VALUELESS CHEQUES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 160, 8 July 1899, Page 6

VALUELESS CHEQUES.

fl-HE CHARGES AGAINST BRADLEY

INTERESTING (EVIDENCE

SIGNING BLANK CHEQUES

Frederick Bradley, an elderly man, appeared at the Police Court yesterday efternoon on a number of charges alleging false pretences. Mr Lundon appeared for the defence, Chief-De-tective Grace conducting the prosecutions. Bradley was charged with obtaining meat to the value of 4/6 aud £2 3/ in cash from Owen Pierce on May 19th; £2 14/9 from Edward Qualtroiigh on June 9th; and £1 7/6 from Charles ficodwiu on June 10th; in each case by means of a certain false pretence, to wit a valueless cheque. Owen Pierce, butcher, said the accused purchased 4/8 worth of meat at his shop, and tendered in payment a cheque for £2 7/0, purporting to oe signed by E. F. Syers. Witness questioned the accused about the cheque and Bradley replied that it was all right, adding that Mrs Syers owned property in Auckland. Bradley endorsed the cheque on the back, and witness then deducted the price of the meat and handed the change to Bradley. The cheque was afterwards found to be a valueless one, aud was returned to witness marked "no account Later witness said he saw Mrs Syers and accused together. Mrs Syers at fi ■ denied having signed the cheque, and accused also denied that he had signed it. Witness asked which of them was going to pay torn. Accused replied that he would pay i Mrs Syers did not, and subsequently witness called at accused's oihee and received 30/ from him. . CrossHexamine/l: Witness received the 30/ back before he handed the cheque over to the police. To the Court: Witness took Bradlew's endorsement because he had heard that accused did not pay people. Edward Qualtrough, green-grocer stated that accused bought l_/_ worth of goods from him, tending in payment a cheque for £2 10/, which witness cashed, deducting the price of the goods. The cheque was afterwards returned. to witness marked "no account" by the Bank of New Zealand. Witness then went to Bradley and demanded the cash. Accused promised to pay next mornin"- and gave him an 1.0. U. for the amount. The money not being forthcoming next clay, witness put the matter in the hands of the police. The day after that the money was paid him by Bradley's son. Chas. Goodwin, draper, said accused bought 10/ worth of goods from him, tendering in payment a cheque signed "E. F. Syers" ' for £1 17/6. The cheque was returned marked "no account." When witness told accused the cheque had been returned, he (accused) gave witness £1 back. Eleanor F. Syers said she was a married woman residing in Churchstreet, Onehunga. Accused was try T ing to sell property on her behalf. Witness declined to answer whether she had air account in the National Bank. His Worship-. You must answer. Witness: I have no account. Detective Grace: Have you one in Hhe Bank of New Zealand? Witness: No. Are the cheques (produced) yours? I think so. Were the cheques filled in as they *re now when you signed your name? No. His Worship: How did you come to sign your name? Witness: 1 can't remember -at all. His Worship: Oh, yes you can. Where did you sign them? In Mr Bradley's office. I don't remember the dates. Where did you get the cheques? From a cheque-book in the office. Was there any writing on them when you signed them? I don't think so. Can you not give us some explanation? A lady does not sign blank cheques without some reason. I was expecting some money to be paid to my account. Yes, but that is not a reason for signing a blank cheque. How did you come to sign? Mr Bradley wanted some money. Is it a fact, that when you were negotiating with Mr Bradley for the sale of your property he put three blank cheques before you and asked you to sign them? Witness after some hesitation ans-, wered "Yes, it is." Why three cheques? It was two. Then why two? I can't tell why. If he had asked you to sign twenty would you have signed? No. Chief Detective Grace (to witness): Haven't you signed more than twenty? I hope not. Haven't you signed more than fifty for Bradley? I should not like to say so. His Worship: Is it suggested that all these were signed? Detective Grace: Yes, your Worship—more than a hundred. To witness: Will you swear you have not signed 80 for him? Witness: I am certain I have not. Have you not signed fifty? i No, I am certain I haven't. | Have you not had a letter from! the Bank of Australasia. cautioning j you against signing cheques for Brad-1 ley? ' Yes, and I stopped. When did you get that letter? ; I could not say. i How many cheques have you signed since? I can't say. His Worship: And you say you are a business woman! Witness: I don't say I am much of a business woman. Detective Grace: You never had an account in any bank? i Witness: No. In explanation of her action witness added: I was led to believe that a certain sum of money would be placed in the bank for me on a certain day. Detective Grace :By whom? Witness: A man named Short-land. His Worship: Who gave you to understand that? Witness: He did himself. His Worship: Well, you will excuse me for saying so. but it is a most peculiar explanation you have given me. Did he say what bank he would pay the money into? Witness: No. His Worship: The explanation does not hold water at- all. In the first place you don't know what bank Mr Shortland was going to put the money in. What was Mr Bradley going to do with the money? Witness: I don't know. Do you know how much a cheque

will hold? How much was Mr Shortland going to place to your credit?

Witness

A hundred pounds.

Were you aware when you were giving a blank cheque that he could take away all your £100. I didn't suspect, it. How much did you suspect he would use it for? Only a small amount. People's ideas of a. small amount differ. Did he say how much? He said he wanted two small amounts. What is your idea of a small amount? About 30/. His idea, might have been £30. Have you had many transactions with him before? Yes, off and on. How long ago? About two years ago. Now, can't you remember the day you signed the cheques'? No, 1 can't remember. In reply to Detective Grace witness said she' received a letter from the .Union Hank in May cautioning her against signing any more cheques. She sent the letter on to Mr Bradley. Detective Grace: You then drew on the Bank of Xew Zealand? Witness: 1 didn't draw any. But did you put your name to any more cheques? 1 don't think so. Detective Grace: She has told quite a different story; no doubt some one has instructed her. To witness: How many cheques have you signed your name to since the Bank cautioned you ? Witness: I can't tell you. - Do {you remember signing your name to any? If 1 could remember when I got the letter— Oh, but you do remember it. You told some one that you got it some months ago. There were two letters—one from the Union Bank and one from the Hank of Australasia. Questioned as to her property, witness said she had an acre of land in her own name and two houses. There was a mortgage of £300 on the property. His Worship: Amortgage! Ihere s not much balance then, is there? Is that the property you were going to sell? Witness: No. The money never came from Shortland, did it? No. Have you no idea what your liabilities are? The prosecution suggest these cheques are out by the dozen. To Mr Lundon: She had received money by a draft from London, and paid some of the cheques with it. She was to receive £400 on a marriage settlement through Mr Shortland, the £100 being the first instalment. The cheques were post-dated. Mr Lundon: So that had Mr Shortlaud kept his promise the money would have been in bank when the cheques were presented? Witness: Yes. His Worship: Did you tell Bradley that • three or four months ago you had abandoned all hope of getting the money from Shortland? Witness: Yes. He knew as much as you did, then? Yes. At this stage the case was adjourned till Tuesday.