VALUELESS CHEQUES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 162, 11 July 1899, Page 5

VALUELESS CHEQUES.

THE CHARGES AGAINST BRADLEY.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

' The adjourned hearing of the charges against Frederick Bradley was resumed at the Police Court to-day, before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M. Chief-. Detective Grace conducted the prosecution, Mr Lundon appearing for the defence. Bradley was. charged with obtaining with intent to defraud meat to the value of 4/6 and £2 3/ in cash from Owen Pierce on May 19th; £2 14/9 from Edward Qualtrough on June 9th; and. £1 7/6 from Charles Goodwin on June 10th; in each case by means of a certain false pretence, to wit, a valueless cheque. Evidence in this case had been heard on Friday afternoon. Frank Russell, manufacturer's agent, deposed that he "gave the accused several cheques in blank on the National Bank; he could, not remember thedate. James Smith Fairgray, ledger-keep-er in the Bank of New Zealand, stated that two cheques signed "E. F. Syers" were presented at the Bank arid were marked "no account." There was no account in that name to his' knowledge; but he had seen thirty come into his bank on different dates with the same signature; they had been dishonoured. As far as he could recollect they seemed to be filled up by the same person. . Russell, re-called, said he might possibly have given prisoner 25 blank cheque - forms within the last .three months. He could not say exactly how many, as he. did not keep a register. Edward Dargaville, ledger-keeper in the _ National Bank, stated that a cheque signed "E. F. Syers" was, presented at the Bank and marked no account. As far as he knew no such person had had any account with the Bank. About a dozen cheques bearing ■ this signature had been presented at the. Bank 'and dishonoured- within a period of three months. Detective Maddern deposed to going to accused's office on June 15th with a cheque (produced) for £3 10s, dated 23rd May. Asked where he got the cheque from, accused replied that he got it from "Mrs Syers, of Onehunga, and that, he passed it to Mr Qualtrough. Witness asked accused if he was aware the cheque had been dishonoured,.and accused said "Yes," adding that he told her if she didn't pay it she would get into, trouble.. She was expecting money, he continued, but if i.she did not pay it he (accused) would. On Monday, July 3, witness iri company with Acting-detective Kennedy arrested the accused. When the Warrant was read him Bradley remarked that the cheques were paid:' Witness told him that some ' were, some partly, and some not at. all. Bradley's son then said, "It was all the woman's fault." Witness replied that the woman said she never received a penny from one of the cheques. The son said that one cheque was drawn to pay another, and he was trying to settle the matter. Cross-examined; Mrs Syers at first denied signing the blank cheques, except two. Afterwards she adrijitted that she had signed -cheques in Bradley's office. . • ■ " This closed the case for the prosecution. ;, ■/■■■■ - " ' Mr Lundon contended that a charge of false pretences against Bradley was not substantiated by the evidence before the Court. -

His Worship said the case was peculiar in one respect. It was a case of false pretences by means of a valueless, cheque, and it had a. feature which was riot ordinarily present, or ever present indeed, in the decided cases of false pretences of: that land. Usually, if not invariably, the accused person was alleged to have passed his own cheque, representing it to be a good and valid order for the amount for which it was drawn. In the present case, however, a! man was alleged to have passed another person's cheque and the evidence seemed to His Worship very clear that Bradley knew perfectly well that those cheques purported to be drawn by Mrs Syers, were worth nothing. And the statement which-accused made to persons receiving. the cheques, to the effect that the drawer,, was a woman of substance, i with property at Onehunga, necessarily caused'them to place reliance upon the cheques as good and valid orders by Mrs Syers. In each transaction the- person parting with the money seemed to rely upon the statement made by.Bradley, that the woman who drew the cheque was a person-of substance, and consequently thati the cheque was a good one. It seemed, to His Worship, therefore, that this was a case strictly within the meaning of "false pretences"' under the Criminal Code. .But this (he .considered) was not a.■point which he need undertake to settle. If there were an indictable offence disclosed in .the evidence, it was hissduty,to commit the prisoner for trial, arid if the present case, were not one of false pretences it could still come- within the meaning of theft. The distinction between false pretences arid theft Was sometimes very fine, but this, he thought, was a matter for argument in the Supreme Court. His. duty was to commit the prisoner. Bradley, was. accordingly committed for trial on the above charge. The hearing, of a second charge against Bradley was 'commenced this afternoon.