"BY TELEPHONE."

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 211, 6 September 1899, Page 4

"BY TELEPHONE."

ALLEGED CASE OF FRAUD,

A young man named Edward Francis Follas was charged at the Police Court to-day with having, on August 23, in incurring- a debt of 15/ for buggy hire, obtained credit by fraud, to wit, by representing himself to be a traveller in the employ of Arch. Clark and Sons. Mr Jackson Palmer appeared for the informant, Mrs Elizabeth Parker, proprietress of a livery stable. Mrs Parker deposed that on August 23rd she was called to the telephone. She did not know the voice at the other end, but on hearing the. accused speak the same night she recognised his voice as being the one she heard through the telephone. The following conversation took place: — Is that Mrs Parker? Yes. Have you got a buggy for hire to hold two? Yes; who is speaking? Webster. Could you send it down to the Park Hotel? Yes. Is it the proprietor of the hotel speaking? No; I travel for Arch. Clark & Sons. All right, Mr Webster.' Witness, as- the result of this conversation, sent a boy down to the hotel with the trap, giving him the bill' to give to Mr Webster. The trap was not brought back to the stables until nearly midnight, when the accused brought it into the yard. Witness, who knew.Follas, recognised his voice as the one she had heard through the telephone, and her husband said to him, "What about the money for the trap?" Pollas replied that he didn't know anything1 about the money. He said he met a man coming up Eden Terrace in the trap, arid the man had asked him to take it back to the sta.bles, telling him that it was already paid for. Mr Parker, in reply to this, said, "That-will do; you are the man who took the ti'ap and the man who brought it back. I know all about you. You are well-known to the police." Follas then admitted that he received the trap from the boy who drove it down from the stables that afternoon. Constable Hinton was sent for, but he told witness he had no j power to arrest the accused witbmitj a warrant, and advised her to lay an j information. On a previous occasion! she had refused to let Follas have a trap. David Parker, husband of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. The accused elected to give evidence, and stated that while he was having a drink in' the Park Hotel he met a young1 fellow named Webster, who asked witness where he could get a trap. Witness told him to ring up Parker, and Webster went away to do so. Subsequently Webster came back and asked witness to ring- up Parker's and see what time they were goingl to send the trap clown. Witness did so, but all he said to Mrs Parker was to enquire if the trap was coming. He never used the trap himself at all, except to take it from the Park Hotel to the Clarendon, where Webster had gone. Late that evening he met Webster driving up Eden Terrace, and.at his request witness took the trap back to the stables. His Worship said the case for the prosecution really relied on Mrs Park- ! pr's statement that she recognised the accused by his voice and he was not going to commit a. man for trial on that statement. The accused's story was not in itself inrcedible, and the prosecution had not proved that the accused, either as Follas or as Webster, had obtained credit from Mrs Parker. The information woxild be dismissed.