgerkeeper in the bank. (Laughter.) He also aaid that there were uo clerks. Mary Ann Hiscocks deposed that she lived in Avon-street, Parnell, and that she had brought an action against Mr Moses for seizing her furniture. Both Hill and witness bought the furniture. It belonged to both of them. She was living with Hill, but was nob married to him. Witness said abe was not certain if she swore that she bought the furniture in question,' but she swore she got the mangle out of the Jubilee fund in Sydney and that she bought the cheffonier in Sydney. i In cross-examination witness stated that ehe had been living with Hill for 15 years, and during that time he had given her his earnings to maintain the house. Hill had brought up her former husband's children and four of his own. Wibness had money coming to her from her own daughter for three and a-half years. The furniture in the house was bought out of witness's and Hill's money. Henry Chas. Hill, the defendant, deposed that; he was a labourer and formerly kepb a store. On the 31st May he went to Moses and borrowed £5. He told Moses that the furniture was Bis. When he went to the office of Moses a document wibh no writing was put before him. Moses did nob read tbe document or explain ib. Moses gave witness £4 15s saying that he always deducted the drat week's interest. On the 14th August after making a payment witness asked how much he owed. Moses replied the same as witness borrowed £7 10s. The money paid was for interest. The witness was cross-examined by Mr McAii.ter. He denied thab he was a Sydney spieler, or thab he came here from Sydney to open a house for spielers. He came back from Sydney in April, 1893, and had nob worked as a labourer since. He had been in receipt of charitable aid, He wenb to Sydney in January, 1891. Accused was committed to take his trial at the next criminal aesaiona of the Supreme Courb. Mr Bush remarked it was a peculiar caee. Mr Moaea had actually receirad

more money than he lent;, bub still thab did not get away from bhe false pretences. Accused was also committed to take his trial on tbe second charge, bail being allowed.