FOUND GUILTY OF FRAUD.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 291, 8 December 1893, Page 4

FOUND GUILTY OF FRAUD.

OBTAINING MONEY UNDER PRO, . MISE TO MARRY.

At the Supremo Courb, Wellington, on Monday last, before the Chief Justice, Frank Fhiipot, alias John Honry Smith, was arraigned upon au indictment charging j him with having on the Bth of August falsely pretended to be willing to marry Rose Grengaux, tha*: ho was entitled to receive £175 from England, that Mr J. W. Poynton (solicitor) had been instructed to receive these monies, and chat by those means ho fraudulently obtained £10 from Rose Grangaux. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Rose Grangaux stated that she was domestic servant ab Mrs Duff's boardingbouee in August last. Prisoner, whom 9he had known for four months previously, and with whom she had been keeping company, went to live at Mrs Dull's ab the same time. They had previously lived at Mre Dempsey'a boarding-house, witness as servant and prisoner as boarder. Thay became engaged there, prisoner telling witness thab he had £175 coming to him from London, and thab Mr J. W. Poynton, solicitor, was to receive it for him. It was arranged thab the marriage should take place from Mrs Duff'a about a fortnight after going there. Prisoner obtained from witness loans of money amounting in all to £10, and be promised to repay her as soon as his own money camo to hand. The moneT had nob been repaid. Witness hearing that prisoner had been in gaol before, taxed him with this, and he then left the boarding house. She did not see him until he was in the custody of tho police. Id answer to prisoner the witness Baid another lady turned her againsb the prisoner. She was willing to trust him to return the money. She did nob say she did nob mind about tho return of the £10 if the priaoner married her. Prisoner did return some 3inall portion of the £10. Tho lending of the monoy had nothing whabever to do with promise of marriage; ib was lent upon prisoner's representation that he would be able to repay it out of his expected £175 from Home. Mrs Duff stated thab prisoner had represented thab his father, who he said was a retired admiral living near Brighton, England, had left him £3,000, and that a firab remittance of £175 had jusb arrived for him. She noticed thab the girl was going about crying, and asked tho prisoner hia intentions. He said the marriage was going to take place the same week, but he left that week, and witness did not see him again until ho was arrested. While staying at her place he asked witness to get the wedding dress for him. Sho went to do so, but prisoner had not the money to pay for ib.

J. W. Poynton, barrister and solicitor, stated that priaoner had never been a client of his, and that he hud nover received any money for him from a retired admiral or anyone else. Prisoner, addressing the jury, said he had not turned against the young lady, in spire of the degrading position in which he had been placed. Bub sho was turned against him by a third person. Had it nob 1 been for losing his purse, he would never have asked for the loan of the money. He did intend, and still intended, to repay it The girl was willing to trust him. It was true thab he expected to receivo between £2,000 and £3,000 on the doabh of a relative, bub he would sooner die than disclose Co his people hie whereabouts and present position. Kis Honor directed the jury to disregard the alleged pretence of protnUe to marry. The jury, after a brief absence from Conrt, found the prisoner guilty.

His Honor said it was a melancholy case. The prisoner was only twenty-four, was i boobmakeu1 by hro.de, and v/ca possessed of great natural ability. Ho bad spoken to the jury jusb a9 well as a candidate* for the House of Representatives, and better probably tihan most of them. Yot Le moat &.Uempb tn get v living by dofraudhig v pfi'jr, aimple cronUiro liiie tho first wicneaß. There was a long list of previous convictions against tha prisoner, showing that bo had commenced a criminal career ab the ajje of 17. In 1887 he receivod a month at. New Plymouth for larceny ; in 1888 throe months at Waitara for l&rcony, and in 1880 one month ab Now Plymouth and throo months at Cambridge for larceny. In IG3O he was tried at Now Plymouth on a charge of larceny and ncqnittted. In Juno, 1891, he got throe months at Foxton for larceny, and in November following, at the eamo place, seven daya for vagrancy. In November, 1R92, ho wa« tried at Wellington for breaking and entering and arson, and acquitted, but in the following month ho got six months at Otaki for larceny. Finally in Septemboriaßt he got; tlireo months at Wellington for larceny. His Honor then sentenced tho prisoner to two years' imprisonmonb with hard labour. The sentence was recoivod with a 3iaile.